Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 August	3 August >

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Jaw[edit]

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

Does not meet standards for song with standalone page per WP:NSONG Asdklf; (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does seem to be the case. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent coverage, maybe the song did its job as a promo piece, but that didn't get it the coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Son[edit]

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

Not a notable artist. Does not comply with any notability guideline. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tough to find many independent references in English, but she is under the production company for several clearly notable Korean entertainers charting in Korea and Japan. WP:MUSICBIO suggests that being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself should convey notability on an entertainer. Also performing music for a work of media that is notable (MBC Music bank, SBS Inkigayo etc) also convey notability on an entertainer. There are enough google hits in english to show her group exists and our friends at Korean Wikipedia deem the topic [notable] so I say keep. SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think her group is not notable, they've just debuted on August 1, 2014, so we can't make Wikipages about her and her group yet. I think we must wait to her group achieves some awards, or at least has songs rank on music charts. Sincerely. Ke ac lam viec tot (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (In response to user Ke ac lam viec tot) Groups DO NOT need awards to convey its notability. If entertainers need awards and achievements then Got7, Spica, 15&, Tasty, GP Basic, Topp Dogg, C-Clown etc. should all be deleted. Groups like Winner and Seventeen haven't even DEBUTED yet, yet they both have a page. You are right. Wikipedia is not a fansite. This page is written in neutral point of view and meets multiple criteria under WP:MUSICBIO so the notability of the group is established. SmileBlueJay97 talk 17:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's an SMer, so she certainly will be notable before long. We'll delete the article and then recreate it when the band charts? Yes, I know what the guideline says. But there is no point in churning. Here's an English-language article on the band's debut which mentions her prominently:[1] She has also gotten individual coverage in the Korean-language press: [2]. The results on Naver just go on and on, so there is plenty more where that came from. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the closing Admin Careful with the repeated-voting user. Same course of action and style with TaylorC in "group" articles. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Why should I have a username?

Are you insinuating that I'm posing as multiple people on these deletion pages? Because I assure you I'm not.

I'm sure Admins can check my IP address and location. (: TaylorC (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the notability of her OST has been sourced, I support the inclusion of this article.Delete agree with TOO SOON. She is as yet known only for her participation in the group and SMROOKIES. Her performances on those shows was also part of a group. I do not believe she yet deserves a standalone page. Neither was her solo discography notable. It's just too early. Also a lot of material on Naver are puff piecesAsdklf; (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]
A Very Strong Keep - She released a single before she debuted in Red Velvet and that single also charted on Gaon Chart. This actually fills up the musician notability criteria. Open WP:MUSBIO and read "2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."... She is notable enough according to notability guidelines of Wikipedia. FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 12:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Anthony Lewis[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are comprised of lists, press releases, and a few minimal articles. Fails to provide adequate support to meet notability guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, pretty much everything here is a primary source that fails to confer notability. Article as written doesn't demonstrate that he gets past WP:NPOL for his political activity, and it doesn't demonstrate that he gets past WP:CREATIVE for his book. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat; also per WP:V - many of the "facts" are clearly false; one example: the governor of Oklahoma is always elected in even-number years. 1,000s of people serve on statewide commissions and councils; such service can add to notability, but not create it. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Lawton[edit]

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

Delete because there is very little coverage of him, and no in depth coverage, he fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTEBLP, and WP:CREATIVE. The article has been around since 9 February 2010‎, with notability questioned since 18 February 2010. He did do the screenplay for the movie Crave (film). At one point he was credited with being a hedge fund manager, see External link 2 San Jose Business Journal. You may wish to look at an earlier version of the article, such as this one, before IP editor 74.102.149.136's deletions of November 2012. --Bejnar (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It should have been PRODded much before. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:22, 4 August 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. SpinningSpark 09:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Magyar[edit]

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

NN teenage hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No reliable sources attesting to the player's notability as per the GNG, and a search for the same on Highbeam turned up not even routine sports coverage (which would be debarred by WP:ROUTINE). PROD was removed by article creator without comment, said creator being a SPA for whom this article is his sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 20:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep. I found a few articles about him that are more than routine sports coverage (1, 2, 3, 4). It's not a lot but I think it's enough to satisfy WP:GNG.~~ Tchaliburton (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hockey notability should be for 1st-round NHL draft picks. The articles cited by Tchaliburton are about his prepping for the draft where he just achieved 4th round therefore insufficient for notability. Canuckle (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't restricted to first round draft picks and the articles aren't just about the draft. A player who meets WP:GNG is notable. I believe he is notable based on these references, but just barely. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully disagree. coverage does not seem significant. 3 of 4 articles headlined about the draft and fourth mentions it. I have authored and supported WP:GNG for bios of non-NHL players but where significance is more than just a draft or performing on junior hockey teamCanuckle (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my input to delete. I don't think there's the depth of coverage for WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 05:00, 8 August 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. ~~Speedy Delete, A7~~ (not so speedy as it turns out) Jac16888 ^Talk 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Richardson[edit]

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

Actor of no detectable notability. A few minor roles; nothing of any significance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if this is the same person already twice deleted as Brandon Richardson, otherwise delete for failing WP:NACTOR. Minor actor with no significant roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers as well as the WP:GNG. An IP editor removed the Afd notice on the article at 20:25, 2 August 2014; I have restored it. Yes, Clarityfiend, it looks like the same Brandon Richardson to me, so I would endorse Speedy deletion as a G-4, except those were both speedy A-7's, no discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and above. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this article is notable and relevant. If has reliable sources and links, I have view a few articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bates_(actor) without any references a reliable source. This article does and I seen another article is all jacked up and his link are dead links also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Cartoon. If you have allow those articles, you can allow this one as well. Please what make those article more reliable than the one I wrote. Iranmichealswiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the informative essays at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --Bejnar (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable organization as per the sources in the article and as outlined above. Jtaylor03 (talk) — Jtaylor03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I added many reliable sources to prove notability. And provide a strong argument towards similar articles like Paul Bates, Brittney Wilson, and Young Cartoon which met WP:PG and WP:Notability with no reliable sources. --- Iranmicheals^t@lk 01:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One !vote per person, please. And none of the sources that have been added to the article amount to significant coverage. Provide a single article that discusses Richardson in depth, in a reliable source, and maybe we could reconsider, but no such source has come forth. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources do not support notability. They consist of things like an uploaded DD Form 214 (discharge), and cast & crew lists. --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been moved to Brandon Q' Richardson since this discussion was started. Closing admin: please delete both articles if that is the outcome of the discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Rana[edit]

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

No independent coverage except his role in the TV serial Mahabharat. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In recent years several series of great Indian epic Mahabharata was produced by several producers in which thousands of people acted, acting does not makes some one notable as nominator suggested this article lacks significant coverage and even I am afraid to say this article fails WP:NACTOR. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Just 1 TV serial to his credit.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 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. WP:GNG. Passing note to nominator: Actually, a "September magazine" can be out in August, see Cover date. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi June[edit]

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

Article ultimately fails WP:GNG, and the article seems to make a case about notability in the future, with She was the Penthouse Pet of the Month for September 2014, but has not happened yet. We can't make predictions about notability based on future events. The event could be canceled, postponed, halted, or become botched. Given the lack of sources and the fact that the only sources provided in the article are primary and cannot be used to demonstrate notability, I am nominating the article for deletion. Tutelary (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pet of the Month status is enough to avoid an A7 speedy but this model fails GNG without significant RS coverage. Also fails all criteria of WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Gene said. This discussion has happened umpteenth times before with other models. 84.175.223.37 (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's sound analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:31, 9 August 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. While there was credible uncertainty of the notability of the band when the article was first nominated for deletion, the release and success of the band's single coupled with several significant mentions in reliable sources have developed the consensus to a clear keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Velvet (band)[edit]

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

Not notable they haven't released anything - their first recording was only released on 1st August. Very much too soon and refs only establish existence and a made-up controversy. Looks like a puff piece from their promoter. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What you said is a contradiction, you claim they 'haven't released anything', and then say that their debut music video was 'released on 1st August.'

The controversy isn't 'made-up' if you had viewed and read the linked article it posted screenshots from the music video containing information relating to bombings in Japan as well as 9/11. And if you watch the music video then you can see them still, unless it has already been edited by the groups label. I also don't understand why it would be 'too soon' to have an article for the group, as I have seen other artist pages that have been started weeks or even a month before any material from them have been released. I understand why individual pages for each of the band members could have been made 'too soon', however I don't see why those articles can't be consolidated into this page for the whole band. And as time goes on, the group will soon release more material and gain new fans and I think it would only be appropriate for a Wikipedia page to exist in order for those new fans to learn about the history of the group and find their other releases. TaylorC (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON (Not a Korean name, a WP guideline.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.allkpop.com/article/2014/08/sm-entertainment-to-edit-out-controversial-images-in-red-velvets-happiness-mv

There, evidence of the incident, happy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4I2Ai-nNOw

And that looks like a release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.56.152 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per what I have written on a discussion page:

S.M. Entertainment is by far the main music producer of Korea. They are no joke. They debut less than one band a year and each new band becomes one of the most successul Korean act (Girl's Generation, Shinee, f(x), Exo, Super Junior are the main SM acts since 2005) with various competition victories. Note that I am not SM-biased; I like quite a few bands from other producers and I personnaly dislike some of SM's bands.

Anyway, Red Velvet had their first TV performance a couple of days ago and it might take a year before their first victory, but basically, this group is no indie group and if this page is deleted, it will be recreated in a matter of months because the group will start to make headlines, win music shows... I understand the feeling that it is too soon but it just makes sense to keep the page as it's really a short wait. The simple fact that they are a SM band is by itself notable. - 90.46.121.200 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like Wikipedia is being used as part of a publicity campaign by a very new girl band.--Rpclod (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also think it is most probable that the article was initially created by SM. Indeed, the articles on most languages look pretty similar. 90.46.121.200 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ("In response to user Rpclod ), I made the wikipedia page for the group. I am in no way associated with their label, SM Entertainment. I'm sure administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP Address and find that I am from the UK, and not in South Korea where SM Entertainment is based.

As for the article itself there is more than one report, each with different wording. An example can be seen here http://www.soompi.com/2014/08/01/sm-entertainment-to-remove-controversial-scenes-and-release-new-edited-mv-for-red-velvets-happiness/

As per what was mentioned earlier, if the page is deleted it will be recreated very soon. With the actual release of the single being Monday, there will only be more and more interest in the group - and if people find there to be no wikipedia page for the group, another one will soon be made. It's just such a waste of time deleting and recreating and having to link all pages (such as that of their label).

What would be more helpful is if people let us know what would need to be added to the page in order for the page to stay. Rather than claiming the page is a publicity stunt. TaylorC (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they have nothing against the articles (besides the pub stunt part), they just think that the group is not notorious enough. Wkipedia have clear rules about that, to avoid having articles about minor things that would never be maintained or read. We both know that Red Velvet will be a major group because it is backed by a large company, but for people who are not interested in KPop, we are trying to guess the future. Criteria are this list. And if you look at point 2, well, you can imagine that Red Velvet will be "notable" in about two weeks (the time for the single to go on sale, a few days of sales, and then the time for the korean chart to be released) but until then, for them it's nothing more than your hometown's elderly orchestra.

Oh, by the way people, did I tell you that in less than two days, the MV is already at nearly 2,500,000 views on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4I2Ai-nNOw)? How notable is that? About the same rate of view growth as f(x) latest song Red Light, f(x) being the 4th most popular KPop girls band. Sistar's 20th July Touch My Body and current No1 on Gaon Music Chart is only at 2,200,000 views after 2 weeks. - 90.46.121.200 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks the poster above! Well, the single officially goes on sale on Monday in Korean and I'd be extremely surprised if it did not chart. Once that happens, the page will be cleared of consideration for deletion and this will all be put behind us. (: TaylorC (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable published sources; fails WP:ENT, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has two significant mentions in Korea Herald. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"mentions"? Not enough. --Bejnar (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they even have much more than that:

Article in Korea Economic Daily (http://ent.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2014080331704)
Article in Korea Daily ("the most read korean-american newspaper") (http://www.koreadaily.com/news/read.asp?page=1&branch=NEWS&source=&category=entertainment&art_id=2719111).
Article in the Busan Ilbo. (http://news20.busan.com/controller/newsController.jsp?newsId=20140801000216)
I won't list them all: Google gives me 300 articles in the news section with 레드벨벳 (Red Velvet in Korean)

90.46.121.200 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tough to find many independent references in English, but they are under the production company for several clearly notable Korean entertainers charting in Korea and Japan. WP:MUSICBIO suggests the group being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself should convey notability on an entertainer. Also the group performing music for a work of media that is notable (MBC Music bank, SBS Inkigayo etc) also convey notability on an entertainer. There are enough google hits in english to show this group exists and our friends at Korean Wikipedia deem the topic [notable] so I say keep. SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in favour of keeping. More proof that the controversy isn't fake. The video has just been re-uploaded to YouTube without the offending material present. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgv8bKfxEs&list=UUEf_Bc-KVd7onSeifS3py9g TaylorC (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They've just debuted, and they don't achieve any awards at now. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it has rules, we can't create a Wikipage about a group because it has debuted. Why don't you wait to the group has some achievements, and create the page? Sincerely. Ke ac lam viec tot (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (In response to user Ke ac lam viec tot) Groups DO NOT need awards to convey its notability. If entertainers need awards and achievements then Got7, Spica, 15&, Tasty, GP Basic, Topp Dogg, C-Clown etc. should all be deleted. Groups like Winner and Seventeen haven't even DEBUTED yet, yet they both have a page. You are right. Wikipedia is not a fansite. This page is written in neutral point of view and meets multiple criteria under WP:MUSICBIO so the notability of the group is established. SmileBlueJay97 talk 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether manufactured or not, a short-lived viral internet controversy is not "significant coverage" of the band, and they have not yet achieved anything like the standard of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to user JohnCD I don't see why the 'controversy' section is causing such an issue. It was included because it seemed relevant to the matter. If it is not, then it can simply be removed.

As for the statements in the Notability page on music, I would argue in that it already meets number 12. As the group has already performed the song live across a range of music shows on multiple TV networks in South Korea. The single doesn't officially come out until 12 noon on Monday, however, when it does it will be placed under rotation on South Korean radio stations, and the video broadcast on music channels, clearing it of number 11. Once the next charting is revealed, then it will also be cleared of number 2.

The page can also be cleared from list number 1, as they have been subject of different published articles in newspapers which can be seen in the sources posted above - and also through the reference links on the groups Korean wikipedia page.

Red Velvet will also be partaking in SM Entertainments "SMTown Live World Tour IV" stating in 12 days, which also clears them of number 4.

Band members have also individually contributed to the OST of a TV show, and another featured on another artist recently released EP. Which also goes towards number 10. TaylorC (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin - Careful with "keep" comments, one user -with the pretext of "replies"- is voting several times. Another "user" repeating the same action (same comment) with another name. An IP is hopping suddenly... ETC. Not only here but also elsewhere... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder for those who wouldn't know that Wikipedia:CheckUser can easily check IP users to assert if they are sockpuppets or not. This is not my case and I give them my authorization to verify this if this is deemed important. I doubt it is; between the charts, the press coverage, the YouTube stats, there are quite a few sensible arguments that have been made to show that the group is already notorious, including in the WP sense of the term. But you can. I have an account but it is unused since years and I have changed home in between so the IP is different. 83.202.52.122 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC). Ah well... My IP has changed today actually it seems. This message was from 90.46.121.200. Sorry about that. 83.202.52.122 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in favour of keeping. I have compiled a list of the songs current charting position on South Korea's nine music charts, however I couldn't not gain access to the website for 'Soribada' nor 'Cyworld'.

Olleh Music - #3 (http://www.ollehmusic.com)

genie - #1 (mobile app)

Melon - #8 (http://www.melon.com)

Mnet - Latest listing dated 27/7/2014 (http://mwave.interest.me/kpop/chart.m)

Soribada - Can’t get access

Cyworld - Can’t get access

Naver Music - #4 (http://music.naver.com/listen/top100.nhn?domain=TOTAL)

Daum Music - #2 (http://m.music.daum.net/chart/list?genre_cd=TORA)

monkey3 - #6 (http://www.monkey3.co.kr)

I think you will find that this meets criteria on notability at WP:BAND criteria number 2, as it is so far charting on at least 6 of the 9 (with the two remaining unknown, and one not yet published). TaylorC (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They fit point 1, may fit 4 with SMTOWN participation, 11 they will fit with the multiple weekly music shows but I have no sources on the airwaves. Their individual discography does not yet count as notable but they exceed notability requirements as a band by far, even if they weren't under a major label Asdklf; (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]
Keep. The Allkpop references represent press releases or material translated from the Korean media. Someone with the time could track down Korea-language RS versions. But I think we can assume they exist. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in favour of keeping.

"Red Velvet Climbs to the Top of Music Charts with Debut Single "Happiness"". Soompi. Retrieved 5 August 2014.

"Instiz Ichart (collation of all real-time Korean music charts) (at time of comment they are #7)". Instiz. Retrieved 5 August 2014. Asdklf; (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does it really matter if it stays up? We all know they will have more music and news soon enough. Fine take the page down, it will just get recreated later on, if it stays up that just saves everyone who will contribute to the page some time and effort from having to recreate and enter all the information again. Who is it hurting by staying up? Same goes with all the girls individual pages that are up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photocat86 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to user Photocat86 Please see WP:UPANDCOMING. Asdklf; (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essay referenced is about cases where the "up and coming" argument is ridiculous. The main example given is a vanity page created for a girlfriend's birthday. The subject here is a band that debuted five days ago and is already at No. 3 on the Korean charts. If the Korean music industry disappeared tomorrow, they would not be remembered as a notable band. But they are clearly going places. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that was the main example. I support the inclusion of this article. However, this argument in support of keeping the article on the grounds that it'll save future time and effort and "who cares" is not the argument this article should or can make in support of its inclusion. Asdklf; (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band currently has more than 1 million views on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgv8bKfxEs&list=UUEf_Bc-KVd7onSeifS3py9g after only 3 days. Further, the previous video which has been removed (and can't be verified) had more than 3 million views in the same time period. These are big numbers for a rookie group and I would consider this "significant independent coverage or recognition". And this article at the Soompi website http://www.soompi.com/2014/08/04/red-velvet-climbs-to-the-top-of-music-charts-with-debut-single-happiness/ states:

"The group’s brand new digital single was released on August 4 through various online music charts including Melon, Genie, and Naver Music.

"Happiness” made its way up to number one on Genie’s real-time music chart immediately upon its release. The track is proving to have exceptional results for a rookie group, as it placed within the top 10 on Melon, Naver Music, and other charts."

As to the too soon argument, this band debuted at the top of the chart. They are already significantly popular (many established Kpop bands do not get this many youtube hits). If the band disappeared tomorrow they would still be significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.206.113 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm main editor of Korean ver. of this article. (See ko:레드벨벳 (음악 그룹)) As you see, you will be noticed that this band practice some major music program such as Music bank, Inkigayo, and Show! Music Core. Also, SM Entertainment give enough information about this band to many press. Think one more time. And there album is released. Think one more time.--Reiro (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Charting single and wide broadcast appearances. Notable enough according to WP:MUSBIO. FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment. Frmorrison (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor a very low bar for bands and other aspects of popular culture. This passes GNG by a mile in any event. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked at the contribs of the IPs. They all deserve the SPA tag, but I'm not bothering to tag. Also, users like TaylorC repeated "Comments in favor of keep", etc. This does not sound clean.Forbidden User (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users like Asdklf; and TaylorC are just trying to provide more evidence on why the the group Red Velvet meets criteria of WP:MUSBIO without have to vote 'keep' again. We can also easily check whether IP users are sockpuppets or not by using Wikipedia:CheckUser.

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Riordan[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable musician. I am unable to find any reliable sources beyond trivial mentions to establish notability according to WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 17:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources - no notability. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, no coverage, no significant coverage, doesn't pass any notability guideline. The who he has worked with doesn't go towards his notability, unless they wrote about him. --Bejnar (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 August 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 Deleted (G3) by Anthony Appleyard. (non-admin closure). –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberno Irish[edit]

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

This article seems to violate synthesis and fails reliable sources. The term 'Hibernian' refers to Irish. So the claim of Hiberno-Irish is like saying, "Irish, Irish." The sources being used don't actually refer to anything called "Hiberno-Irish" nor did a Google search render anything. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The population exists, there is no disputing that, so rather than wanting to have the artice deleted on the grounds of the linguistical referents which are used to refer to this population and the dynamic of wether or not these referents are legitimate ways of refering to this ethnic group should you not be trying to be more constructive as to helping with layout errors that might exist--Twominds (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was trying to help but all my edits were reverted by the "owner". This stub will never be able to become an article in these conditions. (Argument: Notability.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry somebody is trying to delete the references, i didnt mean to revert your edits also--Twominds (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Consider salting. Product of an accused sockpuppet Fiddle Faddle 18:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. None of the references check out. Speedy Delete as a hoax. Because of the as yet unconfirmed editor history, salt. Fiddle Faddle 18:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been evaluating the G3. I agree that none of the refs support anything in the article. I also think that the creator's other edits at wikipedia raise many red flags. Nonetheless, I am reluctant to delete per this criterion unless it is truly blatant. In poking around, I found this edit about "Hiberno-Irish" by an editor who has not edited since 2013, but at first glance whose edits don't appear to be disruptive. Now the addition is unsourced, but it's odd and it's still in the article now. At this point, I'm inclined to speedy the article based on vandalism rather than hoax, but I will let the AfD play out a bit more.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a speedy delete. As I said in my nom statement, it fails WP:RS. I recently saw this with another article that claimed to be about 'disco orchestration.' It was quite elaborate but yet not a single source supported it. I've several anthropological texts on Ireland and the UK and not one of the indices has this topic. This seems truly blatant to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete OR, and even at that the original research was lazily done. Gael and Galicia (both in Spain and Ukraine) are both cognates of "Celt", just like Gaul and dozens of other ethno- and topo-nyms across Europe. All in all, an irrelevant, largely nonsensical, article. JesseRafe (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Medical Career Training Center[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Because the United States government does not grant national accreditation to individual institutions, a trade school has to be accredited by an association the government does recognize; in this case "[t]he Council on Occupational Education currently accredits non-degree-granting and applied associate degree-granting post-secondary career and technical education institutions." (quoted from that article). Neither is it a member of the New York proprietary colleges consortium, nor is it accredited as a college by the New York State Department of Education. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Citobun (talk) 05:12, 8 August 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Maddock High School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Does not appear to fit any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Schools. --Yamla (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill high school Seasider91 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per WP:NHS, "Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability." The existence of the school is very verifiable. I wish I could find more articles that discuss the history of and notable programs at the school and notable persons who have graduated from the school, but that will probably take time.--Rpclod (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NHS. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NHS does not say that all schools are inherently notable, just that they normally are. Per WP:NSCHOOL all schools must meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NGO. I don't see any indication that this school meets these criteria. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this school meets those criteria any less than most of the other high schools with articles do. I think it might be getting on time for us to reconsider the existing consensus about high schools, since our notability and sourcing rules have tightened up a great deal over the years and the current situation might be allowing a lot of articles that aren't actually consistent with contemporary standards, but I don't see any reason why this school would be uniquely non-notable under the current inclusion standards for high schools. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 00:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHS and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Easily meets WP:GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Verified secondary schools are typically allowed a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly like the current consensus about high schools — most of them really aren't of any special encyclopedic relevance or utility — but it is what it is and the nominator hasn't really shown how this particular one (which does cite sources) runs uniquely afoul of it at all. Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when I nominated the article for discussion, there were exactly zero references and virtually nothing else in the article (and apparently what was in the article was often wrong). Take a look at its state when nominated. It's much better now. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, I think that your nomination was very appropriate and that this instance demonstrates the value of the AfD function. Sometimes deletion is the proper route but sometimes the light shone by nomination results in significant improvement to everyone's benefit. Thanks for being bold!--Rpclod (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and have added third party references the school exists and is clearly verifiable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is run-of-the-mill high school. That makes it better than about half of the high school articles so keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced start to an article. I don't see the problem now. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP has wisely set a standard long ago that high/secondary schools are considered notable. This is wise because it prevents the community from having to tirelessly scrutinize the viability of the thousands of high school articles when editors time is much better spent improving existing articles or creating new ones as well as improving an amicable working relationship with each other.--Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well sourced and per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 6 August 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. After nearly a month, no clear consensus has emerged. Discussion regarding promotional tane and quality of sourcing should continue on the article's talk page. Deor (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CitizenShipper[edit]

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

Highly promotional article, almost a G11. The sources are every one of them unreliable (--they are either straight PR admitted as such, like the reference from Business Day or based on PR, as the article said to be archived from Yahoo news (which often just reprints stories from elsewhere) but present on a promotional site) or irrelevant--such as the documentation on industry's inefficiency. The reference from a book turns out to be a mere listing in a table. This does not help--it indicates straining after any mention available.

There is one particular feature which I have seen in many promotional articles, and only in promotional articles " graduate student and physicist Richard Obousy, while making weekly Houston–Waco personal trips, began considering transportation efficiency as a whole. He determined that ..." Accounts of how the founder happened to conceive the project can be based only on what he himself chooses to say (regardless of which publication reprints it); though they may be of some reader interest tin the case of famous companies and products, they normally are merely the sort of fluff with which one begins an interview. Similarly, the entire body of material on the inefficiency of the usual transportation system is the sort of justification used to indicate the importance of the subject--while it can do this for the overall subject, such as a general article on a mode of transportation, it is entirely out of place in the article on a particular company in the field. It's what publicists say to make their clients appear important. We deal with this at WP by a link to the general article, not including it in the article on the company. The article also makes a very exceptional claim, that there were zero complaints about lost or damaged articles. For any mode of transporting objects, this is so exceptional that it requires exceptionally reliable sources, not merely one magazine article that seems to be based only on what the company chooses to tell them, not an actual scientific investigation. (and that article appears to be an interview where the interviewer basically allowed the founder to say whatever he wanted.) The mention of a few disparate organizations that recommend their services is promotional.

I think the company is probably notable, but an acceptable article would need to start over. The article is written by an admitted paid editor. This does not necessarily condemn it, but this particular editor--like almost all of them-- is not among the very few who have learned how to write encyclopedia articles. I am checking their other contributions DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I am looking this over closely along with your other contributions, thanks (I think). Since you are a Cooperation member and you find the company probably notable, I would love it if you could help support my learning to write encyclopedic articles in the process. I ~~don't know why you took the time to write here rather than to stub the article;~~ found your rationale on my talk but a promotional article on a probable notable is not addressed by an AFD. I'd appreciate it if you could give me a moment to review everything you said and work with you on the changes needed. I appreciate the scrutiny but when a lot happens at once it's somewhat overwhelming. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy (see below for or move): Anyway, the article was approved by APerson at AFC, and if there is any doubt about notability then I would think it should go back to draftspace to allow time for sources to be found. I made my judgment about notability based on profiles in what appear to be clear RS (Courier Magazine, Discovery News, Mother Earth News, BusinessDay, and other sources that use editorial judgment). You may be judging that the Courier interviewer allowed anything to be said, but that does not make the source unreliable; it means we need to attribute the quote, which I am doing. Some of the other reasons above are not the best either. "Probably notable" and "need to start over" are not AFD reasons. Thanks. Frieda Beamy (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approval from one person (a person even) does not override community consensus and does not give an article a free pass against notability requirements and the requirement not to read like a Yellow Pages advertisement. Sorry, but the article is horribly promotional, with disingenuous sourcing (basically original research) and others sources that are obviously not independent of the subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take an OR concern seriously and I'm not sure how sourcing itself can be considered OR, so I'd love to make improvements if you can tell me what you mean. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I think you meant peak oil and DOT, edited. Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start again. I'm not convinced there are enough independent sources to substantiate a pass against WP:CORPDEPTH. Maybe. But if there are, this really isn't a Wikipedia article. It's basically just an advertisement. Some of the sourcing is just plain dishonest, like the "Yahoo" source which is an article with no author hosted by the company's commercial partner on their website without attribution. This is used as a source to support the claim that "Yahoo! News considered CitizenShipper..." Honestly, it's hard to provide a succinct opinion on the article given how intermeshed the poor and dishonest sourcing is with the possibly okay sourcing. While not relevant to deletion or not (per se) the obvious COI here is a real problem. While declared and honest (perhaps the most honest thing about the article) it has resulted in a style of writing and sourcing that is almost entirely blinkered and self-serving. Many of the articles used as sources balance praise for the company with criticism and attempts to dispel obvious concerns from clients. But none of that makes it into the article in the same way it might if the article was being written by someone independent of the subject. The result is gushing promo-spam that glosses over concerns about private citizens functioning as independent operators in the heavily regulated road transport industry. That's a matter for the author rather than this discussion but it really does need to be resolved. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that when I started this article with my own judgment that CitizenShipper is the subject of multiple significant articles in independent reliable sources (including Yahoo), it was also obvious that the topic Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is even more notable, as he is connected to a few other projects that have lots of coverage and have passed AFDs, and he is cited as a reliable source himself a couple times. There are a couple volunteer COI accounts connected to the nonprofits who are working on some of these articles, but they have passed muster. I thought that CitizenShipper was independently notable enough to start coverage with it as well. But a good method to address the concerns above, rather than for me to debate about them, is just to move to Richard Obousy and trim CitizenShipper to a section of that (yes, TNT could be part of this). Should I begin editing the article to demonstrate what I mean? (I believe that editing directly to address concerns stated above or at my talk is permitted.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General responses: A book that lists CitizenShipper in a table counts as reliable and I'd say not irrelevant but less significant; the other sources I listed above similarly used editorial judgment and were not "based on PR". If founder statements are unencyclopedic, that has been addressed and I asked DGG a related question. Transportation inefficiency has been copied to the right article; we can consider trimming it here. Zero complaints was stated in Courier's voice and should be considered as having passed editorial judgment, although I trimmed this sentence also. I don't know that organizational recommendations are promotional; they might be unencyclopedic, but they indicate interrelationships and are the sort of things WP routinely collates, so I added a tag there. Calling the Yahoo article dishonest sourcing may be right but if so I've been deceived too; I AGF'd about the link being genuine when it was archived by Escrow and also here and so if I need to learn something about Yahoo reliability I can get schooled. I deleted "Yahoo! News considered". I'd be happy to add criticism, client concerns, private citizens vs. regulation where that can be seen; I had read through everything and didn't see anything about regulatory concerns about private citizens connecting to this company, but maybe they can be put in a groupage article. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your intention seems to be to find a solution acceptable to the Wikipedia community and to your commercial client, rather than to simply re-write your article in a way that ensures it's not so promotional that deletion is a viable option. Trust me, the latter would be far easier. As DDG outlined in his nomination, the issue here is not notability. It might be borderline but both of us have acknowledged that the company is probably notable. The problem here is the article. And please don't think I have anything against COI editors; my talk page is littered with edit requests from COI editors with whom I have established a working relationship. I might leave a note in your talk page about the other stuff because the focus here should be this article. To answer some of your questions - no, I don't think you should create Richard Obousy. Moving content there doesn't address the problem, it just shifts the problem elsewhere. He may well be notable too. I think you've had the great fortune (in this instance) to have been hired by a company that's actually notable. The irrelevant side-notes about what the CEO was thinking when he founded the company are still there. The article that serves as a source for his motivation says it related to "crazy gas prices" but somehow that made it into the article as a link to Hubbert peak theory and an unrelated government report. It seems the point was the make the whole thing look far more justified, cutting edge and "big problem/big solution" than just a smart guy with a good idea. Likewise, the section about eBay that talks about "thorough testing protocols" is sourced to an eBay document that doesn't and doesn't mention the subject at all. That entire section is effectively unsourced because the only other source cited is a four-line summary of an article that doesn't exist elsewhere. It's not as if that has since become a deadlink - the article is from 2013 and hasn't been available for a while, which suggests you have access to sources that others don't (an obvious problem when dealing with COI). A total of 8 claims are sourced to an article from Mother Earth News which seems to have been cut-pasted from a press release (in fact the language is very similar to that used by the company's FAQ page). The extensive methodology section is a problem, especially since most of it reads like a press release and is based on quotes from Obousy. Projected cost savings shouldn't be sourced to the company either (and need really strong sourcing to be included at all). The point of WP:TNT is exactly that - to blow it up and start over again because simply editing it here and there won't be enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we all agree on stub or TNT? I can continue working with you by (more) edits to founding motive, proper links if needed at all, eBay, Mother Earth if it resembles the FAQ (I'll look), methodology, and cost savings. Maybe you could make a bold edit so I know what you're looking for, and I'll respond? Thanks. I must bypass your stated perceptions about my intentions, and real-world relationships, and the point of my edits, and source access. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, the DOT sources were added at the request of a DYK editor, so I can go either way as you compare notes on that question. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you should avoid DYK for COI articles. There's no specific requirement to do so but (for me) it crosses the line between writing something to inform editors as a volunteer and promoting a company as a corporate client by writing an article and then getting it on the front page. In my experience, DYK volunteers often struggle with COI for that reason and then find themselves giving all sorts of advice. I saw the note on your talk page about trying to find a singularity in terms of quality between COI and non-COI work. That's admirable but I think you still need to make a distinction, yourself, between those two streams of work and DYK should be one of those distinctions. I'd be okay with stubbing the article if it can be done effectively. I don't think any of the edits so far have been substantial enough (in terms of problem-solving) to substantiate that as a viable solution right now. But I'm certainly open to it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've now extensively edited the article, cutting back a whole bunch of irrelevant rubbish including unnecessary multiple references to the company name and website. In an article about a company its okay to refer to "the company". Otherwise it just looks like a clumsy attempt at SEO. I've removed some of the sections including a bit about the company offering insurance but not any more. I think we could still stand to lose the "Reviews" section. Testimonials belong on the company's site and those aren't very good ones anyway. Everybody can see right through them - it's not the publications saying those things, its the company owner who has been quoted by the publication. The fact that it appears in the introduction rather than the body of the interview doesn't suddenly make it an "endorsement". Anyway, I think it's probably at the point where deletion is no longer necessary but I'd appreciate DGG's thoughts (and of course yours Frieda Beamy). St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a little guilty in that my comments drew user:Frieda Beamy here (who I think is trying to do the right thing) for a verbal beating. Though it is this trial by fire that often helps any editor develop. I would be happy to work on this page to bring it into acceptable standards, but only if Frieda is comfortable with it. I imagine a stub might be appropriate here. I think how an idea for a company was conceived is actually a crucial part of an article, but often these stories turn out to be advocacy promoting the concept and its value. CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having had a proper chance to look over the sources again I think it probably gets over the line. Frieda Beamy seems to have happily accepted edits by others and has readily accepted guidance and advice from both DGG and CorporateM in various forums. We can probably build on what we have there given the new-found sense of camaraderie. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on founding stories in general How the idea for an organization was conceived can be relevant comment if it is either based on some evidence other than what the founders said to their press agent, or is widely reported as a matter of history of legend. Otherwise it's a dubious reconstruction or invention or platitude. At it's worst, it amounts to "I think I saw an opportunity to make money" (which is always the case for a commercial company), or "We saw an unmet need in society" for the typical NGO. It's inclusion in an article where there is little other material serves the purpose of providing content when there otherwise would be nothing to report. (I feel similarly about details of funding--funding is a basic part of company history, but the exact details are rarely of general interest, unless the company is famous. Ittoo can often serve the purpose of providing content when there is nothing much else.) Organizations are notable because of what they accomplish. and this is where the emphasis should be. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think the article isstill too promotional. The founders claim of having no complaints at all is so extraordinary that it cannot be included based on his own word to an interviewer, yet it is still there. The nature of the article remains not 'what the company does" but "why the company is good"--such an article is promotional: it's what the company chooses to say about itself. . Readers want to know what it does, and will decide themselves on its merits, It might be acceptable stubbified, but this has not yet been stubbified. The wording has been improved, but not the basic content or orientation. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, this should have been speedily deleted as spam, per DGG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:49, 1 August 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, SpinningSpark 14:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the ~~Mother Jones~~ Mother Earth News piece is clearly press-release blather. EEng (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you would not acknowledge ~~Mother Jones~~ Mother Earth News as an RS based on your opinion of one of its articles. And DGG didn't say it should have been deleted, and even if it's spam, that is not a reason to delete. We made good progress so far and have a good agreement that the subject is notable and the issue has moved on to fixing content. I will work with you on content, but the RS say what they say and I wouldn't second-guess their editorial boards. I would like to have time to add some more sources since they're out there but I don't have them assembled right now. Anyone can edit. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I said Mother Jones instead of Mother Earth News. Anyway, assuming MEN is indeed a RS (I don't know) even an RS often publishes puff-pieces that are obviously rehashes of press releases, and this is one. Please point to the single strongest source in the article in terms of depth of coverage and independence, and we'll go from there. (so far I'm not seeing anything with either depth or independence.) EEng (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got it wrong too. Mother Earth isn't cited as often, but almost 200 times here. Why are we suddenly framing the debate on one source? I haven't known you to debate rhetorically and I don't know what good it would do for me to claim I know which is the best source (excluding the self and gov sources).

Courier Magazine: industry periodical. Masthead.
BusinessDay stuff.co.nz: an official blog from Fairfax Media.
Discovery News: mainstream tech news source.
Yahoo!: mainstream news source. Possibly a press release, but it passed editorial review.
CleanTechnica: eco blog; only used for support.
Mother Earth News: mainstream eco news periodical.
Malaysia Sun (twice): mainstream regional news periodical. Possibly a press release, but it passed editorial review.
Central Lift Maintenance Group: transportation industry blog that reprinted the article also in Malaysia Sun.

I also had the Spanish efficiency text No Somos Hormigas, but that was only a mention in a table so you might not count it toward significance. But each of these made an independent editorial decision to run significant reliable material. Now we don't need to do this dance, where the second player comes back and tells the first why the second thinks each of the above are unreliable. Why don't we skip to the end and decide whether we should stub, seek new sources, userfy, move to Richard Obousy, or work out some other consensus? Frieda Beamy (talk) :50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated references like "possibly a press release, but passed editorial review" show you don't understand the concept of notability at all. See WP:GNG: ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases...' Point to even one source that doesn't fall afoul of that exclusion. EEng (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. It's not just a press release if independent reliable sources publish it. In a couple cases there is evidence that the editors took responsibility for text that matches an identifiable press release, but the majority of sources independently decided to run stories about the subject on their own responsibility. It's not our job to decide which (if any) were initiated by the subject calling up the source and which were the other way round. Frieda Beamy (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it. When a source runs a press release, they do so in the knowledge that readers will recognize it for what it is and not mistake it for hard reporting. You need to learn to make that distinction yourself. An industry magazine giving courtesy exposure to a CEO's puff quotes isn't independent coverage. EEng (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in footnotes. Arguments about an alleged promotional tone are to be resolved through the normal editorial process. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 11 August 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 KEEP (non-admin closure). Nominator has noted that this article should be kept, meeting the criteria for a "Speedy Keep" closure. Dolovis (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drayton Valley Thunder[edit]

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

Notability not asserted, appears to fail WP:NOTE Yamla (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Junior A hockey club, feeder system to NHL, and if sourced properly has tons of newspaper sources to prove notability. If anything this article should have been tagged for lack of sources, not notability issues. DMighton (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does contain sources — it might need more, but that describes 95% of the articles on Wikipedia. And we do accept sports teams at this level as notable enough for an article about the team, even if not every individual player on the team would actually qualify for a standalone BLP yet. So I don't see the problem here. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of nomination, there were 0 sources and no clear indication that it served as a feeder to the NHL. That is no longer the case. There are now a number of citations along with a list of notable alumni. This is primarily due to the work of DMighton who voted above. It is much more clear to me now that this article should be kept. As I am the person who nominated this for deletion, I'd like to strongly urge the closing admin to note this, and note that I was probably hasty in the nomination. --Yamla (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DMighton and Bearcat's work and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Quinones-Perez[edit]

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

She is the member of a county council. This is not a high enough position to pass the notability requirements for politicians, and there is nothing else about her that makes her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't hold a position significant enough to get her past WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here is mostly primary and thus fails to vault her past WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Article has been sufficiently re-written for me to withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apochi Efetobor Wesley[edit]

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

Lack of sufficient references. Google search, for someone who's supposedly a champion, doesn't net any results. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This and this confirm bronze medal at the Commonwealth Games. --Michig (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the article none of the claims are backed up by references. The single reference, images are not references, only indicates that he was present at the 2013 world championships. Medalling in the Commonwealth Games does not meet WP:NBOX even though personally I think it should. To meet notability the article needs some references to support the Nigerian championship which would meet WP:NBOX. I'll change my vote if the article gets fixed/supported.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The re-write certainly helped. I think the article is now a Keep although I would like to see a reference for Nigerian champion which would clinch WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I could not find any direct support for Apochi winning a discrete Nigerian championship. Nigeria held a National Open Boxing Championship in 2013. As winners were to participate in the 2013 world boxing championship and Apochi represented Nigeria, the implication is that he won the championship. However, that is an assumption and therefore I removed that from the article. I did modify the article to incorporate information found while unsuccessfully searching for the Nigerian championship issue. I am finished.--Rpclod (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most sources refer to him as Efetobor Apochi. This confirms he is the Nigerian captain. More coverage: [3]. I didn't find a source for winning the Nigerian championship. A bronze at the Commonwealth Games is a bigger deal than being national champion at amateur level, and should be enough to merit an article. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article should be named such - what's his actual name? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already moved to apparently the correct name.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article now appears at Efetobor Wesley Apochi. I did not make that name change, but I did re-draft the article and provided additional references. Per my below vote, I think that the article now meets notability and verifiability requirements.--Rpclod (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because he has "represented [his] AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament", he has notability per WP:NBOXING. He has received coverage and the article just needs to be improved.--Rpclod (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the existing multiple, independent, reliable sources, in combination with his Commonwealth Games medal, are enough that we should consider the subject notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, if not the specific notability guideline of WP:NBOX. The caliber of competition at the Commonwealth Games is comparable to the Pan American Games and other world-regional olympiad-style games; I think we can safely exercise our discretion to deem the subject notable without opening the floodgates to other boxers who are less notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above keep votes. Since no one is voting "delete" I guess we don't need to wait for 1 week before closing it as a "speedy keep". Darreg (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or we just let it run its course - considering the amount of re-write (thanks) that had to be done and the form of the initial deleted article. It was never a Speedy Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Road, Hong Kong[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. The road needs to be the a subject covered by the source not simply a location mentioned while discussing some ancillary topic. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a short (but essential) stretch of highway at the end of Route 8 (Hong Kong) as it runs into Chek Lap Kok and Hong Kong International Airport. It might be best to merge the content from this article into the Route 8 article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A great many things are essential but that isn't the definition of notability used in Wikipedia. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hong Kong International Airport. Where Route 8 ends at the airport, this is a typical airport terminal access road. Important, yes, but an integral part of the airport. If we had an article for JFK Access Road, I'd say merge to John F. Kennedy International Airport.--Oakshade (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if the Hong Kong International Airport article could take this information without creating undue weight to a relatively minor detail of the whole airport. Much of the current Hong Kong International Airport article should really be on WikiVoyage instead. The article North Lantau Highway or Route 8 (Hong Kong) might be better targets. Again care need be taken to avoid giving undue weight to this short section of road. Must of the current Airport Road, Hong Kong article seems to be original research based on the editors person experience of the road rather than on any secondary sources. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I agree that if there were reliably sourced content it should be merged but there is none. Beyond the name and location given in Route 8 (Hong Kong) there's nothing to merge. Absent some sources being found there's nothing to keep so delete.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki. Non-notable thoroughfare lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The article contains the type of info that belongs in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here. Airport Road is furthermore not a candidate for inclusion in the Hong Kong International Airport article just because it happens to end there. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey S7 Consortium[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsyde Federation. Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This reads like an organisation for teaachers, not pupils. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, unable to tell purpose(not enough context) and unsourced. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsyde Federation[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeauSandVer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrey S7 Consortium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Swap Sixth Form. Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possbly merger to all participating schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, closed, never notable. Szzuk (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of schools in Camden. If somebody wants to add some of this material to the pages of the four individual schools, there's certainly nothing that prevents them from doing so as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Swap Sixth Form[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeauSandVer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsyde Federation Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- This has the feel of three comprehensive schools combining to provide a joint Sxith Form, becasue none are big enough to do it alone. That may be worth having an article on. Otherwise paste a summary to each of the participating schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Participation in this should be noted on the school page not separately in this article. Szzuk (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally the Wikipedia does not concern its self with this level of education unless there is some sign of independent notability, which there is not. --Bejnar (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of schools in Camden. Sixth-form consortia seem to vary between very loose arrangements and what are effectively separate sixth-form colleges with only vestigial links to their "parent" schools. The loose arrangements will only rarely be notable, but the effectively separate ones meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. La Swap is borderline: it has been operating for thirty years and while it is usually treated by the Department of Education in the context of one or other of the consortium schools, the department does occasionally seem to treat it as a distinct entity. And there is a fair bit of local coverage (sometimes even referring to it as a "sixth-form college"), though again often in conjunction to one or other of the schools. But mentions to it occur often enough to make it at least a valid search term. However, redirecting this to one or other of the individual schools seems arbitrary - there is no indication of any of the schools being the lead school in the consortium. The best solution would therefore seem to be for a selective merge to the local list of schools, stating that it is a consortium of the four schools, with the article history preserved and allowing any other information that seems appropriate in one or other of the four school articles to be copied to them. PWilkinson (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Radio Sports Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Appears to be primarily promotional with the listing of awards and the for lack of a better phrase, the TV Guide listing of programming available. John from Idegon (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I accidentally created this twice. My apologies. The other one is redirected here. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is perhaps a marginal case, but as a verified statewide radio network, I'm inclined to think this passes notability under the considerations discussed at WP:BROADCAST. I can't fault the article for the list of awards given that this is one of the ways you would establish notability; the list of programming perhaps doesn't need to name every high school they cover, but that's just editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arxiloxos, I have to disagree with just about every argument you raised. Firstly, this is nowhere near a state-wide network. It serves only two markets in NW and North Central Indiana. I do not see what non-notable awards do for showing notability, but even if they did, the network hasn't won any of them. All were awarded to employees of the network, and the last two are not even associated with broadcasting (One broadcaster is in a state athletic Hall of Fame and two had some undefined association with high school teams that have won state championships). Two of the colleges they cover are under 1000 in total enrollment, none are in the NCAA, and one isn't even in the NAIA. I see absolutely nothing in the notability guideline you referenced about radio networks. I am hoping you will reconsider your opinion, although you are welcome to have whatever opinion you wish. John from Idegon (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "statewide": I was looking at the information about the Indiana High School Sports Report, which they produce and which is aired statewide: given your comment I had a closer look at the source, and I agree that this is not the same thing as a statewide network. On the other hand, I don't fully agree with you about the awards: I don't agree that awards should be disregarded if they are awarded to individuals for work done for the network, as many of these awards appear to have been, based on the sources. I think we should apply reasonably generous standards in our evaluation of the notability of media outlets, for the reasons spelled out at WP:NMEDIA (". . . the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as 'advertising for the competition.' Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources."). On balance I think I'm still weakly in favor of keeping this, but if others disagree I'll understand. (And I'm going on vacation so this discussion will probably wrap up just fine without me.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: After being up 3 weeks with 2 relists and 1 Keep with no Delete !votes - I considered it an obvious keep but the nom's disagreed so have relisted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:02, 2 August 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 -- after four (4) weeks at AfD, it's time to end this discussion. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Shomrei Emunah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sources discuss Rabbi's of Congregation, not the congregation itself. TM 11:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's with all these synagogue-page deletions, TM? On this page, why don't you look into the references at the bottom and flesh out the page, rather than delete it on a flimsy excuse? And regarding your excuse, have you ever read Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, which says in a nutshell: An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted? Yoninah (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yoninah, if you or anyone else can find multiple reliable sources about this Congregation, please do so. As it stands, the sources presented mention the Congregation in passing. I don't think there are enough reliable sources to make an article for Wikipedia.--TM 16:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is a WP:STUB that has started with a couple of WP:V & WP:RS. By the way, a synagogues rabbis is part of its history, so the nominator's argument makes no sense. What is the synagogue (building/structure/congregation etc) supposed to "do" to be "notable"? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Nominator, User Namiba (talk · contribs) aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he is requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator is requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment: An RfC that concerns this AfD has been opened. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There is much coverage about its most recent rabbi, Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, who is indisputably notable; a previous rabbi, Benjamin Bak, may also have been, but I doubt it. Precious little about the synagogue/congregation beyond passing mentions and directory listings, etc, and mentions in local Jewish news sites [4]. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad") if the rabbi/s associated with a synagogue/s are notable then the synagogue/s is/are automatically notable because rabbis and synagogues go together "like a horse and carriage" since a synagogue is usually made notable by its rabbi who puts it on the map so to speak, like what actors do for good movies or what writers do for good books, you cannot have one without the other at the end of the day they are inseparable, so not sure where you are creating this WP:NOR "dichotomy" from. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad") note that the key word "Congregation" because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Community input has been requested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Only seeing passing mentions in WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge with other synagogues in the city. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable organization as per the sources in the article and as outlined above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added many reliable sources to prove notability. Yoninah (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 13:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Many of the references mention the synagogue, but do not appear to actually discuss the synagogue in any detail. Articles are about a band, West Bank conflict, US patriotism among Orthodox Judaism, Shteibelization, and former Rabbis. In several, I saw no reference to the subject without a paid subscription (which I don't have), but the titles did not suggest they focus on subjects other than the synagogue in question. (Most references were inaccessible without a paid subscription.) However, I love the photo shown on the Curry Architects page.--Rpclod (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rpclod: Titles can be deceiving... The Christian Science Monitor article focuses on one church and one synagogue (Shomrei Emunah) (really!), and the other two articles are about Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, spiritual leader of the synagogue. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 2 August 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 keep. Per WP:SK#1, nominator effectively withdrew (see merge !vote and last comment) and no outstanding delete !votes. Merge request goes on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Movie Academy Award for Most Promising Actor[edit]

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

Award of unclear notabilty relying entirely on a single Primary Source Wikicology (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Merge: Article WP:FAILN. The article do not meet WP:GNG. I suggest its merging with the article Africa Movie Academy Award Wikicology (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That's a category of a very notable award. That's how it goes for other awards of the same kind. Do you know how bulky the AMAA article can become if everything about it is "Jam-packed" into one article?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPINOFF "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: let's Understand the fact that wikipedia is not a blog or social media where anything goes. It is an encyclopedia. Nothing is too bulky to be encyclopedia. @Jamie Tubers: I see no reason why we can't merge it with the AMAA award. I had read both article. Since the AMAA section is yet to be bulky l suggest we should merge it. I don't gain anything seeing good article been deleted. Wikicology (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for deletion and immediately !voting "merge" is not the best practice. See WP:MERGE, if you want to merge. See also Wikipedia:Article size. There may be relevant WP:WikiProject Film guidelines, as well. Cheers. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @24.151.10.165. The article was proposed for deletion prior to the discovery of existing AMAA article. That was why I immediately suggested its merging with AMAA to proect/prevent its possible deletion at the end of concensus. You will also agree with me that no independent WP:Reliable Source validated its notability prior to its nomination for deletion. We all knows that the content of an article do not determine its notability as per GNG but WP:Reliable Source no mater how beautifuly an article is wrriten, Reliable source determine wether we keep it here on wikipedia or merge. Thanks for your contribution.Wikicology (talk) 23:27, 2 August 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. It seems clear now that sources, in English or Spanish, cannot be found. No sources, no notability. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Canary Island UFO sighting[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

While this article claims that the subject is notable for four reasons, none of those reasons are actually relevant to the notability guidelines and policies we have for deciding when a subject deserves an article. I note that high quality independent discussion of this sighting does not seem forthcoming (compare to the Kenneth Arnold or Roswell). jps (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough, lack of reliable sources for this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close - notable UFO Sighting and the sources are reliable. 98.174.223.41 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources, notability. Why is this notable? Jim1138 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some UFOlogists attempting to tie together a bunch of disparate UFO claims with their own speculation. This particular topic not been picked up by any mainstream sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, especially because there are no reliable sources discussing it. An alleged event near the Canary Islands in 1979 does appear to get some coverage, though: [5]. Location (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY WP:NEVENTS and WP:RS. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per each and every person above me, Not much needs saying since it's already been said. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails notability and events no secondary sources at all. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to question some of these delete votes as they are vague and are nothing more than "Not notable enough" without even an attempt to see if the event is notable (which it is just look it up on Google) or "delete because so and so user said so without giving a real reason for deletion". I even have to call into question to the entire AFD nomination as it is plainly a case of WP:DONTLIKEIT and possible WP:POINT violation. 98.174.223.41 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you "look it up on Google" do you find reliable sources that provide the coverage to meet general or event notability guidelines? I didn't see that. It is bad form to question the motives and actions of other editors without providing evidence. It is also bad form to assert notability with "just look it up on Google" and not provide reliable sources. If it is a notable event it will have adequate coverage in multiple reliable sources, present them and the contentions of others will not hold weight in comparison. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statements such as "It is bad form to question the motives and actions of other editors without providing evidence" or "It is also bad form to assert notability with "just look it up on Google" and not provide reliable sources" furthers calls into question of the validity of this AFD since its obvious that the users who made this AFD either are too lazy to get reliable sources themselves or simply dont like the article.98.174.223.41 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@98.174.223.41: If you want to save the article, then you should find some reliable sources. Complaining that others could have done so, but haven't, isn't going save the article. It's going to get deleted if nobody finds more sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the AfD is based on the facts surrounding the article. I repeat it is not appropriate to make charges about the motivations of editors without evidence. It is not civil to describe editors as lazy. Rather than being impolite and making baseless assertions if you support keeping this article provide reliable sources that support notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 98.174.223.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be canvassing to attempt to dilute the consensus discussion (See actions from 20:43, 29 July 2014 forward). I am expressing no view on this AfD, but have added the notavote banner. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to not have been a notable event, and lacks source depth as far as I'm concerned due to sources only being limited to forums and unreliable third-party sources. Noted recent attempts by the aforementioned IP to 'invite' users onto this discussion. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because this topic is not notable in English-speaking countries does not necessarily mean that it is not notable in Spanish-speaking countries. It is a well known fact that the English version of Wikipedia suffers from a systemic bias which discriminates against underrepresented cultures and topics. The vast majority of Canarian people speak Spanish. Has anyone checked for Spanish sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are sources in Spanish that could support this, perhaps the article should be created on the Spanish language wikipedia and not the English language wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't (or at least, shouldn't) discriminate against Spanish-speaking cultures. Requiring English-only sources leads to an imbalanced coverage of subjects on the English Wikipedia and denies English Wikipedia readers from the opportunity of learning about other cultures. Indeed, Wikipedia:Systemic bias specifically states that this bias is manifested in deletions to articles. Plainly speaking, we should NOT be deleting articles unless we know for sure that the topic isn't notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources in other languages that support notability they can certainly be used as argument in this AfD and used to improve the article. There are issues on English WP with US and English language centrism. As noted below however, the Spanish WP article is lacking sourcing and has not produced sources over a five year period. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable. United States Man (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources are reliable, just because some sources are not part of the mainstream does not make it a fringe source, besides what defines a fringe source is subjective and frankly that WP:FRIND policy is flawed , redundant , too broad, is being misued and abused by users who simply don't like the articles or too lazy to find additional sources and the list goes on and on. 68.106.152.102 (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with a policy the place to discuss that is the talk page of the policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I did a google search myself and found 19,000 results regarding sighting plus, the users who made this AFD for some strange reason, ignored the two sources in the article, both of which are government sources which leads me to believe that this AFD is uncalled for and as the other user stated that whoever issued an AFD on this article simply did not like the article.68.106.152.102 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GHITS is not a valid argument for notability. The two sources in the article are primary. Significant coverage in secondary sources is required for notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Query: I am concerned that this IP user seems so very similar to 98.174.223.41 in 1) geography, 2) content interests, 3) positions taken in this discussion. WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT may apply, but I don't think an WP:SPI is likely appropriate as we can all see WP:DUCKs for ourselves. jps (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer Please defer closing this AfD until after we can figure out whether or not there are reliable sources in Spanish. It doesn't appear as if the OP performed WP:BEFORE and I am attempting to find non-English sources but I do NOT speak Spanish. In fact, I'm not even sure what the Spanish term for "UFO" is. I've reached out for help at the Language Reference Desk.[6] Please allow me some time to figure out what good search terms are in Spanish and conduct a search. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 2 August 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) 11:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above Comment - In Spanish WP they have been looking for sources since August 2009 (justo 5 añitos :) and they have not been able to find any. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability and verifiability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite input from several editors interested in keeping this article, no additional sources have been provided. As mentioned the Spanish WP does not have sources to add. The existing sources do not amount to significant secondary coverage. See WP:EVENT. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U5cms[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as advertisement. Page U5cms has been speedy-deleted and restarted twice, the second time with this message to me: "Dear Anthony Appleyard, you have deleted the article u5cms. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G11 this was not promotional: "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." The u5cms article (about a Content Management System) is the same style and category as many others in Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TangoCMS. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems gives an overview concerning these systems with Links to the respective Wikipedia-Articles. The subject "CMS" is present in Wikipedia and for a encyclopaedia it is important to be complete. If you think the u5cms article does not meet the standards, please let me know how to make it better (please do not delete it). 11:14, 2 August 2014‎ User:Stemind". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this free software has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That does not mean that it is not important, but it does mean that it fails Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It fails the general notability guidelines. See also the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software). The author has chosen only related sites as references. I have found mentions in blogs but nothing that constitutes an independent reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not seeing much in the way of WP:RS that discusses the topic. Does not meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—CMS used at the University of Bern (http://ufive.unibe.ch/?c=u5cmspage) with growing number of users, therefore meets WP:NSOFT. Listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems; interesting tool for universities. 14:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk)

Use at one university does not equate with notability even under the essay WP:NSOFT. --Bejnar (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May be do not delete: Hello, here a comment from the authors of the u5CMS. May be this page helps for your decission: http://studmed.unibe.ch/a-z/page.php?id=u5cms it is in german but translates well with google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufive (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. it is just another University of Bern citation, see above, from an SPA account. --Bejnar (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ayo[edit]

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

Proposed by another user but it was not transcluded. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Possible WP:COI policy violation confirmed here [7] where the article creator clearly dislosed to be an Alumni of Covenant University where the subject is a vice chancellor. Perhaps he created it for his vice chancellor. Wikicology (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Subject clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC which clearly states that Individuals who have held the highest position in a university are regarded as notable. Both primary and secondary references are present in the article. I must also say that the article requires expansion. Darreg (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darreg, re the summary to this edit, please note: alumni - plural; alumnus - masculine, singular; alumna - feminine, singular. But I have to admit that there are thousands of others who make the same mistake. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve the references. Professors are deemed automatically notable and I place a vice-chancellor one rank above a professor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: been a vice chancellor only passed criteria 6 of WP:ACADEMIC.

It has not passed the other criteria. As a matter of fact, we can't ignore the other criteria. WP:GNG and the guildlines of wikipedia articles of WP:BLPs are not based on passing only one criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicology (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darreg & RHaworth - I'll admit The article needs expanding quite alot but that can be done anyday, Passes ACADEMIC. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on some of the above !votes: ACADEMIC is met if just one of the criteria is met, it is not necessary that all are met. And professors certainly are not automatically notable, that's why we have ACADEMIC. If vice-chancelor is the highest position at this particular university, then ACADEMIC is met. (And it would be several ranks above professor, in fact: prof -> head of department -> head of faculty -> head of university). --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—~~Genuinely undecided here~~. Here's what I've found out.

Covenant University is not what I would consider to be a "major academic institution", and the relevant criteria at WP:ACADEMIC reads: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Covenant University has only been around for twelve years, and the administration appears to be more concerned with Chapel attendance than education.
Nigerian Gov't considers it to be 13th best university in Nigeria.
Per Google Scholar, Charles Ayo published his first paper in 2005 and has only garnered 335 citations and an h-index of 11 (i.e., 11 papers that have been cited 11 or more times). That's a reasonable record for a new faculty member, but not for a full professor or department head.
However, Ayo's bio has him as the "Head of Computer and Information Sciences Department".
The Vice Chancellor post may not be an academic one. Note that there are two Deputy Vice Chancellor posts, one for administration and one for academics. That said, the person holding the academic DVC post has an even less impressive record.

I'm going to assume that "major academic institution" was to prevent the staff of Jim-Bob's Creation University and Bait Shack from getting en.WP articles. We're a couple of steps up from that, but not much more. I could see a WP:Systemic Bias argument for allowing the article, but that's not an argument I'm comfortable making. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing this with a more experienced editor, I think that keep is within the spirit of WP:ACADEMIC. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: thank you for the great work. Its annoying when highly experienced editors don't do a proper check for article before before leaving a comment or vote here. Often times they comment and vote based on existing comment or vote without any good checking.Wikicology (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Professors are not generally notable, but vice-chancellors are. A clear pass of WP:PROF#C6 (since Covenant University is an accredited university in Nigeria), and I cannot understand why this was nominated. Note that WP:PROF requires only a single criterion to be met. -- 101.117.110.137 (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apart from passing WP:PROF#C6, a strong case can also be made for WP:GNG, based on news coverage within Nigeria. -- 101.117.3.229 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, demonstrated notability. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Time[edit]

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

The article has no sources. Sports Time lived less than a year and has very little coverage in online sources. Not enough notability for a separate article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the Google search "sports-time anheuser-busch site:google.com/newspapers", there are about 489,000 hits. A TV channel owned by Anheuser-Busch that went under seems like a notable topic. The article would benefit from sourcing and improvement, rather than deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial sources exist. [8][9][10]. Worth keeping and improving. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Arxiloxos, Needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu & sources added by Arxiloxos. Passes WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate sources exist to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 5 August 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. Deor (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BeauSandVer[edit]

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

I can't see how this can meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. So let's delete or redirect it somewhere. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Selective paste merge to St Albans#Education. I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, though a 2009 Sunday Times article^[1] confirms that it is a sixth-form consortium "consisting of Verulam, Beaumont and Sandringham schools". By the way, a Wikipedia search for sixth form consortium finds several articles that aren't any better referenced and could probably be dealth with similarly. Qwfp (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Griffiths, Sian (2 August 2009). "A disastrous gamble - Some bright pupils who took the international baccalaureate are deeply regretting it, says Sian Griffiths". The Sunday Times.(subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries)

- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Swap Sixth Form and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsyde Federation Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non article. Szzuk (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary to the artile on each of the three participating schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St Albans#Education, or just delete. We don't usually deal with non-notable programmes at this level. --Bejnar (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This seems awfully trivial to dignify with an encyclopedia article. Are we going to document every instance of universities agreeing on things amongst themselves. Naturally the only sources in the article or which I can find anywhere are not independent of the institutions; thus, the article fails WP:N. Reyk _YO! 05:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it. Contrary to Reyk these aren't universities, they're ordinary secondary schools. BeauSandVer amounts to a timetabling agreement between three local schools with pupil-sharing, a minibus service, and some guest speakers. We shouldn't have an article and there's nothing encyclopaedic to merge. It's not a plausible search term for uninvolved people and there are no encyclopaedic grounds for a redirect.—S Marshall T/C 18:41, 11 August 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web Africa[edit]

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

Previously nominated, re-creation speedy delete was denied as this version reportedly has more sources than previous. That said, 30,000 customers in a country of 51 million hardly seems like a notable company. Google news searches give almost nothing, something that is not at all true of big ISPs like Comcast. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just posted at talk page: I removed my comment. This subject should not have a page. It lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I'm in agreement with Oiyarbepsy.72.48.98.84 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two glorified press releases and a blog do not prove notability nor provide verifiability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely horrible sources and notability not established. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:39, 9 August 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

300 North Meridian[edit]

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

This building seems to fail WP:GNG, unless someone is able to dredge up some useful information from offline news sources. Apart from the fact it exists, there's nothing in the article here to warrant a Wikipedia profile. Even when it was built it would have been only the fourth tallest building in the city. I can only find mentions online as being a business address for a variety of companies. Sionk (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two sources ([11][12]) show this building has some architectural importance. If it was built in 1939, I would say keep. As the fifth tallest building in a large city, I think there might be multiple reliable sources about it (just as Jin_Mao_Tower), but I can't find them. Not sure if it passes WP:GEOFEAT. Anyway, redirect to List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Indianapolis does no harm.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added one of the IP's sources along with some others to the article and that demonstrates notability. The Indiana State Library also has records of two offline articles whose titles indicate significant coverage of the subject ([13] [14]). Altamel (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, now Altamel has done a very good job of uncovering sources and claims of notability. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Altamel's work--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of GUI testing tools[edit]

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

This article has been nominated for deletion before, in 2007 and the consensus at that time was that it should be deleted. The "criteria" of notability proposed in the talk page and in hidden comments in the article itself is that that each link should point to an already existing article on Wikipedia, but this does not establish notability. The list contains red links and none of the listed items points to verifiable sources or to sources that establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianist (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom, copying the rationale from the article talk page. Ansh666 05:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every entry in the list is notable and has an article. It follows many such lists across Wikipedia. It differs radically from the previous list which was simply a list of external links. There is no criteria for notability of lists of links that I know of and the subject itself, GUI testing tools, is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I should clarify that the citation needed tags on each row are not related to whether the individual entry is or is not notable or reliably sourced simply that the attributes of each entry (testing system requirement, system under test requirement, GUI test, automation, and current version) is reliable information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the one redlink in the list pointed to an article that was deleted three days before this nomination. It has subsequently been removed. Oh, and Testing Whiz is also presently up for an AfD, and CubicTest, RIATest and GUIdancer could use references, while AutoIt is just a mess because the original author is no longer supporting the project and at least two factions are fighting for control of the project, but that's not important for this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are certainly several notable GUI testing tools and I see no problem with this list. --Michig (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All listed tools have individual articles and most are sourced, WP:SOFIXIT applies!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If there was a WP:RS or two that had been cited to narrow down the scope of this list, I'd have a better idea of whether we're talking about embedded computing, kernel drivers, apps, high-performance computing, real-time computing, et cetera, et cetera. Each of these domains tend to have their own set of GUI-based testing tools, but the tols don't necessarily have anything else in common. That leads me to think that we're not going to be able to find any relevant WP:RS: if I'm a tech writer doing an overview of software testing suites, I'm not going to include testing tools for high-frequency trading programmers and tablet application programmers in the same article just because they both happen to have a GUI interface. Quoting Wikipedia:Viability of lists: Some topics just aren't that viable because they would be either too broad or of little interest. I think that's the issue here. No objection to refactoring the article as List of testing tools for embedded computing, List of testing tools for the Android platform, etc., so long as WP:RS exists. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested scope would be both too narrow, of little interest and useless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concern of niche variations can be addressed by splitting the table into several topical tables with the same page. FWIW this is just a list, not a comparison. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I merged two separate table to make one several months ago. It really doesn't make sense to spit them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only mean that this particular concern may be addressed by editing, and that it does not serve a basis for deletion per se. I have no opinion on splitting the table. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this list complies with WP:LSC and has no problems that could not be addressed by normal editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability guideline (a guideline) does not apply to stand-alone lists of Wikipedia articles, because WP:NOT (a founding policy with the power to override all guidelines and policies below it) says:
Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content.
Even those {{citation needed}} tags are redundant, as long as the associated article adds necessary sources. Of course, individual articles failing to prove their assertions can be deleted and their entries unlisted. Fleet Command (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Corner[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as suggested by Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 145#Happy Corner.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for IP and fixed the link. Ansh666 05:14, 2 August 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 August 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 07:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 07:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as Redirect to "List of school pranks" but the nom had an issue so have reopened to keep everyone happy!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm ... After some checking I'm not sure that this isn't at best original research and at worst a hoax. "Sawing" (锯人) certainly exists per the Beijing Youth Daily article cited, but the other two references are dead links (now tagged as such) and their source appears to be this non-reliable blog posting. I'm going to do some more digging in Chinese sources but at the moment I'm leaning towards delete with the "Sawing" elements redirected to List of school pranks. FWIW, contrary to the claim in the article, I've never encountered a street lamp in Hong Kong that looked like it could be extinguished by hitting it with one's "private part". Philg88 ^♦talk 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The first link has been fixed. @Philg88:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I've updated some more links to improve the sentence with the dead link. 杨肇峰 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear case of WP:TNT without prejudice to its recreation under a different title. The current title does not appear to be the common name in Chinese - "Happy Corner" is only mentioned as an afterthought in the corresponding Chinese article. The only extant content for which sourcing is available is "Sawing" as mentioned above and "Aruba" (the Taiwanese name for the same thing). I would suggest a new article under one of those titles WITHOUT all the wild unreferenced claims made in the "Working methods" section. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect I concur with Philg88, this is mostly WP:OR. As the current title is not actually used in English, and other names, such as "sawing", are more prevalent, no redirect is needed. I doubt that the topic is notable under WP:GNG, and believe that any coverage under List of school pranks is quite sufficient. If indeed in the future there is overwhelming significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then a new article with an appropriate English title can be spawned from List of school pranks. --Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 9 August 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. After two relisttings, I'm not seeing a consensus to delete. Deor (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Garrison[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Matt Garrison

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

After removing much cruft there is absolutely no evidence of notability. He seems to be the son of a famous musician and that is absolutely all. KissOfBrooklyn (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:MUSBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What was wrong with all the content that was removed? I haven't researched the guy to see if he meets notability requrements, but I'm not sure there was any reason to remove his discography. Was it unsourced? Bali88 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- It was unsourced. KissOfBrooklyn (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we put the original content back in? If he's cited in the Grove dictionary of Jazz Musicians, that would suggest he's relatively notable in his field. He's also got a number of mentions on NYTimes.com - http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/matthew+garrison/ - not only listings, but significant coverage. I don't know the topic, but I'm thinking this is a keep and the content that was lost might be worthwhile. AdventurousMe (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he also gets a lot of search returns on The Guardian. Without delving deeply - I don't know the topic - he's pulling up enough results on those two authority news sources, combined with the Grove entry, to suggest that he meets, or at least has a reasonable chance of meeting, point 1 of WP:MUSBIO, though it would probably be a short entry rather than a long one. I'd recommend restoring it to where it was when User:KissofBrooklyn took it over and starting to source. It can always go up for deletion again, but I think, particularly given he's a bassist, which isn't a musician genre that typically gets much coverage, he seems well enough covered to give it a good go. And he seems to have a long discography. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the more digging I've done on this, the more he seems extremely well sourced - he's described by the NYTImes as a bass virtuoso, he's all over Allaboutjazz.com and he seems to be an extremely well-regarded musician who's worked with other great musicians and has a significant body of work - multiple albums, all reviewed, plus gigs reviewed in mainstream press, and full profile interviews on notable websites. I've started to work on the article but I don't know enough about the topic to improve it strongly. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Don't know about whether he should have a page but you need to check your sources for reliability and accuracy. For ex [15] this change refers to a different Matt Garrison. Deborah Garrison's husband is mentioned in that article for the only reason because he is in a picture - it is obviously a different man. Looking at the history of this article a main editor was User:Garrisonjazz, so for obvious reasoning I am not sure how to go on it. SnowGlober (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you User:SnowGlober (how embarrassing!). I've removed that section, and I'm going to leave the page, because I don't know enough about the topic, and don't have the time to do a proper fix, as you've demonstrated. I've restored a version of the deleted discography and sourced some of it to allaboutjazz.com, which the Jazz working group lists as an OK source. The page history is odd altogether. User:Garrisonjazz doesn't seem to have done that much to it and has made no attempt to hide their identity, so might not be in breach of WP:COI, without reviewing what they've actually done. It's also notable that User:KissofBrooklyn's sole contribution so far seems to be blanking all content from this one bio and proposing it for deletion. I'm beginning to wonder whether this sort of thing is just standard for any BLP. But I think anyone who runs a search for reliable sources on the subject will find plenty and a reasonable depth of coverage. AdventurousMe (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- comment Many of the sources are not very reliable KissOfBrooklyn (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above. there are several matt garrisons like this [16] sax player which makes finding good sources hard and confusing. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There aren't enough good sources, and the name is too common. There seem to be more famous Matt Garrisons. JKretz (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment I'm a natural deletionist, but this guy has a lot of reviews and interviews on allaboutjazz.com, which the jazz working group considers a reliable source, plus reviews (of this bassist, not the saxophonist) in the Guardian and the New York Times, plus his own entries in various encyclopedias of jazz. The Times described him as an "electric bass virtuoso" - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/arts/music/improvised-music-at-a-purposeful-home.html - he's had a guitar named after him, and it seems to me that he is probably one of the most notable jazz bass guitarists working today, with a significant body of work. Per Bali888, I also think it's really inappropriate to delete a page that's been almost entirely blanked prior to proposing it for deletion - it has the same effect as blanking content after proposing for deletion, which is against community guidelines. . AdventurousMe (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better solution would be to leave it as is, put a citations tag, and allow the other AFD voters to help find sources. Bali88 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional coverage in South China Morning Post and allmusic review and Jisi, Chris (1 February 2005), "Shape Of Things To Come -- Matt Garrison Takes Bass To A New Dimension", Bass Player. Already in the article is good coverage from New York Times and The new Grove dictionary of jazz, and guitar.com looks good. More than enough for WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like plenty of good sources for WP:GNG. XeroxKleenex (talk) 06:44, 12 August 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. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Warfighter Association[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008. The us-wa.org site seems to be down and I can't find reliable sources, so fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the only link that came up when I clicked "news" was the article itself...I'd say it's a goner. Intothat darkness 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely any Ghits and most are WP mirrors. So, I have found insufficient reliable sources about the organisation to show its notability. BethNaught (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Reserve Center, Rio Vista[edit]

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

Appears to be a minor US Army base that has since closed, one or two sources but I don't believe there is lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to have to argue that it wasn't a minor installation, as it was used from 1911 to 1995, and closed under BRAC. That's an incredibly long time for anything to be operational, especially given the amount of documentation based in those three pages about the amount of activity that went on there. There are articles on here about Civil War camps that have much less documentation on them, but they are kept because they were training grounds during this time. Anyways, going back to this, it wasn't a minor installation, and there is enough coverage out there that shows that it isn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ WP:Notability of topics is not temporary, WP:NTEMP; but article fails WP:V. Re-create when there is an editor who wants to write the article with sourcing. Redirects are welcome, too. Unscintillating (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, with a congrats to MelanieN for adding souring to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have begun the process of expanding and referencing this into a proper article. The subject is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there. It now has seven references and I think it is at least Start class (formerly an unreferenced stub). --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 6 August 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) 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Resistance (album)[edit]

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

Non notable album IMO, unless a single award nomination gives some notabilty, by a non notable band Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this brief review was the best I could find in terms of significant coverage for this compilation; I'm not convinced there is enough material to warrant an article. Gongshow talk 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing to make it notable shows. NealeFamily (talk) 08:24, 3 August 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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 02:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only two legitimate entries, so WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate is an offshoot of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbia (disambiguation). I've located a few entries which might be included on this dab page (Slovakia during World War II, Slovak Soviet Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic), but it's questionable if they would be legitimate (I'd say "no", therefore "delete"). I left a notice at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Historical polities in hope of a wider input. No such user (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both the constituency and the sports teams are valid entries, in addition to the primary topic, so this is a worthwhile dab page. PamD 12:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sport teams are decisively not valid entries. Please let's not open that can of worms. Each country has up to a hundred national teams in various sports, sexes and age categories, and they have a regular naming convention in wikipedia: [[<Country> <Men's/Women's> National <Sport> team]]. They are explicitly discouraged by WP:PTM: A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference. (bold mine). No such user (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Slovak Republic has its own dab page: Slovak Republic (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if new entries aren't found. Disambiguation pages are for different topics who coincidentally have the same name. It is not for subtopics, and that is all that's listed here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is one that easily gets my vote. The disambiguation page is a highly useful tool. Solvakia can be a confusing term / word for people not knowing exactly what it can stand for. And this aids in navigation as well. Did you know that there is a short 2009 film called Slovakia and an episode of TV series A Place in the Sun is called Slovakia ? There is also a TV series called A Place in Slovakia (Starman005 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I forgot to add that there is some producer called Magic Seven Slovakia and an group called 3 Run Slovakia. What's the odds of a group called lovakia turning up one day ? I'd sat it would be likely. (Starman005 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Reply. Since none of these have articles or mentions in articles (and several are partial title matches), where exactly is the navigational value? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unless someone can prove the value of this article I do not see a purpose or plan.--Canyouhearmenow 12:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use hatnote instead My understanding of DAB pages is that they contain all articles with the same name; thus the sports team is not a legitimate entry, nor is the Eurovision thing. The parliamentary constituency is legitimate, but it is the only one (so far); so it can be dealt with using a hatnote. If more legitimate articles crop up, recreating the page is easy. WP:TOOSOON was written with slightly different intent, but similar reasoning would apply here, I think. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hungli (A Horror Movie)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. No coverage found. Nothing in the article worth keeping. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NFILM. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but more likely the article is just advance, low-key promotionalism. --Bejnar (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of w00tstock shows[edit]

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

Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Furthermore, this list fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is less than thirty minutes old, but it's essentially material moved from the main w00tstock article. This no way qualifies as listcruft, as it is absolutely no different than the myriad of lists of episodes of tv shows, concert events, etc. The notability of the topic is well established in the parent article, and if need be sources can be copied from there to here. Agent 86 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I got one hit for "w00tstock" on Highbeam, and that's just a drive-by mention on CNN. There is also this, this, and this. I checked the press coverage secton on the subject's website, so this list should be pretty complete. In short, w00tstock itself just barely passes GNG. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update. There are more hits if you search for wootstock. But it's just the dates of upcoming events, nothing GNG. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether or not w00tstock itself is notable (dubious), this list of performances is not. Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. This list is non-encyclopaedic, and almost directory in nature. See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no claim to notability for this list. See also WP:EVENTOUTCOMES and WP:OUTCOMES#Music? --Bejnar (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wootstock should go to afd too. Both NN. Szzuk (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ottney[edit]

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

Ottney was just a run of the mill college player with no professional career. He got passing reference with his death, but not enough to pass GNG. He clearly fails the notability guidelines for American Football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in national and regional media sources. Per WP:NCOLLATH: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." The vast majority of college athletes do not pass this bar, but the coverage of Ottney is well past routine mentions in game coverage, etc. Ottney easily passes the bar under the standards outlined both in WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage in this case includes: ESPN.com (national, 4 published stories about Ottney), Sports Illustrated (national), USA Today (2nd largest newspaper in US by circulation, multiple articles on Ottney), Los Angeles Times (4th largest newspaper in US by circulation), Chicago Tribune (10th largest newspaper in US by circulation), Detroit Free Press (23rd largest newspaper in US by circulation as shown here), The Detroit News, and others. This is not even to mention the far more extensive coverage in the local newspapers such as the Lansing State Journal and the Oakland Press. Cbl62 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take a crack at revising the article and have now done so. After doing so, it's clear, at least to me, that the nominator's statements that Ottney was a "run of the mill" player and that the coverage consists of "passing references" are not accurate. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks like a clear-cut case of passing WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even allowing for the fact that multiple articles are from the Associated Press and the same newspapers (and each newspaper, not each article, counts as reliable source for notability purposes), there still appears to be more than sufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. When GNG is satisfied, the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON are irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There're enough reliable independent (non-local) sources to write a comprehensive article.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 4 August 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7)[edit]

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

I'm not sure where this info comes from, but from what I can tell the season hasn't even been cast yet. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. I've tagged it with a speedy because from what I can see, not only has the cast not officially been announced but the episodes are not supposed to air until February 2015. The episodes haven't even been filmed yet, so there shouldn't be any synopsis out there to write up. The season itself will inevitably happen, but the information on the article is entirely made up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Special Army Cadets Program[edit]

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

Not notable IMO and it fails GNG as I can't find reliable sources beyond their website Gbawden (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evide of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth program without much coverage at all, fails significant coverage test, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:19, 9 August 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) 06:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lindberg[edit]

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

Unsourced stub for non-notable individual. Factchecker25 (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business executive. I found passing mentions, but no significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find more passing mentions (similar to the one already standing as the sole reference in the article) but nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per User:Cullen328 and User:AllyD. I can't really find anything else outside of a few mentions. XiuBouLin (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source searches are not demonstrating notability for the subject; does not appear to meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Pinhey[edit]

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

Don't believe it passes WP:AUTHOR. Has just released his first book - too soon to be notable for that Gbawden (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Author of one book published via CreateSpace. An article on the book was already deleted. The local paper coverage of a pre-publication domestic accident with the book text does not amount to anything like the coverage required for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage, as per nom. and AllyD. Fails WP:GNG fails WP:AUTHOR. --Bejnar (talk) 15:15, 9 August 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) 06:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travelwriters_UK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Travelwriters UK

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

Nominating this page for deletion as appears non-notable (cf WP:Notability): a Google news archive search produced zero results, Google Books one, all references are primary sources, there's only one extremely engaged editor on the page (WP:COI?) and the page has been flagged for notability and primary sources since the day it was created in 2013. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete on editor self promotion. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 23:26, 1 August 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 02:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability found. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Gongshow talk 18:57, 3 August 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Wedding[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be meeting Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for companies and organizations because it is lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. I find nothing helpful on Google news and Google books, on the web, it is quite confusing at first finding some..but it appears there's too nothing credible to establish notability of the subject. However, I feel that, -I might be unable to find local sources of Singapore based media houses. If yes, then I'd love the withdraw the nomination. But, you have to bring them out first. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see neither any evidence of notability, nor indeed any claim of notability in the article itself (claiming to be "reputable in the singapore wedding industry" is not in itself notable), which is also spiced with advertising-speak ("wedding couple can easily hire"). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition, was created by User:Ivanphay who appears to be one of the principles of the company, according to Facebook. --Yamla (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't help that the name of the company is pretty generic and thus searching for anything will inherently be difficult. Note that my search mainly showed hits (but not reliable coverage) for a Singaporean wedding studio called My Dream Wedding. I have no idea if that's related to this company, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (May qualify for A7 speedy deletion). This is just advertising for a non-notable company. Deli nk (talk) 11:24, 4 August 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 - A1 no context applies. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R7 Tour[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. Apparent concert tour with no introduction to identity the artist. Searches for this tour get nothing. A check of some of the supposed venues and dates brings up completely different events happening there. Deleted by PROD and recreated. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Achtymichuk[edit]

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

WP:BLP, sourced only to his IMDb profile (which does not count as sufficient sourcing for a biography of an actor), citing no evidence of reliable source coverage. Was initially prodded, but prod notice was removed without any actual new evidence being provided that he passes WP:NACTOR at all. Delete unless the sourcing can be beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage of him that would satisfy WP:GNG and I see no indication that he passes WP:NACTORS. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 2 August 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School for Children, Eatontown, New Jersey[edit]

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

Lacks notability Muffinator (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Muffinator that the original article did not indicate notability as well as lacked valid references. I believe that I have rectified the article and that it is now acceptable. I am not associated with the subject in any manner.--Rpclod (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article once had significanlty more content but by stages it has been reduced to a tiny stub. I'm sure that it could be expanded again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I've changed my opinion to keep. The article was simply lacking appropriate citation, and now that some have been added, its notability is more clear. Muffinator (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that the article was moved to Hawkswood School after this discussion started. This is NOT a discussion about deleting the redirect. Muffinator (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now who was bold enough to do that? What is the motive for re-directing an article undergoing a deletion discussion? ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who moved the page is Rpclod, and the reason is that the school's name has changed. Seems like a good reason to me, although they probably should have at least mentioned the name change here as part of the justification for notability. Muffinator (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, I don't think that editor realized that you shouldn't "move" pages while they are in a deletion discussion, unless I am wrong about that. ArcAngel (talk) ) 01:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDEQ: "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts." You are correct that moving during AFD is discouraged, however it is not prohibited. Given that the title is incorrect, I felt that the value of naming correctly outweighed the potential impact on the AfD process. On the other hand, I should have clearly noted that move in this discussion, appreciate Muffinator's catch, and apologize for any confusion that my change or omission caused.--Rpclod (talk) 22:00, 2 August 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western Democracy Party[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a shortlived political party that ran two candidates in by-elections in 1979, garnering a whopping 58 votes total between both candidates, but never actually contested a general election. And frankly, if a party has garnered so little coverage in reliable sources that we have to speculate about who might have been its leader and what its political ideology might have been, then unfortunately we just can't keep an article about it on WP:V grounds no matter how completist we'd like to be about this stuff. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator appears to have long history of contributions but there is no evidence of notability for this one-time fringe party.Canuckle (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Canuckle says it all. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG & WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG + ORG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Parties who don't contest a general election aren't notable. 117Avenue (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Hawryluk[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying on a single source (table of elections results) that cannot confer notability, of a person notable primarily as a perennial candidate for office; the only other claim here is the unverified guess that he might have been the leader of a political party. Neither of those claims actually pass WP:NPOL on their own merits, and there's no real sourcing here to get him over the WP:GNG bar as a substitute. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "He campaigned for federal, provincial and municipal office several times, without ever coming close to being elected." That pretty much says it all, unless there's some sort of exceptional basis for notability. --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think the primary basis for the article's original creation was "might have been the party leader" — we did once accept the leadership of political parties, regardless of the party's fringiness or mainstreamness, as "inherent" notability in its own right. Under WP:NPOL as it stands now, of course, we don't do so anymore if the reliable sources aren't there to get the person past WP:GNG on their own steam — and of course the "might have been" part was actually a problem all along. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Possibly, but not likey, of local interest. --Bejnar (talk) 14:34, 9 August 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. Deor (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Jakobsen[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NFOOTBALL~~

~~The article provides no evidence that the player has appeared in a professional league. Reckless182 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

As the initiator of this deletion discussion I wish to withdraw the nomination as it has now been made clear that the article meets the criteria for WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player does pass NFOOTY, apologies for stating otherwise earlier. Needs to be improved to show GNG, but as per current consensus, young players who have played in a FPL are deemed notable regardless of the number of games played. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - did play in the Eerste divisie [17] Agora (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The last commenter makes a sourced assertion that, in view of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, would seem on its face to back a claim of NFOOTY, I'd like to at least a little concurring or dissenting opinion on that before closing this. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The second division in the Netherlands appears to be professional even though yes those appearances are for a reserve side Seasider91 (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails GNG + NFOOTY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2014

Keep as now passes WP:NFOOTY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand why the Delete !votes all indicate that Jakobsen hasn't played in a fully-pro league, when he had played in the Eerste Divisie (listed as fully-pro at WP:FPL) - even scoring a goal in his debut. I'm not sure the article could satisfy the GNG, but if we follow the herd and !vote based on NFOOTBALL, it should be a clear consensus for keep. Jogurney (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in a professional league. --Threeohsix (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Griffiths, Sian (2 August 2009). "A disastrous gamble - Some bright pupils who took the international baccalaureate are deeply regretting it, says Sian Griffiths". The Sunday Times.(subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries)

[1]