Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 July 29 July >

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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted ( A1, A11) by NawlinWiki. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Poetry trend in new india

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

Extremely odd little POV essay about how Indians have started writing poetry because they're rich enough to not have to worry about food, citing no reliable sources to verify the thesis. I'd love to have speedied this silliness, to be honest, but try as I might I just couldn't squeeze it into any of the accepted speedy criteria. But it's definitely a no-brainer delete. Bearcat ( talk) 00:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader Safarzaei. ( non-admin closure)

Ahmad Nourollahi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Watch the Stars Fall

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

Unable to find songs on any charts. Prod removed for unknown reasons. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Son of a Gun (Search the City song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Anarcho-Objectivism

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

It fails the notability test and its category is fabricated. Google returned these references with this title: four blogs - http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/tag/anarcho-objectivism/ and http://objectivistgirl.com/2014/04/anarcho-objectivism/ , http://anarchoobjectivist.blogspot.com/ , http://www.solopassion.com/node/1294 a facebook page, and a couple of reddit posts (another type of ‘wiki’ blog)

Since this subject is based upon blogs, and a facebook page, I believe it fails the notability requirement. I searched news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images with no returns.

I was surprised to find Category:Anarcho-capitalism. This category seems to be fabricated also and populated with supposed Anarcho-capitalists. After reviewing about 10 of these ‘ people’ pages that are grouped in this category. I found no references to anyone of them claiming to be an Anarcho-capitalist. I also recommend that this category be eliminated because it claims that those individuals listed in the category to be something that their Wikipedia articles do not support. bpage ( talk) 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't understand your confusion about the anarcho-capitalism category; anarcho-objectivism is arguably a subset of anarcho-capitalism. What do you mean by "fabricated"? Many articles are related to the topic of anarcho-capitalism, hence the category. Also, there are no biographies in this category, although there certainly are in the subcategory Category:Anarcho-capitalists. It is possible that there are a few miscategorized articles in this category—I have not checked them all—but I recognize many anarcho-capitalists in it. Which category members do you believe to not be anarcho-capitalists?
Categorization aside, I agree with you about the main subject of this AfD—anarcho-objectivism does appear to be sufficiently notable to have its own article. -- Cgtdk ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

John Jackson (boxer born 1986)

John Jackson (boxer born 1986) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, nudging toward promotion ("Because of his talent, he was encouraged to stay in the sport, even though all the friends he started with quit."), of a person who may not meet our inclusion standards at WP:ATHLETE (we do not extend a presumption of notability, in the absence of reliable sourcing, to competitors in the Junior Olympics.) It's also worth noting that two days ago, somebody claiming in his edit summary to be the subject himself redacted the article down to a non-encyclopedic and still unreferenced bullet-point list — I've reverted that because his version was not compliant with our content and formatting rules, but given the depth of unsourced private personal information about other family members that's present here I think I can understand why he might want it trimmed. So I'd be happy to withdraw this if good sourcing can be added, as always, but we really can't keep this in its current state (and we doubly couldn't keep it in his preferred state.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, Promotional page that fails to indicate notability. Anishwiki12 ( talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

comment, I've removed the unsourced personal info per WP:BLP possibly could be notable but it needs a tidy up for some POV language if kept. -- Nate t/ c 10:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't believe interim titles count since they're used as fillers and are different than fighting for a vacant title. For example, the NABA title you're referring to was won 3 months earlier by a different fighter (Usmanee). Usmanee fought the same night as the interim title fight between Osejo and Jackson so I don't know what was going on. After Osejo won the interim title, two other fighters fought for the title the next time. I have no idea what was going on, but it looks like NABA was trying to give everyone a title shot in that division since they had 3 consecutive "title" fights with 6 different fighters. From what I've observed, most organizations don't consider interim title holders to be their true champions. Papaursa ( talk) 17:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Its is not 100% clear if interim titles count or not since they are not expressly addressed, but I would say that they do since the intro says "...fought for a national (or higher) professional (non-youth) title..." It clearly states youth titles don't count, but are silent on interim so I infer that they count. Whether interim titles are true champions are less an issue in my opinion than the media coverage of title fights regardless of vacant or not and thus the likely existence of sources. Again, tough call since the article appears to need much improvement and would pass WP:NBOX by the skin of its teeth, but interim titles are professional titles and this was a regional title so WP:NBOX applies. Thus, unless the presumption can be overcome I think its a weak keep and the article should be designated for improvement. RonSigPi ( talk) 21:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Interim championships are usually created when a champion can't defend his title (injury, suspension, etc.). Normally the interim champ gets the first shot at the title when the real champion is able to compete again. For example, I know in the past the UFC (and other organizations) have carefully distinguished between interim champions and champions. The interim championship essentially determines the #1 contender--not the champion. Papaursa ( talk) 23:47, 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 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Jason Harshaw

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

WP:BLP of a sports agent, with no reliable source coverage to support it — all of the "referencing" here is to primary sources which cannot confer notability. As always I'd be happy to withdraw this if the referencing can be beefed up to properly demonstrate that he passes one of our inclusion rules, but he's not entitled to keep a primary-sourced prose-résumé on Wikipedia just because he exists. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Sala Udin

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. It also bears mention that while this article looks extensively sourced on the surface, if you examine the footnotes carefully it's actually relying extremely heavily on primary and unreliable sources — the "references" section would be more than halved, basically thirded if that's a thing, if I actually trimmed it down to reliable sources — and there's stuff in here ("Legal problems") that's extremely problematic in a BLP without much better sourcing than it's got. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but this version needs to be deleted. Bearcat ( talk) 04:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yup, a lot references, but little to no coverage in them. Fails WP:GNG fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The one-sided and overly promotional language of the article is what comes from having articles on too local of politicians to have generated wide-spread coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not an endorsement of the present state of the article, of course, but I'm not a fan of the WP:TNT approach, especially not with an article of this size – you've got to figure there's at least a little bit in there worth saving. Just looking at the references currently in the article, this and this together are about enough to satisfy WP:GNG; and given he's been in politics over a decade there are going to be more pieces like those (searching within both those sites for his name turns up plenty of the sort of sources I'm talking about). –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:21, 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, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vigorous argument from Bearcat, but the conensus leans to keeping the article. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Alfred Pike Bissonnet

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, so that does not count as a keep argument. Google just reveals WP mirrors. There's a composer called Alfred bissonnet but not the same person. LibStar ( talk) 13:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
you haven't demonstrated how a notability criterion is met. Have you searched for sources to establish notability? LibStar ( talk) 23:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
It is, I think, well established that there is disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether or not we should presume that ambassadors (or at least some ambassadors) are notable. There's no point repeating this pantomime in each deletion discussion. Can we agree to disagree on this topic, until a consensus is reached, and trust that the closing administrator will give greater weight to arguments based on policy or consensus? Pburka ( talk) 23:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
given that there is no established notability guideline making ambassadors notable, keep !voters should actually demonstrate how WP:BIO is met through coverage. I admire that you make a genuine attempt to do this in AfDs. LibStar ( talk) 08:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There is no consensus that ambassadors are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist. An ambassador has to actually be the subject of substantial reliable source coverage in his own right — the position does not confer an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of sufficient coverage to get him past WP:GNG on his own steam. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can create a more substantial and better-referenced version, but the volume of sourcing here is not sufficient for him to keep this. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:11, 26 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) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 08:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Neither is WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE for deletion! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Lack of adequate sourcing, however, is a reason for deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No it's not. We only require that sources be available, and I've demonstrated above that they are. Pburka ( talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The volume of sourcing that you demonstrated above is not enough to get a person past WP:GNG if they don't inherently pass a subject-specific inclusion guideline; you still need quite a few more sources than that to actually secure an inclusion on purely GNG grounds. Bearcat ( talk) 00:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Three times as many? (edit: now reads 'quite a few more') Really? WP:GNG says 'multiple sources are generally expected'. Your arguments are not in line with policy. Pburka ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
GNG requires a substantive volume of sourcing. You can't claim that a person gets past GNG just because you can point to a small handful of distinct sources — people often try to create articles about any personality they can find named in just two distinct newspaper articles, but it doesn't wash. In actual practice, AFD doesn't begin to seriously consider that a person might have passed GNG until the number of distinct sources you can cite is at least into the double digits (and even then it's still not necessarily guaranteed if the coverage in those sources isn't substantive enough — a person's high school or college yearbook, for example, counts for exactly nothing in the notability sweepstakes.) You can get away with fewer sources, even just one, if the person is being claimed to pass a subject-specific guideline such as NPOL or NMUSIC — but if you're making a generic GNG claim, you need to be able to demonstrate a greater volume of sourcing (even if they aren't all comprehensively cited yet, they have to be demonstrable) than has been shown here so far. Bearcat ( talk) 21:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Indeed, the coverage in any of these sources is far from satisfactory. (Only one to two short paragraphs long and rather WP:routine) But given the quantity of sources and the fact that most coverage will be offline, I !vote weak keep.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 04:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • If Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Canada means regular, fulltime diplomat then Keep as he was a diplomat active during a time when newspaper coverage isn't getting digitised and he would have been covered in Canadian and Indonesian papers. If it means part-time diplomat or honourary representative or something, then delete, since these people recieve a lot less coverage. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:13, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Vast Countenance

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

The notability of this band is not established by the source references, most of which are (semi) self-published. The band has no songs in the album charts and anyone can release an album at the CD Baby label. When one of their songs was recently played on Dutch national radio, the DJ announced to his listeners that it is unlikely that they know the band, but that they might have seen a Facebook post of one the band members, who died in the crash of MH-17. – Editør ( talk) 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

In other words, the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. – Editør ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Has independent reviews. Mentioned in Huff Po, for unusual reasons. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The Huffington Post article does not mention the band. The sources mention reviews in Noordhollands Dagblad and OOR, but Last.fm and NHPopLife.nl are not independent reliable sources. There is no direct reference to the actual reviews. I can't establish the independence or reliability of Podium Info. – Editør ( talk) 22:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The OOR review is online [2]. The other is reproduced on their website along with other coverage & is dated [NOORD-HOLLANDS DAGBLAD (11-04-2011)], thus is verifiable. [3] 78.19.26.160 ( talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - First on what is said in the nomination above:

  • Except for the discography, there is not one single self published source that I have used. So that statement is incorrect. "Semi self published" is newly invented anyway and in fact even a contradictio in terminis; e.g. one cannot be a little bit pregnant either. Today I will take some reviews that are reproduced on their website though, to improve the article somewhat, thanks to the hint of user 78.19.26.160. There is no reason to doubt these reproductions.
  • Another incorrect statement is on CD Baby, which is a distributor for "independent musicians", not a label where any, even inferior musician can release whatever he likes. In the current era (we live in 2014, not in the Sixties) musicians are more and more releasing independently. As do musicians like Tiësto, Harry Sacksioni, etc. since about a decade, but it yet began earlier, like was the case with The Cats (yet started self-releasing as from 1983), The Rolling Stones (first time in 1971), and even J. K. Rowling's e-books of Harry Potter are self-published. Of course there are thousands of musicians more to name. So the way music is released tells us nothing on the notability of a musician.
  • The referral to the DJ (Giel Beelen) is not a valid argument either, since he admits that he didn't know them himself. This is not so strange for him, because he is acquainted with progressive music and not so much with styles from the Sixties.

There are better arguments in valuing the notability of Vast Countenance. The band is indeed not comparable to a famous act like The Rolling Stones. Nevertheless, it surely has received serious, positive reviews, and its music is distinctive from other bands.

Arguments that are relevant, and plead for Vast Countenance - especially when one regards the sum of it - are:

  • Vast Countenance composes and writes its own songs in a distinctive music style, which is meanwhile being defined as Rock 'n' Folk.
  • They have performed internationally (in The Netherlands and in the US).
  • Music has been released internationally (in The Netherlands, the US and Japan).
  • Ten songs of them reached The Volendammer Top 1000 [4], an all time list that was compiled in 2013 by the listeners of 17 regional radio- and television stations (music of Volendam is the subject here, because the village is a main centre of music performance in the Netherlands).
  • Their performances were transmitted on TV: national (on MAX [5]) and many regional stations (yet the Volendammer Top 1000 alone was aired by the participating stations, next to that I found a performance in the program L.O.V.E. Akoestiek over here).
  • Reviews out of the music profession:
    • Review in OOR (2006): "From the region of Waterland surprisingly Dutch talent comes sailing along ... 'We're all jugglers juggling with, the endless possibilities of life' is just one of the simple, but pretty formed sentences on the album. The pliant, sunny melodies and beautiful part-sung choirs link up seamlessly with the texts. Extra little points deserve the strong choruses, unexpected transitions and the special singing. Pop as pop is meant to be," [6]
    • There were two interviews in 1WayWind The Magazine: No. 15 (Febr. 2007) and No. 22 (June 2009) [7] 1WayWind is a specialized music magazine - the writers Johan Tol and Michel Veerman were in 2006 the winners of the public prize of the Best Pop Book in the Last Thirty Years [8], organized by OOR and the National Pop Institute.
    • Review in LiveXS (2007): "... allready praised before by LiveXS because of their musical performances ... a fresh sounding melody machine ... the more than excellent [song] Trumpet Slide." [9].
    • Review in Festival Info (2011): "The pleasing mix of Folk and Rock is capable to hold your attention." [10]
    • Review in Podium Info (2011), "very strong guitar rhythm" [11]
  • Review in the newspaper Noord Hollands Dagblad (2011): "One by one strong songs ... ‘Not a bad moment’ is world class ... inimitable melody lines ... really brilliant." [12].
  • After the plane crash above the Ukraine, the drummer Cor Schilder (Pan) was killed. Because of his Facebook photo of the plane with the text "Might it disappear, this is how it looks like", he as well as his membership of Vast Countenance became world news ( 2,800+ hits in Google News), with mentions in: Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post, Times of India (among many others, just to name a few in English language). As a result, people want to be informed on Wikipedia too on this music group. Now and in the future when that Wikipedia article is read.

The conclusion of all these arguments should be that this band is notable and its article should be kept on Wikipedia. Ymnes ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

There are clear guidelines for the notability of bands: Wikipedia:Notability (music). A link to these guidelines can also be found at the top of the article and in a previous comment in this nomination. Many of the sources referenced in the article are published by the band itself, by an organization that is not independent from the band, or can be published by anyone. The band fails criterion 2 to 9, and 11. Your comments suggest that the article could be improved to show that the band passes criterion 1, 10 and 12, in which case the article should clearly not be deleted. However, if the article isn't or cannot be improved, the article should be deleted. – Editør ( talk) 19:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
And please don't reference copies of reviews/articles that are published by the band itself, but use references to the original reviews/articles. – Editør ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I would like you to be more specific (with specified arguments) as I did. Actually it's just a general talk you gave. If some criteria aren't met (the numbers you give), it doesn't mean that others are not met. With some I even disagree, others are far from specifically understandable (only statements, no content). And there's more Wikipedia:Notability than Wikipedia:Notability (music) alone, I have been very careful in explaining so. Another thing, just a side way: if it is only that the links to citations on their website are concerned, one can see that OOG is cited literally there, and I don't distrust the other citations therefore. Might this be the problem, discarding such content would not undermine this article, because it still remains notable (I don't have these sources at home, so I can't link otherwise). Ymnes ( talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The citation to OOR was added after the article was nominated for deletion. Criterion 1 asks for "multiple, non-trivial, published works", so if you add another two or so direct references to such works, the article would pass this criterion and won't be deleted. These works don't even need to be available online, but should be uniquely described (author, title, date, publication) so in principle anyone could look them up. Note that policies at the Dutch and English Wikipedia concerning the referencing of articles are quite different. – Editør ( talk) 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I count 7 (so multiple) "non-trivial, published works": OOR, two interviews in 1WayWind, LiveXS, Podium Info, Festival Info and Noord Hollands Dagblad. I count all the other bullet points as well that I gave. If you cannot count the facts, please let an administrator make the decision on the basis of the arguments I gave. Ymnes ( talk) 07:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
P.S. Podium Info was yet mentioned as a source in the article, I have added it here under the bullet points as well now. Ymnes ( talk) 07:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Just add a specific reference to the article in Noordhollands Dagblad. Combined with the already specified reference to OOR this will presumably qualify as references to "multiple, non-trivial, published works". Although one more proper reference that is not just a link to a reproduced review on the band's website would be preferable. – Editør ( talk) 09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I yet gave enough unmistakably good references. Ymnes ( talk) 10:06, 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, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Fusion Beat (American Band)

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

Article, relying exclusively on primary sources that cannot confer notability, about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Delete unless a much better written and sourced article can be written about them than this. Bearcat ( talk) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 21 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) 22:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 23:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Paddy Chambers

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

No individual notability established. Just a band member. Subject fails WP:MUSBIO. Egghead06 ( talk) 21:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Please read WP:BEFORE. AfD nominations with no effort made beforehand to establish notability waste other editors' time. -- Michig ( talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Your assertion that no search has been made is incorrect. I have and this subject fails GNG. As per WP:DISCUSSAFD, if you believe the subject merits an article please add the references you believe verify notability and the passing of WP:MUSBIO. Even reading the Guardian obit, it talks little about Chambers and mentions his membership of non notable groups. Please explain what he (the individual, not his groups) was actually notable for.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 05:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Nothing there to show he was a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". These are just a series of name checks. Like I said in the nomination, just a band member with no individual notability. As per WP:GNG -"significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" -- Egghead06 ( talk) 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The bands are notable - in what way do you feel being guitarist/singer in those bands does not constitute prominent membership? -- Michig ( talk) 09:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
How do the name checks you found constitute significant coverage or convey any degree of "Prominent" membership?-- Egghead06 ( talk) 09:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The "reasonably prominent member" part is there to exclude people who may have joined a band briefly or during a period when the band was not at its peak. When a band only had three or four full time members in it's entire history, all of those members are "reasonably prominent". We don't require significant coverage to "convey" prominence of such membership. -- Michig ( talk) 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
His membership of the Big Three lasted a whole 5 months and did not coincide with their only chart success (number 37). He is either not mentioned in the articles on the other bands or there is just no article on them at all! Your claim that we don't need significant coverage is wrong. We should always have it present.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 10:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Absence of articles on Wikipedia and/or deficiencies in those articles do not equate to a lack of notability, but I suspect you know this. He was a prominent member of The Eyes and Paddy, Klaus and Gibson, which received sufficient significant coverage to be notable (e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24]), and the Guardian obit. is significant coverage of Chambers. If we had an article on Paddy, Klaus, and Gibson then a merge there may be appropriate but we don't yet. -- Michig ( talk) 10:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
So in summary , he was a member of several bands, which only existed for a short time, had zero hits. His contribution indicating notability within these bands amounts to a series of name checks and in the years of Wiki the notability of these so-called significant groups is so slight no one has been bothered to put together an article on them. The life of these bands was short. Straws are being clutched!-- Egghead06 ( talk) 11:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
In summary, he was a significant member of several bands, some of which are notable by Wikipedia standards and received significant coverage, and he was considered notable enough by a major national newspaper to publish a substantial obituary. We can verify all of this via reliable sources. These are policy and guideline-based arguments, yours are not. I suggest you stop wasting time here and go and improve the encyclopedia in some way, which is what I intend to do. -- Michig ( talk) 11:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
A series of name checks does not constitute significant coverage. HTH in your article development.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 11:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 13 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, § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Based on the information set forth in the article, does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO.-- Rpclod ( talk) 05:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. There are no refs in this article. The ones User Michig has found and listed above appear to be trivial mentions, without a reliable and in depth source there is no place for this article. Szzuk ( talk) 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – The obituaries in The Guardian and in The Independent (Spencer, Leigh (4 October 2000). "Obituary: Paddy Chambers", The Independent [London (UK)], p. 6.) can be the basis for a reasonably policy-compliant article. Michig's sources provide some additional evidence of notability. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 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) 22:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2010 Vatican employee sex scandal

2010 Vatican employee sex scandal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RS do not confirm that the acts were committed in Vatican City. These are two people who also worked in Vatican City. Sort of like saying that two people from the United States had sex in Granada and including the item in "Sex in the United States", groping (as it were) desperately for some connection between the two. There is no connection with the Vatican, except that the two occasionally volunteered there. Great headline on slow news day. Lousy encyclopedia material. Having said that, was there ever "Prostitution in the Vatican?" Well, if you go back far enough, there was. But this is hardly it. Student7 ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

No, but the scandal involved the Vatican and two people who worked in it, so 2010 Vatican sex scandal is a perfectly appropriate title, or 2010 Vatican gay prostitution scandal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Agree that it fails WP:COAT and WP:RS
  • Strong keep @ Bearian:, @ Jersey92: and @ United States Man:, I strongly suggest you read up on what constitutes WP:GNG and what sources and content is acceptable on wikipedia. Frankly it is worrying that not one of you spotted that the content was acceptable and contains multiple top newspaper sources but was simply under the wrong title. The 2010 Vatican sex scandal was highly publicized and a notable scandal. There's plenty of reliable sources to prove this is the case. Let's not censor the RC church and wikipedia from covering it, as I can't think of any other valid reason why you'd want to delete it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Of course there are reliable sources, people just haven't bothered to look for them. in the four "delete" votes so far, I've not seen anything from WP:DEL-REASON to justify getting rid of the article. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT just isn't strong enough grounds for deletion. - SchroCat ( talk) 06:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Wikipedia is not censored, and as per SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld there are numerous and reliable sources for this article. This was also major news at the time, so this article will always stay notable. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 09:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable. The title was poorly chosen, but that is not a reason for deletion and has been fixed. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per sources provided. -- KRIMUK90  ✉ 13:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep There are multiple reliable and independent sources regarding the scandal.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 14:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep under its new title. The former title was indeed poorly chosen. Negative comments above were probably based largely on that inaccurate choice. With the new more precise title, it no longer fails WP:COAT. Esoglou ( talk) 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources provided above. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This article suffers several content issues that it cannot be accepted in its current form. The "Background" section strongly borders on original research/synthesis, as it suggests a connection between this particular scandal and the sexual abuse of minors. This connection is unsubstantiated by references, even though individual facts are adequately cited. The incident would otherwise appear isolated, and suggesting larger connections without sufficient documentation is inappropriate. As for the extensive quotes from the Catechism, these seem unnecessary. Of course the Vatican teaches that prostitution is immoral, this barely needs stating. Including the teachings regarding homosexuality are a bit more relevant, as this attitude is rapidly becoming less common. However, the extensive quoting, would seem to be an attempt to spin this as hypocrisy on the church's part, making this a "gotcha" article. It is more the case that the church has detailed teaching regarding appropriate behavior, such that individual violators, such as the ushers involved in the story, can be appropriately disciplined.
I would strongly recommend the "background" section be removed, with at most much shorter quote from the catechism regarding prostitution/homosexuality, in the interest of neutrality and reliable sourcing. Significant copy editing for the remainder is also required to make clear who the actors are, and their role in the Vatican. I might also suggest considering a more precise name for the article, as there are several competing sexual scandals involving the Vatican. Only if these content issues can be addressed would I support a Keep. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • After making several of these edits myself, I recommend Speedy Keep. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: After reviewing the history of the article, it clearly had serious issues that would have warranted deletion. These issues do not apply any more; the scope of the article has considerably narrowed from a blathering about the Vatican allegedly employing thousands of prostitutes down to a very narrow, indisputable incident. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Second comment: As the page's scope has considerable narrowed, perhaps the pages that link to it should be reconsidered. It was previously part of a series of "Prostitution in Country X" articles, and linked to directly from articles in the series. As it is no longer a "mid-importance" part of this series, inbound links should be reconsidered. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The reason is that the incident would not be notable if they hadn't been employed by the Vatican; choristers by any stretch are employed, and the other was a former "senior adviser". Their actions do reflect upon there employer, and it would be dishonest to claim otherwise. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Follow Up: Even the most neutral Atheist expects employees at the Vatican to not run prostitution rings. Similarly, everyone expects Little League coaches to not be thieves. That such individuals, held in position of public trust, commit crimes anyways hurts the organizations they are associated with. The violation of public trust is notable, and places the public on notice about the organization. How the organization responds is thus telling of the organization's values. Does it react with genuine surprise and openness to accountability and swift discipline, or with evasiveness and excuses? If Little League, for instance, allowed embezzling coaches to remain without expressing some profound mitigating circumstances, it would implicitly endorse criminal behavior, and parents ought to take note. Likewise in this article, the inner mind of the Vatican is ever so slightly exposed to the world, as the individual were removed from employment and the Vatican's motives for doing so were discussed. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Prostitution in Vatican City (or a variant) might still be a viable article in its own right, if it were carefully written to provide a portal to both historic prostitution associated with the Papal States, as well as the handful of contemporary incidents in the modern city-state. Very careful attention would have to spent to avoid undue weight to minor incidents in such a mid-level importance article. The work of the closely related Holy See and other church sectors addressing sex work might also be briefly discussed. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:54, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Canadian Home Builders' Association

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

Advertising and no indication of significance. Thanks, Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, building a good article here will be difficult because as, what appears to be, an extremely commercial and smarmy organization, coverage of the CHBA is tainted and almost defined by their self-promotion (I myself came here to this AfD following the editing of User:Lizleung who I suspect is a paid editor, or at least has some serious WP:COI issues), but I do think that the CHBA is notable. For example, Google Books finds 2.5k mentions. Google News finds 45 mentions in the last month. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A quick Google news search turns up plenty of recent coverage of this organization. The article itself isn't great, but it's not promotional so I see no reason to delete it. Tchaliburton ( talk) 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per above. This is a lobby group and the coverage needs to reflect that, but there is a lots of new coverage, both of political activism on behalf of the industry and of the 'home of the year' competitions. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This seems to be the primary national association of general contractors for residential construction in Canada, listing presidents back to 1943. Primarily a lobbying organization, it seems from a spin around the internets, with numerous provincial and local level chapters. THIS from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix details the election of a Saskatoon builder as head of the organization in 2011 and covers the organization in some substantial detail, noting the membership of 8,000 firms in the organization. THIS details a partnership between Lethbridge College and the CHBA. Both a significant and long-lived professional organization and one which passes GNG, in my estimation. Carrite ( talk) 18:06, 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. Tone 07:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Winx Club (season 7)

Winx Club (season 7) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is wholly unsourced, advertising, and a future event. WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:CRYSTAL. Nominating for deletion. Thanks, Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The two links in the main Winx Club article 'sourcing' this are either behind a paywall (or wool-pulling attempting to make us think there's an actual story behind the paywall), and a translated Italian story which is outright cheerleading PR that doesn't describe the seven season at all. Not to mention this is Nickelodeon we're talking about; they're ordering a lot of programs that may never air or exist to fill time on little-watched sister networks. No neutral sourcing to be found, no article should be here. Nate • ( chatter) 03:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – No neutral sourcing to be found, and this may not even occur. United States Man ( talk) 03:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Larry Hartsell

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

Unsourced biography. Fails WP:MANOTE. His books don't allow him to meet WP:AUTHOR. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Matouš Kohout

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

Non notable kickboxer. Fails WP:KICK. Amateur success (IFMA) does not show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Robert Brutus Beal

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

Non notable martial artist. Fails WP:NMMA. Notability is not achieved simply by having famous instructors or by creating your own style and making yourself a 10th dan. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Zaurs Dzavadovs

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

Non-notable kickboxer who fails WP:KICK. Amateur titles like IFMA do not show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

James Daley (journalist)

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a journalist. I am unable to find sufficient reliable sources about the subject to establish WP:BASIC notability. - Mr X 19:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

There are now seven references not written by the author. At the bottom of the Telegraph article, there is a two line biography. The Which? Conversation website includes a brief biography, as does the Centre for the Modern Family page. There is also a potted biography and links to his work on Who Comments? Finally, there are references to videos on the BBC website, and there are also clips from Watchdog and BBC News on the Fairer Finance website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairerjames ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Tom Gilb

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

No indication of notability, not a single reliable source that covers Gilb in any detail. Nothing useful found via Google. Huon ( talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11 speedy, can confirm account is only here to promote the establishment using misleading sources. Secret account 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Red Door Casino

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

Fails WP:GNG. This "casino" is nothing more than one of Ohio's 800 internet gambling parlors. The main reliable sources cover only the closure of the casino by authorities, which does not rise to WP:EVENT. Other sources discuss the lawsuit by the tribe that owns the casino, but mention the casino only in passing. Article is written by an WP:SPA who appears to be here to promote the casino. Toohool ( talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) -- Finngall talk 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Jaap van Reesema

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable references. Laun chba ller 17:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep I have now added a number of reliable references two from De Telegraaf no less, one of the biggest press media in the Netherlands. I have also added a number of charting positions for Jaap van Reesema including a number one hit single for him that topped the Dutch Single Top 100. Please refer to the improvements. By the way, it has become an accepted procedure now that X Factor winners in any country would get an article. Jaap van Reesema is such a winner, for season 3 in his country. werldwayd ( talk) 20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm surprised you haven't noticed that notability is not the only reason I send articles to AfD. Withdrawn.-- Laun chba ller 20:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Well sometimes deletion notices do serve a very good purpose regardless of the reason for the request. It is just one more challenge and good opportunity to revisit the article, provide far better coverage of the artist and present a better structured article to the reader. werldwayd ( talk) 20:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Frank Sinatra and His Friends Want You to Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

Frank Sinatra and His Friends Want You to Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album does not appear to be notable; it is simply a compilation of Christmas songs. Unable to find suitable references other than music-selling websites. Primefac ( talk) 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

While I know it's a verified Sinatra album, WP:NALBUM seems to imply that a recording shouldn't be included simply because someone notable produced it. There's nothing wrong with listing it in his discography (which it currently isn't), it just seems like there's no reason to have a full article on it. I have been informed in the past that albums without notability should not be included on wikipedia (granted that was about three years ago, but I doubt the policies have changed much).
Of course, if I'm completely off-base, let me know. I would rather learn something new than proceed in ignorance. Primefac ( talk) 20:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - NN album. Exactly one college library has the CD. I verified it exists, but can't find any reviews in newspapers. It looks like a novelty give-away type of record. Bearian ( talk) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Here is a brief review from the 2 December 1963 Glasgow Herald. [26] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nominator has Withdrawn and there are no votes for delete. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The Mailbox (film)

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

Frankly I have some doubts this proselytizing short film has some enciclopedical merit. Cleaned up of false positives, Google book turns 0 results, and nothing relevant appears to be in Google as well. The article itself does not assert any claim of notability. Cavarrone 16:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 00:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Seth Hall

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

Similar reasons to Rpclod's nomination for his twin brother. If sole source is YouTube, then this is essentially an unsourced BLP, if there are no valid sources for Bruce Hall, then there are none for Seth too. I do know his famous Underhill photographs, but being in a famous image is not in itself sufficient for notability. The role on Passions doesn't seem sufficent as it was one of the minor Passions characters despite it being an interesting note that one succeeded the other twin in a role. I don't see anything particularly compelling to show that either Hall twin is notable enough to be on Wikipedia - loads of drooling blogs, as per usual for any hottie (male or female), but that's it. Mabalu ( talk) 15:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The only reference is a YouTube video that is no longer available because the user account has been deleted. Even if the YouTube video remained, it would be unlikely to qualify as an authoritative reference. Per WP:YOUTUBE: "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked." Per WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. *** In general, unless the video is not clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it."-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

YSG Entertainment

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

Articles fails WP:GNG. A google search doesn't yield anything positive. The record label was only mentioned in the news when they got a court injunction against their former artist Vector. Versace1608 (Talk) 14:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 00:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Michelle Madoff

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

Biography of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. While this article does cite some sources, neither the volume of footnoting nor the geographic range of the sources (two local newspapers in her own city) are enough to get her past WP:GNG — and the substance of what they're supporting doesn't constitute a credible reason why she would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international readership. If this were Pittsburghpedia, I'd be all for it — but for a worldwide audience, we need stronger evidence of notability beyond Pittsburgh alone. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 04:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pittsburgh is not big enough for city council members to have notability by default. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The references currently in the article are probably just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and Google turns up plenty more similar news stories and obituaries. I'm not sure where the idea that GNG requires national or international significance comes from – if you think we shouldn't have articles on people with only local significance that's fair enough, but it's not (to the best of my knowledge) supported by any policy, guideline or consensus. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
GNG requires, at minimum, more coverage than this. Most of the articles are not about her as such, but merely mention her name in passing — which means that the volume of sourcing cited here fails the substantive coverage test. And yes, we do actually require some evidence of notability beyond the bounds of the purely local, which is why for example we exclude most city councillors from WP:POLITICIAN unless they somehow become notable to a wider range of readers and not just residents of one single city. It's not entirely impossible for a person of purely local notability to get past our notability gates, no — but we do set the standards for local notability quite high, because we simply don't have the human resources necessary to properly monitor thousands upon thousands of articles about local city councillors, fire chiefs, police chiefs and the like for WP:BLP compliance. Bearcat ( talk) 21:38, 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 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't agree that what's in the article isn't enough for GNG, but it doesn't really matter because notability's not just about the sources currently in the article. In the first page of Google results we have three substantial obituaries: Post-Gazette, Tribune-Review and Jewish Chronicle – obviously not passing mentions. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say anything about "a wider range of readers"; for local politicians all it asks for "significant press coverage". Again, if you think we ought to ask for coverage beyond local sources then that's totally reasonable and understandable, but it's not the guideline. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 00:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Oops, you're right, thanks, I almost made off with the wrong Madoff, struck it out, so I added another in-depth source on hopefully the right one. :).-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. People known only for membership of city councils don't usually warrant WP articles, and I don't see any real exception to be made here. Don't think the obits are strong enough, as they seem to focus on the asthma/local battle against air pollution that marked her time on the council. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment; I don't believe city council membership is sufficient to sufficient to establish notability, but I've lost that discussion before, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Khamis, the article was kept even though the individual has no basis for notability other than serving as a San Jose council member. On the other hand, San Jose is about 3 times the size of Pittsburgh, and is the tenth-largest city in the US, compared to Pittsburgh, the 62nd. TJRC ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm satisfied that the existing sources and the ones listed here by Tomwsulcer meet sufficient coverage to establish notability. Tiller54 ( talk) 12:41, 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 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Dangerous demos

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

Not enough reliable coverage for this competition. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Just for clarification in reply to Zellfaze, all of the Dangerous Demos shows mentioned in this article are run by the same people. The show is simply nomadic in from where it is broadcasted and the 'Up-gunned version' is referring to simply changing the format of the show, not a different person taking the show and copying it and putting their own spin on things. -- User:Alexandertagg — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 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. Deor ( talk) 11:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

National Express Coach route 040

National Express Coach route 040 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Buscruft that belongs on Wikia or similar, Most of these articles hardly have any information other than a "frequency table",
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG and to some extent WP:NOTGUIDE, – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm also nominating:
National Express Coach route 060
National Express Coach route 280
National Express Coach route 444
National Express Coach route 561
National Express Coach route 564
National Express Coach route 592
– Davey2010 • (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was revert to the version about the footballer. I'll add the article to my watchlist and try to keep an eye on it. Deor ( talk) 11:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Billy Law

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

Television reality cook who failed to score a place in the series. Subsequent work is not notable. Only sources are self-published or relate to the unsuccessful TV appearance. WWGB ( talk) 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 14:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Dragon and Soldier

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. RadioFan ( talk) 00:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 14 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  ♔ 03:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the reference list has been expanded and should now meet WP:GNG standards. There was also a review in School Library Journal, but I don't have a copy, and it is no longer online. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:40, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mojo Hand ( talk) 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Alistair hanna

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

This person lacks WP:Notability. Three sources are given, but one is Tweeter (not reliable), other two do not have wp:significant coverage. Searching Google for him in connection with his company returns few hits. mostly social networks [27]. Vanjagenije ( talk) 13:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 13 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) 13:46, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Miss Universe 2015

Miss Universe 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unconfirmed event, too early for we don't even know if the Miss Universe 2014 pageant will be held. GrayFullbuster ( talk) 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2003 Van Nuys Courthouse Shooting

2003 Van Nuys Courthouse Shooting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but a case of WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of long term notability Gbawden ( talk) 11:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The Cinema

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

Completely unsourced article about a band which makes no substantive claim of passing WP:NMUSIC — as written it just asserts that the band exists, and then fails to explain why an encyclopedia should care that they exist. It's certainly possible that they might qualify for a better written and properly sourced article, but they aren't entitled to keep this. Delete. Note also their album My Blood Is Full of Airplanes, which will also need to be speedied A9 if this goes; band member Matt Malpass will get a separate AFD discussion since his separate article presents slightly different issues. Bearcat ( talk) 02:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Tjipikita Hipondoka

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

This person lacks notability. No sources are cited. Google search retuns no hits [28]. Vanjagenije ( talk) 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:57, 13 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 02:45, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

A Sectioned Beam

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

Article about an EP. The only sources I could find was the one in the article, which fails WP:RS, and two short blubs in Spin magazine. The EP is not a subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus it fails WP:NALBUMS (and WP:GNG). I propose that the title be redirected to the artist article. - Mr X 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 13 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 02:37, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Donald Upton, Jr.

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, lets make a decision either way. A google search for donald upton fairfield index returns very little. I believe he fails GNG Gbawden ( talk) 10:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to draft space, now present at Draft:Linguistic Survey of Tirwa. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Linguistic Survey of Tirwa

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, delete. There are no references to verify the content or establish notability. Although three items are listed in the references section, two are simply external links to an organization that (presumably) funded the project and a newspaper that (presumably) said something about it at the time it happened, but with no titles or other information, that can't be verified. The other reference at least includes a title, but a web search for that title as written finds only this Wikipedia article. Maybe someone who reads Hindi could search for the item using other likely terms, but that seems like an awfully big burden for some rescue-squad type. Even then, one source would probably not satisfy WP:GNG. Cnilep ( talk) 02:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Published in Hindustan Newspaper
News about this article was published in Kanpur edition of the Hindustan Newspaper on 24th jan 2012 I am uploading an screenshot of the news and adding it to the main article. Thanks
  1. SatyamSats ContactMe-- Satyam 'Sats' ( talk) 11:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Preceding message was left at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Linguistic Survey of Tirwa; copied here by Cnilep ( talk) 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC). reply

I have collected some more references to the other newspaper articles-

  • "अंग्रेजी भाषा के सुधार हेतु जुटाएंगे आंकड़े" [Data will be collected for improvement in English Education]. हिन्दुस्तान. Kanpur: Hindustan Dainik. Hindustan Times. 2012-01-24.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा की परिकल्पना" [The concept of the linguistic survey of tirwa]. Dainik Jagran. Kannauj. Dainik Jagran. 2012-01-24.
  • "सर्वेक्षण की रूप रेखा एवं दिशा निर्देश के लिए कार्यकर्ताओं की सभा" [A meeting organized for training volunteers and deciding objects]. हिन्दुस्तान. Kanpur: Hindustan Dainik. Hindustan Times. 2012-01-25.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का प्रथम दिन" [First Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-29.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का पहला दिन सभी शैक्षिक संस्थानों के लिए" [All educational institutes will be surveyed on the First Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-29.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का दूसरा दिन" [Second Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-30.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का लोगों द्वारा समर्थन" [People supporting Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Aj. Kannauj: Aj. Aj. 2012-01-30.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का तीसरा दिन" [Third Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-31.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा परिणाम एवं निष्कर्ष" [Linguistic Survey of Tirwa- Results and decisions]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-29.

These papers have more than 39 million readers in India. Further I can produce you the documents signed by the Head Dept. of Linguistics BHU for organizing the survey. Documents for Pre and Post Seminar; Permission and LOA for survey by Chairman Tirwa. I think that is enough for notablity.

This is the second Linguistic Survey after Linguistic Survey of India done by George Abraham Grierson, in India so I think it should be here.-- Satyam 'Sats' ( talk) 08:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

United States Air Force Web Posting Response

United States Air Force Web Posting Response (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this fails WP:NOTHOW How US Airmen reply to blogs is an internal USAF function and not something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia An orphan article, nothing reaches here anyway Gbawden ( talk) 09:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Fahad Nasib Bamasila

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:45, 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. (I know nothing about soccer stats, but it seems to me that the page cited by Alhosniomani20 indicates that this person did not appear in the game but was merely an unused substitute. Not that that affects the outcome of this AfD.) Deor ( talk) 11:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Faraj

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2013/10/15/asia/asian-cup-qualification/jordan/oman/1401872/
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:45, 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. Deor ( talk) 12:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Zaki Al-Saadi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/02/02/asia/afc-champions-league/al-suwaiq/al-qadsia-sc/1605877/
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:42, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yahya Al-Dughaishi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:43, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Assad Al-Busaidi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 29 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) 06:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Player plays for Al-Suwaiq Club in Oman Professional league in Oman which is in its second season now. There is a fully professional league in Oman and Oman gets one AFC Champions League play-off place. I live in the country he plays in last season he was injured and was substitute in few AFC Cup matches which is the second biggest club football competition in Asia, There are many Arabic sources which can prove that but Wikipedia doesn't accept them. Alhosniomani20 ( talk) 10:50, 2 August 2014 (MCT)
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:46, 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. Deor ( talk) 12:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Cory Underwood

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

I believe he fails WP:NBASKETBALL. He isn't in one of the leagues mentioned under point 1 and he hasn't won an award in the NDL under point 3 Gbawden ( talk) 09:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This will confirm that the subject did play several seasons in the NBA Developmental League, but not the NBA itself: see here. Absent a major award in the D-League, the subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NBASKETBALL. I have not yet had an opportunity to do the due diligence to see if the subject might have the required depth of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. As it stands right now, the article is also a giant BLP violation with no sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable small college and minor league basketball player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH (no major college awards) or WP:NBASKETBALL (never played a regular season game in the NBA or other top-tier league). Subject was briefly on the training camp roster of the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers before being delegated to the NBA's D-League. Therefore, subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG to qualify for inclusion. I have just reviewed 240+ articles from a Google search, and I find the typical WP:ROUTINE mentions in post-game coverage for high school and college game, trade, signing and waiver one-liners, fansites, team pages, blogs, etc. The closest thing to "significant" coverage were a couple of one-paragraph stories when he signed with minor league teams posted by OurSportsCentral.com, a website dedicated to minor league sports, which often prints team press releases. On balance, subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and fails WP:GNG as a result. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 07:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails both WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' fails notability guidelines for basketball players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep played in the Chinese Basketball Association (see [29]). Judgement call if that qualifies as "a similar major professional sports league" for prong 1 of WP:NHOOPS. To me it does qualify considering the caliber of players that have come out of the CBA. Since I think the presumption stands, unless otherwise shown I say keep. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Basically an unsourced BLP about a player who fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Jakejr ( talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - didn't garner a significant level of coverage to constitute GNG in either college or in the D-League (neither brings an assumption of notability on its own). The question about the Chinese Basketball Association (is it a "comparable league" to the top leagues in Italy and Spain?) is a reasonable one to ask. Personally, based on my experience and knowledge of international basketball, I wouldn't say China quite rises to that level (though stars there certainly tend to meet GNG). According to his FIBA profile, Underwood only played 5 games (over 16 days) with the Dongguan Leopards of the CBA. That is a short stint that I don't think should be taken as an assurance he meets GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 20:38, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Al-Muhannad Al-Balushi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Mahmood Al-Hasani

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:45, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Bassam Al-Rawahi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:46, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Salah Al-Siyabi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:44, 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. Even if we don't apply WP:FPL as suggested by Hmlarson, there is no evidence either that GNG is met. Randykitty ( talk) 17:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Al-Hattali

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - please see WP:FPL, there is no consensus that any team in Oman plays in a fully professional league. We don't keep player articles on the grounds that a league "might" be fully professional, only if reliable sources can be provided to indicate that it is. Fenix down ( talk) 16:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WP:FPL is an essay, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:GNG would be more applicable here with resources most likely found in native country/region. Correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt there's anyone here commenting that lives there or speaks/reads Arabic. Two other essays for your review and consideration: WP:WORLDVIEW, WP:IMBALANCE. Hmlarson ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • and one for you WP:CONSENSUS, hundreds and hundreds of AfD results have created the consensus that if a player has never played in an agreed upon FPL or senior international football then they have to have done something pretty special. It would be more helpful if rather than flinging around essays you took the time to explain how the player meets GNG in order to support your keep vote. Simply saying keep because there might be sources out there is insufficient. there might be, but if there is no one to read them and cite them then notability cannot by definition be asserted. Fenix down ( talk) 17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Refs I added some additional references from the region. It also appears as if he may play beach soccer for the national team. 1 Perhaps original author @ Alhosniomani20 could confirm and add additional references, if so. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Hmlarson ( talk) 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Player plays for Fanja SC in Oman Professional league in Oman which is in its second season now. There is a fully professional league in Oman and Oman gets one AFC Champions League play-off place. Also the player has played games in AFC Cup. The second biggest club football competition in Asia. Isn't that enough. Alhosniomani20 ( talk) 10:40, 2 August 2014 (MCT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Arif Al-Balushi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:46, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Salem Al-Shamsi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:44, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Sunil Padwal

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

Article written in a way that seems to be inclined towards promotion . The subject seems to be mentioned in many newspapers and magazines , although mostly either in interviews or as a passing mention. No notable achievements can be noticed apart from news about the subject exhibiting his works in and outside India. -- SaHiL ( talk) 07:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SaHiL ( talk) 07:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - significant amounts were copy-pasted from online gallery bios, so I've removed these promotional paragraphs. He won awards in the 1990s, though I'm not in a position to decide whether they were important awards - they seem to be awards for up-and-coming artists, so maybe he hasn't 'come' yet? Sionk ( talk) 08:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - I agree the article wasn't good, but Padwal's work (particularly his 2008 Mumbai solo show) had multiple lengthy reviews. His other exhibitions have had some coverage, though several (as the nominator says) are mainly interview format. Meets the very minimum for WP:ARTIST and I suspect (though I haven't been able to do an in-depth search) he may be one of India's more notable contemporary artists. Sionk ( talk) 09:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    Comment - I agree that the article just barely manages to touch base at WP:ARTIST , in which case the article needs major rework.It still feels like an essay when i read it :D . It seems to have a biased point of view ; no neutrality - SaHiL ( talk) 10:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
That can be a problem with articles about artists. 'Art speak' can sound pretentious and promotional. I think it's okay in small doses if it is well sourced. Like you say, the article needs work to improve it. Sionk ( talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Jinsei

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

Fails WP:NBOOK.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 14:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer  (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I restored this close per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACD, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Let an administrator reopen this or go to WP:DRV if you disagree with the closing editor's analysis of the consensus. Also, WP:BRD is not a guideline or policy and is meant more for content additions/removals from articles. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

GamesRadar

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

This article is about a NN website and it relies almost entirely on primary sources.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 06:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh 666 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - searches on Books and Scholar show that GamesRadar is used commonly as a source itself in VG-related media (and is indeed considered a reliable source in Wikipedia itself), and as such meets WP:NMEDIA. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotaku for a similar case. Ansh 666 07:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article's subject has no established notability, which is required per WP:GNG. Many of the GBooks results appear to be copies of Wikipedia, and even ignoring that, brief citations without context or significant coverage do not establish notability for the subject. In comparison, the Kotaku AfD showed a significant amount of coverage in the press (meaning Kotaku itself, as opposed to brief snippets saying "Kotaku gave so-and-so 6/10" and saying nothing beyond that; Kotaku was significantly covered), whereas this article's subject is lacking that from what I can tell. All I was able to find were a bunch of social media sites for GamesRadar and forum posts discussing the site in detail, that's about it and that isn't sufficient to warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh ( talk) 07:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nominator. Indeed, the website is famous and reputabe but notability has nothing to do with fame.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar  ♔ 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The first one you linked from Highbeam is a copy of a press release, the second one from Bath Chronicle is puffed-up coverage from the parent company's local newspaper and is about the parent company not GamesRadar, the biz, and Shacknews, and Wired articles are all about a lawsuit, not the company/website, suggesting that the content those sources reflect should be mentioned at a more appropriate article such as Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, as otherwise the article would be about a lawsuit as opposed to the company. A company only noted in connection with a lawsuit doesn't warrant a standalone article any more than a person only notable for a single lawsuit should have their own article. - Aoidh ( talk) 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, maybe so. I guess I'll strike my vote, as you've put enough doubt in my mind that I don't feel comfortable voting to keep. I still think that I might be able to find better sources, but I'm unwilling to put in more than hour of scouring Google to prove notability for a website I've never visited. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think it is since the only thing reliable sources note about the website is the lawsuit, and the article is completely lacking in any mention of that, so there's nothing worth merging aside from maybe the first half of the lede, but that's really about it. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: A quick search shows quite a few sites mentioning it and/or using it as a source, FWIW. There's also a lot of Russian sites mentioning it, but I can't vouch one way or the other for those since I don't know Russian. Note:I'll be in and out, so I might not be able to respond to a comment. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Okay, I bit. A simple WP:VG/RS search for "-site:gamesradar.com -site:en.wikipedia.com gamesradar" shows many sources that discuss GamesRadar as a publishing entity in great detail:
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-debuts-26-mln-visitors/
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/gamesradar-names-new-uk-editor/05741
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/04/investigation_gamesradars_laun.php
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-opens-api/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-15-new-publisher-for-futures-cvg-and-gamesradar
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/01/19/never-alt-tab-again-with-the-free-gamesradar-cheats-and-guides-app/
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-releases-iphone-app/
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/revealed-the-biggest-uk-games-websites/0129973
http://www.wired.com/2007/12/texas-attorney/
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2007/12/07/texas_sues_gamesradar/1
http://www.vg247.com/2009/02/12/future-claims-10-million-game-site-users-per-month/
http://www.vg247.com/2008/08/14/future-claims-73-million-unique-users-on-games-sites-posts-abc-rises/
useful self-published sources: [38]
and so on
With this significant coverage, I say the topic meets the GNG. czar  ♔ 05:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
With 13 sources, that looks like a good bit of significant coverage until you actually analyze the sources. Edge Online is not an independent source, it's owned by GamesRadar's parent company. So is PCGamer. The gamesindustry.biz article is about a person who came to work for Future over two sites, one of which was GamesRadar. The article contains no significant or even trivial coverage of GamesRadar in any way. The vg247 pieces are about the parent company and part of its network, of which this site is only a part of. This is barely a mention. These two are about the lawsuit which would benefit an article about the lawsuit or COPPA, but not this website. So regarding sources which would contribute towards WP:GNG, we have sources for the lawsuit (which would suggest notability for COPPA if anything), and MCVUK, an industry paper that reports on all industry goings on to the point that their coverage is routine, especially given the intended audience which is not the general public but other members of the industry. Take those away and we're left with an editorial blog I'm not claiming that it being defunct means it's not a useful source, but nobody was reading the blog, which gives it a limited audience. But it's still a reliable source that shows notability in some way (though not a strong case for it). However, that's one source, the others are all either routine coverage, are about the lawsuit and can easily be covered elsewhere, or is content owned by the website's parent company and not an independent source. A single source isn't enough to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I can respond blow for blow, if you'd like, but it remains that all prongs of the GNG (sigcov in multiple, independent secondary sources) are still covered even in that draconian interpretation. Every one of those sources has been vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS, which includes GameSetWatch and Edge's independent coverage of another news outlet. There are more than enough sources to write an article about this topic. czar  ♔ 14:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
You are welcome to go to WP:RSN and have them explain to you why Edge and PCGamer are not independent coverage and thus fail to show notability per WP:GNG, which requires independent coverage. Two websites owned by the same company are not independent sources for one another, that's one of the most fundamental aspects of independent coverage; the two sites have a vested interest and do not write from a disinterested perspective. I didn't even have to know they were owned by the same company to see that, when I read the Edge source I thought it was a press release because of the overly promotional way it was written. Saying that "every one of those sources has been vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS" is critically missing the point; I didn't say Edge and PCGamer were not reliable, I said they were not independent. The other show insignificant coverage. Them being reliable is irrelevant. - Aoidh ( talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • See my talk page for the explanation. A single editor using primary sources as justification to keep an article and other editors simply saying "per this other editor" with no elaboration is not a clear keep rationale, especially as a NAC from an editor from the same WikiProject as all of those editors. Leave it to an administrator, please. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The sidelining and characterization of my list of sources as primary sources is wildly inaccurate and your prior reply was terribly condescending. It doesn't help to forward us to your talk page where you can claim there were no arguments from policy and belittle a non-admin closure without even an attempt at preemptive discussion before reverting. There is really no need to so recklessly alienate people with whom you disagree. czar  ♔ 01:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Given that you described my rationale as "draconian" and the tone of your own reply, complaining about my response to that as condescending is a little odd. NACs are done in very specific circumstances, this is not one of them, especially when done from an editor that is actively associated with the WikiProject members that argued to keep the article based on primary sourcing. That you don't see how two websites owned by the same company are not independent sources for one another is neither inaccurate nor condescending. Instead of accusing people of "alienating others" for pointing that out, you could have easily explained how they are independent sources, yet you did not do so. Instead of addressing the content, you choose to comment on me personally, when as you said, there is really no need. - Aoidh ( talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
It is technically against policy for a non-administrator to revert a NAC, but since few people know this, it really isn't inforced. Just FYI. Ansh 666 04:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Your close was inappropriate for the reasons explained you are welcome to disagree and discuss. - Aoidh ( talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
From WP:NACD: Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. (Emphasis mine.) And, it wasn't my close anyways. Ansh 666 18:13, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer  (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ryōta Ōsaka

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 03:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
That isn't true. The article contains two citations, each of which verifies one of his roles. Those roles are as the primary protagonists in two notable TV series, so those citations alone would be enough to verify that he meets WP:NACTOR #1. Calathan ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

A Cheerful Gang Turns the Earth

A Cheerful Gang Turns the Earth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 陽気なギャングが地球を回す

Non-notable film.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 01:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 SK#1, withdrawn by nominator. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

AfDs for this article:

Kamisama Kazoku

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

Non-notable anime series.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics_and_animation-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 06:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Rosh Hashanah Terror Tunnel Plot

2014 Rosh Hashanah Terror Tunnel Plot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This story has only one original source: anonymous statements in a Maariv article. All other articles referring to this story refer back to the Maariv article. It has not been picked up in any other mainstream Israeli media outlet, and no IDF or other official Israeli source has publicly acknowledged a Rosh Hashanah plot.

With one (weak) source, this is essentially WP:NOTNEWS unless it can be better verified. Jprg1966  (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. For reasons above, but also because this is a speculative story about a hypothetical future event spu out in the midst of a war that involves propaganda from both sides. The tunnels, according to the latest Israeli intelligence assessments, appear to be means of abducting soldiers, not attacking civilians, as one would expect from past experience and military readings, despite a huge amount of press reportage talking of them as 'terror tunnels' aimed at civilians. I don't think it should be 'merged' unless the information gets a securer footing in mainstream sources either. Those of us who remember other wars with inflammatory declarations of incipient plots that never took place look at such reports very warily, and wait for real world assessments to come in. Nishidani ( talk) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Remove I wrote this article at a time when this appeared to be a developing story. I now have information that the story in Ma'ariv, a reputable Israeli Daily, resulted form misinterpretation of preliminary intelligence reports (misinterpretations happen in wartime). I would like to take the article down. ShulMaven ( talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. This should be speedied, Seriously, an "alleged plan" coming in the middle of present Gaza crisis? There is absolutely nothing to be saved here. Huldra ( talk) 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Wait This story is still breaking. I'm going to continue to edit the article, as reliable sources continue to come in. In accord with dozens of Wikipedia articles about thwarted terror plots. ShulMaven ( talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Sree Vidya Ramayanam

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

This uncited work could well be a hoax or a highly non-notable work based on the Ramayana. Could not find a ref to prove that it is notable. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 16:28, 1 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  ♔ 00:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There appears to have been a snafu here in relisting this discussion--Czar relisted it and added it to the July 9 log page, then Joe Decker added another relist template, reverted himself, but then commented out Czar's listing on the log page. Now re-added to the current log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Finngall talk 06:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Ukraine train bus collision

2014 Ukraine train bus collision (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This really doesn't seem like a notable event that requires a Wikipedia article, and is bare-bones by any standard. I'd like to remind people here that we are not a newspaper, and that this event has no significant coverage, no continued coverage, and no depth of coverage. It has absolutely zero lasting effect. In short, it fails all the event notability criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

If it happened in an English-speaking town and did not meet the event notability criteria, it still would still not be acceptable. It does not meet those criteria, therefore, it should be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Since when does "people dying" make something notable? RGloucester — ☎ 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Some policy stated it or therebaouts but have absolutely no idea what it was called now, Meh striked it. – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw this proposal – Since it is clear that I've lost this battle, I'll withdraw my request. I do find it sad that we do not hold ourselves to higher standards of notability, but that is neither here nor there. RGloucester — ☎ 20:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 06:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ann Arbor Derby Dimes

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

Other than a couple of local articles and routine coverage, I haven't been able to find much coverage of this organization. I don't see the significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. Tchaliburton ( talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Not sure how it doesn't meet the majority of the criteria:
  • Significant coverage - well, the articles cited do address topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - in most cases the subject is the main topic.
  • Reliable" - Sources are reliable, in English, and includes secondary sources. Primary sources are only used for basic facts to supplement the rest.
  • "Sources" - again, in English and available, from various authors and publications. This is no single-source article, although one author is used twice.
  • "Independent" - there are independent sources.
  • "Presumed" - one would presume that membership in the world-wide Women's Flat Track Derby Association, and being ranked in the upper 50%, would be sufficient.
The article is a stub at this point, not a Good Article candidate. I don't see the value in removing it from Wikipedia, immediately upon its creation. Frankly, I subscribe to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Removal of content, that by its presence causes no harm, is by definition not an improvement. Seeing as this is the second attempt at deletion by this editor, I am baffled as to why they are so determined to have it removed. Echoedmyron ( talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There's no presumed significance here as you suggest. It needs to meet GNG, which means it needs to have significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This must go beyond routine sports coverage. You assert that it has this coverage, but I'm not seeing it. Tchaliburton ( talk) 14:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
It is beyond routine sports coverage. The citations discuss the position of the organization within the community, probably more so than the sport itself. Echoedmyron ( talk) 14:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - looks to me to clearly meet the GNG. I count three different news sources all with articles focusing on the league. Routine, with regard to sports coverage, would be listings of fixtures and results, or a rehashed press release announcing an upcoming game. None of these three sources is routine. Warofdreams talk 18:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Arabesque Asset Management

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

can't see it meeting WP:CORP. it has a mere 18 employees and existed less than a year. the coverage provided is rather WP:ROUTINE. LibStar ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment The report from Reuters seems acceptable. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 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  ♔ 06:28, 19 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  ♔ 02:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 06:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Faculdades Integradas Hélio Alonso

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

I tried to have this deleted via CSD and then PROD, but both were contested by two different editors on the basis that schools and universities are in general considered notable. Well, this is not what I understand from WP:ORG and, more precisely, WP:NSCHOOL - for me, they basically state that any educational institution must adhere to our general notability guidelines - and this sentence, I mean, this article is far from it. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Provisional Keep. Is it a degree-granting institution? It appears to be, but my Portuguese isn't good enough to confirm this. If it is then it should be kept per longstanding consensus and precedent. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As to the length of the article, we don't delete articles just because they're stubs. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment: Yes, it is degree-granting, but... now I'm confused. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, and the very first section clearly states that that page "is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change.". It also recommends pages like the aforementioned WP:SCHOOLS as the actual notability guidelines, besides highlighting that "notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability. [...] All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies.[...]". Why should WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES take precedence over WP:SCHOOL and WP:ORG? Victão Lopes Fala! 14:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
What SCHOOLOUTCOMES does is not set policy but record precedent and consensus. It has been established over many afds that all degree-granting institutions are kept. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We determine what is notable through discussion and we have had this discussion many, many times and determined a consensus on notability standards for educational institutions, as recorded in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:27, 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, czar  ♔ 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I've seen some lengthy and relatively recent discussions on this "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME vs. WP:NSCHOOL" matter, and there is no apparent consensus about it. I'll have to keep reluctant about accepting common outcomes as a sole reason for "keep". Anyway, nobody else's made a comment here yet, so I guess it'll be simply closed as no consensus. Victão Lopes Fala! 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - High schools are deemed notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - (Just a friendly note - I wouldn't debate the whole SCHOOLCOME thing as you won't get very far, High schools are deemed notable for reasons I've completely forget.) – Davey2010 • (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a 43 year old degree-awarding institution with 3600 students covered by reliable, independent sources such as this. Our well established consensus is described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The solution to a poorly referenced stub article about a notable topic is to expand the article and add sources, instead of deleting the article. Portuguese language sources are perfectly acceptable for a Brazilian topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • KeepI don;t see any divided consensus here, besides a single challenge--and I think even that challenge was based on not realizing that this is in fact a major educational institution. All seriously divided afd debates have been over really marginal institutions, and the only deletions have been where real existence cannot be proved, or at least real existence as a school, rather than some sort of tutoring academy of homeschooling arrangement. Policy is made by what we do, and guidelines state what we usually do. The actual policy is demonstrated by the fact that we have kept all such genuine institutions since at least 2009/2010. Hundreds of absolutely consistent decisions over many years establishes an consensus more firm than most so-called guidelines, few of which show such consistency. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Goaltimate

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

This game does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. I found one passing mention in a Highbeam article; Google Books hits all (?) seem to be those "articles from wikipedia" titles. 1 G-news hit, in Polish. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulty may be relevant (it's what led me to this page). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:37, 13 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 02:47, 21 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  ♔ 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only argument for keep was based on holding this to a lower notability standard because it's a student journal. Unfortunately, there's no support for that idea in current policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Journal of European Psychology Students

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep TKivisik: I strongly support the idea to keep Wikipedia organised and full of noteworthy information. Although deleting JEPS article seems to go too far. I went through the general guidelines ( WP:GNG) and based on that there is ground for improvement but not enough for deletion.
  • JEPS article has independent sources as well as nonindependent (taken from the JEPS website). All of the things taken from JEPS website are referred to (so anyone can see what was from an independent source and what not). Further work can be done to provide more independent sources.
  • JEPS has significant coverage, is reliable and the sources of the article are varied (independent sources added…) and no original research is needed to extract the content.
  • It is not appropriate to measure JEPS with the same standard ( WP:NJournals) as other highly professional academic journals as it’s a student journal. Thereby it should be enough that JEPS is known in its league (as a student journal) and has a high standard within it - contract with Ubiquity Press, reviewers must have PhD’s and are most probably professors etc.
  • independent sources where added (righttoresearch.org, Berufsverband Österreichischer PsychologInnen, British Psychology Society)
  • I respect the critique you have made and would be glad if you could help with some futher hints on how to improve the article. Tkivisik ( talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Your intentions are very laudable, however, in order to qualify for an article a subject (even a journal such as this one) needs to be notable in the WP sense. If there are independent sources that have discussed the journal in-depth (that is, not just cited one or a few articles from it or mentioned it in-passing), then those sources should be added to the journal to satisfy WP:GNG. In general, that is harder for an academic journal than meeting WP:NJournals, but you don't need to meet both, just one is enough. At this point, the article meets neither and your comment does not give any policy-based arguments to think otherwise. (see WP:AFD and especially WP:DISCUSSAFD for more info on this deletion procedure). -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:56, 17 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, § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I agree with Randykitty about this not meeting WP:NJOURNALS, but due to the fact that this is a journal for undergrads and masters students I think in this case trying to meet the general notability guidelines would be easier than the journal guidelines. That said I would recommend creating an article for the European Federation of Psychology Students Associations first since it would probably be easier to show notability for them, and then merging this article about their journal into that article, and keeping it there until enough sources can be found to establish its own notability at which time it could have its own stand-alone article. I like the work that Tkivisik has put into this article, and I personally wouldn't mind keeping this article, but I do not think any amount of work is likely at this time to be able to get this article to meet WP:GNG. AioftheStorm ( talk) 18:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 04:48, 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, czar  ♔ 01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Reference 1 is a blog. Reference 2 is a list of journals from the publisher. It is not a third-party source, and it only provides a passing mention. I am not able to view reference 3, although I found this page, which indicates that the source is "A Call for Papers". References 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 11 are by the journal editors themselves. Reference 10 gives a passing mention to the journal.
Reference 3 might be a suitable reliable source that helps to establish notability. However even if it is, this would not be sufficient to satisfy the GNG.
I have previously argued with Randykitty about WP:NJournals. That page is an essay. It does not have widespread community consensus.
As an aside, I do not know what a "double-blind" journal is. (The journal editors do indeed make that claim.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:55, 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. A version of the Esper article was userfied to User:DonaldKronos/Esper (language) in October 2013 (and TechnoZeus is aware of it, since he's edited that draft until it's almost identical to the article in question here). Anyone who wants to work on the draft can do so there. Deor ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Esper (language)

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

Non-notable made up language lacking support for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Hello? Is the purpose of this to insult, to frustrate, or what? Am I responding to this in the right way? At least I found a link this time to a discussion page, but I do nt see how we are supposed to "discuss" anything here.

TechnoZeus ( talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I've removed the heading you made for "hello" to avoid it messing up the AfD page. In any case, the issue here is that the page does not have any coverage in reliable sources to show how the language passes notability guidelines. By reliable sources, I mean coverage in things such as academic texts, newspaper articles, and the like that discuss Esper in depth. I've been looking and so far I can't really find anything out there that would really be considered a reliable source. I can see where it exists, but not where it's ultimately notable enough for an entry. For something that's been around since the 70s, it doesn't really seem to have gained any true coverage. I'd suggest a merger into Esperanto since it's a variant of the language or at least a mention there, but so far I'm not seeing where there's enough to show where it merits its own article. I've left some information on Reddogsix's talk page, but I'd like to caution you about accusing other editors of nominating the page for deletion as a way of frustrating or insulting you or Esper. As far as reasons for deletion go, I've got a bit of a primer for the basics here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't know how to do this right, and it is EXTREMELY frustrating. There have been many things published on Esper online, but they tend to end up deleted. Unfortunately I think it has something to do with the emotional scars inherited in the Esperanto community from the Ido incident. It is a contemporary language, so don't expect to see very old stuff on it, but I don't know where to find ANYTHING on it right now other than stuff I've made myself, and EVEN MOST OF THAT has gotten deleted! Much of it is under the name Pont, which is the other parent language of Esper. I will look around for news articles and such, but I really haven't got time to do it right away. I think this is just sickening that a person has to feel they have wasted time every time they try to add something in here that isn't so well known as to already be covered. TechnoZeus ( talk) 01:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. I would recommend that TechnoZeus have this article copied to their userspace where they can work on finding sources to support it, without having to worry about the deadline for this AfD discussion. The fact that this language is not "so well known as to already be covered" is part of the problem here; a constructed language can be fairly obscure and still have an article on Wikipedia, but it does need to be known enough to have had things published about it to be used as sources for the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/02/02/asia/afc-champions-league/al-suwaiq/al-qadsia-sc/1605877/
  2. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/02/02/asia/afc-champions-league/al-suwaiq/al-qadsia-sc/1605877/
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_July_28&oldid=1142628701"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 July 29 July >

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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted ( A1, A11) by NawlinWiki. ( non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Poetry trend in new india

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

Extremely odd little POV essay about how Indians have started writing poetry because they're rich enough to not have to worry about food, citing no reliable sources to verify the thesis. I'd love to have speedied this silliness, to be honest, but try as I might I just couldn't squeeze it into any of the accepted speedy criteria. But it's definitely a no-brainer delete. Bearcat ( talk) 00:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader Safarzaei. ( non-admin closure)

Ahmad Nourollahi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Watch the Stars Fall

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

Unable to find songs on any charts. Prod removed for unknown reasons. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Son of a Gun (Search the City song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Anarcho-Objectivism

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

It fails the notability test and its category is fabricated. Google returned these references with this title: four blogs - http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/tag/anarcho-objectivism/ and http://objectivistgirl.com/2014/04/anarcho-objectivism/ , http://anarchoobjectivist.blogspot.com/ , http://www.solopassion.com/node/1294 a facebook page, and a couple of reddit posts (another type of ‘wiki’ blog)

Since this subject is based upon blogs, and a facebook page, I believe it fails the notability requirement. I searched news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images with no returns.

I was surprised to find Category:Anarcho-capitalism. This category seems to be fabricated also and populated with supposed Anarcho-capitalists. After reviewing about 10 of these ‘ people’ pages that are grouped in this category. I found no references to anyone of them claiming to be an Anarcho-capitalist. I also recommend that this category be eliminated because it claims that those individuals listed in the category to be something that their Wikipedia articles do not support. bpage ( talk) 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't understand your confusion about the anarcho-capitalism category; anarcho-objectivism is arguably a subset of anarcho-capitalism. What do you mean by "fabricated"? Many articles are related to the topic of anarcho-capitalism, hence the category. Also, there are no biographies in this category, although there certainly are in the subcategory Category:Anarcho-capitalists. It is possible that there are a few miscategorized articles in this category—I have not checked them all—but I recognize many anarcho-capitalists in it. Which category members do you believe to not be anarcho-capitalists?
Categorization aside, I agree with you about the main subject of this AfD—anarcho-objectivism does appear to be sufficiently notable to have its own article. -- Cgtdk ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

John Jackson (boxer born 1986)

John Jackson (boxer born 1986) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, nudging toward promotion ("Because of his talent, he was encouraged to stay in the sport, even though all the friends he started with quit."), of a person who may not meet our inclusion standards at WP:ATHLETE (we do not extend a presumption of notability, in the absence of reliable sourcing, to competitors in the Junior Olympics.) It's also worth noting that two days ago, somebody claiming in his edit summary to be the subject himself redacted the article down to a non-encyclopedic and still unreferenced bullet-point list — I've reverted that because his version was not compliant with our content and formatting rules, but given the depth of unsourced private personal information about other family members that's present here I think I can understand why he might want it trimmed. So I'd be happy to withdraw this if good sourcing can be added, as always, but we really can't keep this in its current state (and we doubly couldn't keep it in his preferred state.) Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, Promotional page that fails to indicate notability. Anishwiki12 ( talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

comment, I've removed the unsourced personal info per WP:BLP possibly could be notable but it needs a tidy up for some POV language if kept. -- Nate t/ c 10:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't believe interim titles count since they're used as fillers and are different than fighting for a vacant title. For example, the NABA title you're referring to was won 3 months earlier by a different fighter (Usmanee). Usmanee fought the same night as the interim title fight between Osejo and Jackson so I don't know what was going on. After Osejo won the interim title, two other fighters fought for the title the next time. I have no idea what was going on, but it looks like NABA was trying to give everyone a title shot in that division since they had 3 consecutive "title" fights with 6 different fighters. From what I've observed, most organizations don't consider interim title holders to be their true champions. Papaursa ( talk) 17:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Its is not 100% clear if interim titles count or not since they are not expressly addressed, but I would say that they do since the intro says "...fought for a national (or higher) professional (non-youth) title..." It clearly states youth titles don't count, but are silent on interim so I infer that they count. Whether interim titles are true champions are less an issue in my opinion than the media coverage of title fights regardless of vacant or not and thus the likely existence of sources. Again, tough call since the article appears to need much improvement and would pass WP:NBOX by the skin of its teeth, but interim titles are professional titles and this was a regional title so WP:NBOX applies. Thus, unless the presumption can be overcome I think its a weak keep and the article should be designated for improvement. RonSigPi ( talk) 21:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Interim championships are usually created when a champion can't defend his title (injury, suspension, etc.). Normally the interim champ gets the first shot at the title when the real champion is able to compete again. For example, I know in the past the UFC (and other organizations) have carefully distinguished between interim champions and champions. The interim championship essentially determines the #1 contender--not the champion. Papaursa ( talk) 23:47, 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 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Jason Harshaw

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

WP:BLP of a sports agent, with no reliable source coverage to support it — all of the "referencing" here is to primary sources which cannot confer notability. As always I'd be happy to withdraw this if the referencing can be beefed up to properly demonstrate that he passes one of our inclusion rules, but he's not entitled to keep a primary-sourced prose-résumé on Wikipedia just because he exists. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Sala Udin

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. It also bears mention that while this article looks extensively sourced on the surface, if you examine the footnotes carefully it's actually relying extremely heavily on primary and unreliable sources — the "references" section would be more than halved, basically thirded if that's a thing, if I actually trimmed it down to reliable sources — and there's stuff in here ("Legal problems") that's extremely problematic in a BLP without much better sourcing than it's got. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but this version needs to be deleted. Bearcat ( talk) 04:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yup, a lot references, but little to no coverage in them. Fails WP:GNG fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The one-sided and overly promotional language of the article is what comes from having articles on too local of politicians to have generated wide-spread coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not an endorsement of the present state of the article, of course, but I'm not a fan of the WP:TNT approach, especially not with an article of this size – you've got to figure there's at least a little bit in there worth saving. Just looking at the references currently in the article, this and this together are about enough to satisfy WP:GNG; and given he's been in politics over a decade there are going to be more pieces like those (searching within both those sites for his name turns up plenty of the sort of sources I'm talking about). –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:21, 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, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vigorous argument from Bearcat, but the conensus leans to keeping the article. Mojo Hand ( talk) 22:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Alfred Pike Bissonnet

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, so that does not count as a keep argument. Google just reveals WP mirrors. There's a composer called Alfred bissonnet but not the same person. LibStar ( talk) 13:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
you haven't demonstrated how a notability criterion is met. Have you searched for sources to establish notability? LibStar ( talk) 23:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
It is, I think, well established that there is disagreement among Wikipedia editors about whether or not we should presume that ambassadors (or at least some ambassadors) are notable. There's no point repeating this pantomime in each deletion discussion. Can we agree to disagree on this topic, until a consensus is reached, and trust that the closing administrator will give greater weight to arguments based on policy or consensus? Pburka ( talk) 23:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
given that there is no established notability guideline making ambassadors notable, keep !voters should actually demonstrate how WP:BIO is met through coverage. I admire that you make a genuine attempt to do this in AfDs. LibStar ( talk) 08:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There is no consensus that ambassadors are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist. An ambassador has to actually be the subject of substantial reliable source coverage in his own right — the position does not confer an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of sufficient coverage to get him past WP:GNG on his own steam. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can create a more substantial and better-referenced version, but the volume of sourcing here is not sufficient for him to keep this. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:11, 26 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) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk) 08:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Neither is WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE for deletion! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Lack of adequate sourcing, however, is a reason for deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
No it's not. We only require that sources be available, and I've demonstrated above that they are. Pburka ( talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The volume of sourcing that you demonstrated above is not enough to get a person past WP:GNG if they don't inherently pass a subject-specific inclusion guideline; you still need quite a few more sources than that to actually secure an inclusion on purely GNG grounds. Bearcat ( talk) 00:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Three times as many? (edit: now reads 'quite a few more') Really? WP:GNG says 'multiple sources are generally expected'. Your arguments are not in line with policy. Pburka ( talk) 00:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
GNG requires a substantive volume of sourcing. You can't claim that a person gets past GNG just because you can point to a small handful of distinct sources — people often try to create articles about any personality they can find named in just two distinct newspaper articles, but it doesn't wash. In actual practice, AFD doesn't begin to seriously consider that a person might have passed GNG until the number of distinct sources you can cite is at least into the double digits (and even then it's still not necessarily guaranteed if the coverage in those sources isn't substantive enough — a person's high school or college yearbook, for example, counts for exactly nothing in the notability sweepstakes.) You can get away with fewer sources, even just one, if the person is being claimed to pass a subject-specific guideline such as NPOL or NMUSIC — but if you're making a generic GNG claim, you need to be able to demonstrate a greater volume of sourcing (even if they aren't all comprehensively cited yet, they have to be demonstrable) than has been shown here so far. Bearcat ( talk) 21:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Indeed, the coverage in any of these sources is far from satisfactory. (Only one to two short paragraphs long and rather WP:routine) But given the quantity of sources and the fact that most coverage will be offline, I !vote weak keep.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 04:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • If Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in Canada means regular, fulltime diplomat then Keep as he was a diplomat active during a time when newspaper coverage isn't getting digitised and he would have been covered in Canadian and Indonesian papers. If it means part-time diplomat or honourary representative or something, then delete, since these people recieve a lot less coverage. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:13, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Vast Countenance

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

The notability of this band is not established by the source references, most of which are (semi) self-published. The band has no songs in the album charts and anyone can release an album at the CD Baby label. When one of their songs was recently played on Dutch national radio, the DJ announced to his listeners that it is unlikely that they know the band, but that they might have seen a Facebook post of one the band members, who died in the crash of MH-17. – Editør ( talk) 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

In other words, the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. – Editør ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Has independent reviews. Mentioned in Huff Po, for unusual reasons. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The Huffington Post article does not mention the band. The sources mention reviews in Noordhollands Dagblad and OOR, but Last.fm and NHPopLife.nl are not independent reliable sources. There is no direct reference to the actual reviews. I can't establish the independence or reliability of Podium Info. – Editør ( talk) 22:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The OOR review is online [2]. The other is reproduced on their website along with other coverage & is dated [NOORD-HOLLANDS DAGBLAD (11-04-2011)], thus is verifiable. [3] 78.19.26.160 ( talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - First on what is said in the nomination above:

  • Except for the discography, there is not one single self published source that I have used. So that statement is incorrect. "Semi self published" is newly invented anyway and in fact even a contradictio in terminis; e.g. one cannot be a little bit pregnant either. Today I will take some reviews that are reproduced on their website though, to improve the article somewhat, thanks to the hint of user 78.19.26.160. There is no reason to doubt these reproductions.
  • Another incorrect statement is on CD Baby, which is a distributor for "independent musicians", not a label where any, even inferior musician can release whatever he likes. In the current era (we live in 2014, not in the Sixties) musicians are more and more releasing independently. As do musicians like Tiësto, Harry Sacksioni, etc. since about a decade, but it yet began earlier, like was the case with The Cats (yet started self-releasing as from 1983), The Rolling Stones (first time in 1971), and even J. K. Rowling's e-books of Harry Potter are self-published. Of course there are thousands of musicians more to name. So the way music is released tells us nothing on the notability of a musician.
  • The referral to the DJ (Giel Beelen) is not a valid argument either, since he admits that he didn't know them himself. This is not so strange for him, because he is acquainted with progressive music and not so much with styles from the Sixties.

There are better arguments in valuing the notability of Vast Countenance. The band is indeed not comparable to a famous act like The Rolling Stones. Nevertheless, it surely has received serious, positive reviews, and its music is distinctive from other bands.

Arguments that are relevant, and plead for Vast Countenance - especially when one regards the sum of it - are:

  • Vast Countenance composes and writes its own songs in a distinctive music style, which is meanwhile being defined as Rock 'n' Folk.
  • They have performed internationally (in The Netherlands and in the US).
  • Music has been released internationally (in The Netherlands, the US and Japan).
  • Ten songs of them reached The Volendammer Top 1000 [4], an all time list that was compiled in 2013 by the listeners of 17 regional radio- and television stations (music of Volendam is the subject here, because the village is a main centre of music performance in the Netherlands).
  • Their performances were transmitted on TV: national (on MAX [5]) and many regional stations (yet the Volendammer Top 1000 alone was aired by the participating stations, next to that I found a performance in the program L.O.V.E. Akoestiek over here).
  • Reviews out of the music profession:
    • Review in OOR (2006): "From the region of Waterland surprisingly Dutch talent comes sailing along ... 'We're all jugglers juggling with, the endless possibilities of life' is just one of the simple, but pretty formed sentences on the album. The pliant, sunny melodies and beautiful part-sung choirs link up seamlessly with the texts. Extra little points deserve the strong choruses, unexpected transitions and the special singing. Pop as pop is meant to be," [6]
    • There were two interviews in 1WayWind The Magazine: No. 15 (Febr. 2007) and No. 22 (June 2009) [7] 1WayWind is a specialized music magazine - the writers Johan Tol and Michel Veerman were in 2006 the winners of the public prize of the Best Pop Book in the Last Thirty Years [8], organized by OOR and the National Pop Institute.
    • Review in LiveXS (2007): "... allready praised before by LiveXS because of their musical performances ... a fresh sounding melody machine ... the more than excellent [song] Trumpet Slide." [9].
    • Review in Festival Info (2011): "The pleasing mix of Folk and Rock is capable to hold your attention." [10]
    • Review in Podium Info (2011), "very strong guitar rhythm" [11]
  • Review in the newspaper Noord Hollands Dagblad (2011): "One by one strong songs ... ‘Not a bad moment’ is world class ... inimitable melody lines ... really brilliant." [12].
  • After the plane crash above the Ukraine, the drummer Cor Schilder (Pan) was killed. Because of his Facebook photo of the plane with the text "Might it disappear, this is how it looks like", he as well as his membership of Vast Countenance became world news ( 2,800+ hits in Google News), with mentions in: Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post, Times of India (among many others, just to name a few in English language). As a result, people want to be informed on Wikipedia too on this music group. Now and in the future when that Wikipedia article is read.

The conclusion of all these arguments should be that this band is notable and its article should be kept on Wikipedia. Ymnes ( talk) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

There are clear guidelines for the notability of bands: Wikipedia:Notability (music). A link to these guidelines can also be found at the top of the article and in a previous comment in this nomination. Many of the sources referenced in the article are published by the band itself, by an organization that is not independent from the band, or can be published by anyone. The band fails criterion 2 to 9, and 11. Your comments suggest that the article could be improved to show that the band passes criterion 1, 10 and 12, in which case the article should clearly not be deleted. However, if the article isn't or cannot be improved, the article should be deleted. – Editør ( talk) 19:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
And please don't reference copies of reviews/articles that are published by the band itself, but use references to the original reviews/articles. – Editør ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I would like you to be more specific (with specified arguments) as I did. Actually it's just a general talk you gave. If some criteria aren't met (the numbers you give), it doesn't mean that others are not met. With some I even disagree, others are far from specifically understandable (only statements, no content). And there's more Wikipedia:Notability than Wikipedia:Notability (music) alone, I have been very careful in explaining so. Another thing, just a side way: if it is only that the links to citations on their website are concerned, one can see that OOG is cited literally there, and I don't distrust the other citations therefore. Might this be the problem, discarding such content would not undermine this article, because it still remains notable (I don't have these sources at home, so I can't link otherwise). Ymnes ( talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The citation to OOR was added after the article was nominated for deletion. Criterion 1 asks for "multiple, non-trivial, published works", so if you add another two or so direct references to such works, the article would pass this criterion and won't be deleted. These works don't even need to be available online, but should be uniquely described (author, title, date, publication) so in principle anyone could look them up. Note that policies at the Dutch and English Wikipedia concerning the referencing of articles are quite different. – Editør ( talk) 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I count 7 (so multiple) "non-trivial, published works": OOR, two interviews in 1WayWind, LiveXS, Podium Info, Festival Info and Noord Hollands Dagblad. I count all the other bullet points as well that I gave. If you cannot count the facts, please let an administrator make the decision on the basis of the arguments I gave. Ymnes ( talk) 07:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
P.S. Podium Info was yet mentioned as a source in the article, I have added it here under the bullet points as well now. Ymnes ( talk) 07:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Just add a specific reference to the article in Noordhollands Dagblad. Combined with the already specified reference to OOR this will presumably qualify as references to "multiple, non-trivial, published works". Although one more proper reference that is not just a link to a reproduced review on the band's website would be preferable. – Editør ( talk) 09:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I yet gave enough unmistakably good references. Ymnes ( talk) 10:06, 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, – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Fusion Beat (American Band)

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

Article, relying exclusively on primary sources that cannot confer notability, about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Delete unless a much better written and sourced article can be written about them than this. Bearcat ( talk) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 21 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) 22:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 23:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Paddy Chambers

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

No individual notability established. Just a band member. Subject fails WP:MUSBIO. Egghead06 ( talk) 21:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Please read WP:BEFORE. AfD nominations with no effort made beforehand to establish notability waste other editors' time. -- Michig ( talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Your assertion that no search has been made is incorrect. I have and this subject fails GNG. As per WP:DISCUSSAFD, if you believe the subject merits an article please add the references you believe verify notability and the passing of WP:MUSBIO. Even reading the Guardian obit, it talks little about Chambers and mentions his membership of non notable groups. Please explain what he (the individual, not his groups) was actually notable for.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 05:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Nothing there to show he was a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". These are just a series of name checks. Like I said in the nomination, just a band member with no individual notability. As per WP:GNG -"significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" -- Egghead06 ( talk) 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The bands are notable - in what way do you feel being guitarist/singer in those bands does not constitute prominent membership? -- Michig ( talk) 09:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
How do the name checks you found constitute significant coverage or convey any degree of "Prominent" membership?-- Egghead06 ( talk) 09:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The "reasonably prominent member" part is there to exclude people who may have joined a band briefly or during a period when the band was not at its peak. When a band only had three or four full time members in it's entire history, all of those members are "reasonably prominent". We don't require significant coverage to "convey" prominence of such membership. -- Michig ( talk) 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
His membership of the Big Three lasted a whole 5 months and did not coincide with their only chart success (number 37). He is either not mentioned in the articles on the other bands or there is just no article on them at all! Your claim that we don't need significant coverage is wrong. We should always have it present.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 10:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Absence of articles on Wikipedia and/or deficiencies in those articles do not equate to a lack of notability, but I suspect you know this. He was a prominent member of The Eyes and Paddy, Klaus and Gibson, which received sufficient significant coverage to be notable (e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24]), and the Guardian obit. is significant coverage of Chambers. If we had an article on Paddy, Klaus, and Gibson then a merge there may be appropriate but we don't yet. -- Michig ( talk) 10:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
So in summary , he was a member of several bands, which only existed for a short time, had zero hits. His contribution indicating notability within these bands amounts to a series of name checks and in the years of Wiki the notability of these so-called significant groups is so slight no one has been bothered to put together an article on them. The life of these bands was short. Straws are being clutched!-- Egghead06 ( talk) 11:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
In summary, he was a significant member of several bands, some of which are notable by Wikipedia standards and received significant coverage, and he was considered notable enough by a major national newspaper to publish a substantial obituary. We can verify all of this via reliable sources. These are policy and guideline-based arguments, yours are not. I suggest you stop wasting time here and go and improve the encyclopedia in some way, which is what I intend to do. -- Michig ( talk) 11:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
A series of name checks does not constitute significant coverage. HTH in your article development.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 11:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 13 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, § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Based on the information set forth in the article, does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO.-- Rpclod ( talk) 05:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. There are no refs in this article. The ones User Michig has found and listed above appear to be trivial mentions, without a reliable and in depth source there is no place for this article. Szzuk ( talk) 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep – The obituaries in The Guardian and in The Independent (Spencer, Leigh (4 October 2000). "Obituary: Paddy Chambers", The Independent [London (UK)], p. 6.) can be the basis for a reasonably policy-compliant article. Michig's sources provide some additional evidence of notability. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 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) 22:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2010 Vatican employee sex scandal

2010 Vatican employee sex scandal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RS do not confirm that the acts were committed in Vatican City. These are two people who also worked in Vatican City. Sort of like saying that two people from the United States had sex in Granada and including the item in "Sex in the United States", groping (as it were) desperately for some connection between the two. There is no connection with the Vatican, except that the two occasionally volunteered there. Great headline on slow news day. Lousy encyclopedia material. Having said that, was there ever "Prostitution in the Vatican?" Well, if you go back far enough, there was. But this is hardly it. Student7 ( talk) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

No, but the scandal involved the Vatican and two people who worked in it, so 2010 Vatican sex scandal is a perfectly appropriate title, or 2010 Vatican gay prostitution scandal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Agree that it fails WP:COAT and WP:RS
  • Strong keep @ Bearian:, @ Jersey92: and @ United States Man:, I strongly suggest you read up on what constitutes WP:GNG and what sources and content is acceptable on wikipedia. Frankly it is worrying that not one of you spotted that the content was acceptable and contains multiple top newspaper sources but was simply under the wrong title. The 2010 Vatican sex scandal was highly publicized and a notable scandal. There's plenty of reliable sources to prove this is the case. Let's not censor the RC church and wikipedia from covering it, as I can't think of any other valid reason why you'd want to delete it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Of course there are reliable sources, people just haven't bothered to look for them. in the four "delete" votes so far, I've not seen anything from WP:DEL-REASON to justify getting rid of the article. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT just isn't strong enough grounds for deletion. - SchroCat ( talk) 06:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Wikipedia is not censored, and as per SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld there are numerous and reliable sources for this article. This was also major news at the time, so this article will always stay notable. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 09:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable. The title was poorly chosen, but that is not a reason for deletion and has been fixed. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per sources provided. -- KRIMUK90  ✉ 13:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep There are multiple reliable and independent sources regarding the scandal.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 14:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep under its new title. The former title was indeed poorly chosen. Negative comments above were probably based largely on that inaccurate choice. With the new more precise title, it no longer fails WP:COAT. Esoglou ( talk) 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources provided above. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This article suffers several content issues that it cannot be accepted in its current form. The "Background" section strongly borders on original research/synthesis, as it suggests a connection between this particular scandal and the sexual abuse of minors. This connection is unsubstantiated by references, even though individual facts are adequately cited. The incident would otherwise appear isolated, and suggesting larger connections without sufficient documentation is inappropriate. As for the extensive quotes from the Catechism, these seem unnecessary. Of course the Vatican teaches that prostitution is immoral, this barely needs stating. Including the teachings regarding homosexuality are a bit more relevant, as this attitude is rapidly becoming less common. However, the extensive quoting, would seem to be an attempt to spin this as hypocrisy on the church's part, making this a "gotcha" article. It is more the case that the church has detailed teaching regarding appropriate behavior, such that individual violators, such as the ushers involved in the story, can be appropriately disciplined.
I would strongly recommend the "background" section be removed, with at most much shorter quote from the catechism regarding prostitution/homosexuality, in the interest of neutrality and reliable sourcing. Significant copy editing for the remainder is also required to make clear who the actors are, and their role in the Vatican. I might also suggest considering a more precise name for the article, as there are several competing sexual scandals involving the Vatican. Only if these content issues can be addressed would I support a Keep. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • After making several of these edits myself, I recommend Speedy Keep. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: After reviewing the history of the article, it clearly had serious issues that would have warranted deletion. These issues do not apply any more; the scope of the article has considerably narrowed from a blathering about the Vatican allegedly employing thousands of prostitutes down to a very narrow, indisputable incident. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Second comment: As the page's scope has considerable narrowed, perhaps the pages that link to it should be reconsidered. It was previously part of a series of "Prostitution in Country X" articles, and linked to directly from articles in the series. As it is no longer a "mid-importance" part of this series, inbound links should be reconsidered. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The reason is that the incident would not be notable if they hadn't been employed by the Vatican; choristers by any stretch are employed, and the other was a former "senior adviser". Their actions do reflect upon there employer, and it would be dishonest to claim otherwise. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Follow Up: Even the most neutral Atheist expects employees at the Vatican to not run prostitution rings. Similarly, everyone expects Little League coaches to not be thieves. That such individuals, held in position of public trust, commit crimes anyways hurts the organizations they are associated with. The violation of public trust is notable, and places the public on notice about the organization. How the organization responds is thus telling of the organization's values. Does it react with genuine surprise and openness to accountability and swift discipline, or with evasiveness and excuses? If Little League, for instance, allowed embezzling coaches to remain without expressing some profound mitigating circumstances, it would implicitly endorse criminal behavior, and parents ought to take note. Likewise in this article, the inner mind of the Vatican is ever so slightly exposed to the world, as the individual were removed from employment and the Vatican's motives for doing so were discussed. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Prostitution in Vatican City (or a variant) might still be a viable article in its own right, if it were carefully written to provide a portal to both historic prostitution associated with the Papal States, as well as the handful of contemporary incidents in the modern city-state. Very careful attention would have to spent to avoid undue weight to minor incidents in such a mid-level importance article. The work of the closely related Holy See and other church sectors addressing sex work might also be briefly discussed. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:54, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Canadian Home Builders' Association

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

Advertising and no indication of significance. Thanks, Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, building a good article here will be difficult because as, what appears to be, an extremely commercial and smarmy organization, coverage of the CHBA is tainted and almost defined by their self-promotion (I myself came here to this AfD following the editing of User:Lizleung who I suspect is a paid editor, or at least has some serious WP:COI issues), but I do think that the CHBA is notable. For example, Google Books finds 2.5k mentions. Google News finds 45 mentions in the last month. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A quick Google news search turns up plenty of recent coverage of this organization. The article itself isn't great, but it's not promotional so I see no reason to delete it. Tchaliburton ( talk) 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per above. This is a lobby group and the coverage needs to reflect that, but there is a lots of new coverage, both of political activism on behalf of the industry and of the 'home of the year' competitions. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This seems to be the primary national association of general contractors for residential construction in Canada, listing presidents back to 1943. Primarily a lobbying organization, it seems from a spin around the internets, with numerous provincial and local level chapters. THIS from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix details the election of a Saskatoon builder as head of the organization in 2011 and covers the organization in some substantial detail, noting the membership of 8,000 firms in the organization. THIS details a partnership between Lethbridge College and the CHBA. Both a significant and long-lived professional organization and one which passes GNG, in my estimation. Carrite ( talk) 18:06, 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. Tone 07:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Winx Club (season 7)

Winx Club (season 7) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is wholly unsourced, advertising, and a future event. WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:CRYSTAL. Nominating for deletion. Thanks, Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The two links in the main Winx Club article 'sourcing' this are either behind a paywall (or wool-pulling attempting to make us think there's an actual story behind the paywall), and a translated Italian story which is outright cheerleading PR that doesn't describe the seven season at all. Not to mention this is Nickelodeon we're talking about; they're ordering a lot of programs that may never air or exist to fill time on little-watched sister networks. No neutral sourcing to be found, no article should be here. Nate • ( chatter) 03:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – No neutral sourcing to be found, and this may not even occur. United States Man ( talk) 03:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Larry Hartsell

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

Unsourced biography. Fails WP:MANOTE. His books don't allow him to meet WP:AUTHOR. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Matouš Kohout

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

Non notable kickboxer. Fails WP:KICK. Amateur success (IFMA) does not show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Robert Brutus Beal

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

Non notable martial artist. Fails WP:NMMA. Notability is not achieved simply by having famous instructors or by creating your own style and making yourself a 10th dan. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Zaurs Dzavadovs

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

Non-notable kickboxer who fails WP:KICK. Amateur titles like IFMA do not show notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

James Daley (journalist)

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a journalist. I am unable to find sufficient reliable sources about the subject to establish WP:BASIC notability. - Mr X 19:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

There are now seven references not written by the author. At the bottom of the Telegraph article, there is a two line biography. The Which? Conversation website includes a brief biography, as does the Centre for the Modern Family page. There is also a potted biography and links to his work on Who Comments? Finally, there are references to videos on the BBC website, and there are also clips from Watchdog and BBC News on the Fairer Finance website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairerjames ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Tom Gilb

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

No indication of notability, not a single reliable source that covers Gilb in any detail. Nothing useful found via Google. Huon ( talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11 speedy, can confirm account is only here to promote the establishment using misleading sources. Secret account 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Red Door Casino

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

Fails WP:GNG. This "casino" is nothing more than one of Ohio's 800 internet gambling parlors. The main reliable sources cover only the closure of the casino by authorities, which does not rise to WP:EVENT. Other sources discuss the lawsuit by the tribe that owns the casino, but mention the casino only in passing. Article is written by an WP:SPA who appears to be here to promote the casino. Toohool ( talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) -- Finngall talk 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Jaap van Reesema

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable references. Laun chba ller 17:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep I have now added a number of reliable references two from De Telegraaf no less, one of the biggest press media in the Netherlands. I have also added a number of charting positions for Jaap van Reesema including a number one hit single for him that topped the Dutch Single Top 100. Please refer to the improvements. By the way, it has become an accepted procedure now that X Factor winners in any country would get an article. Jaap van Reesema is such a winner, for season 3 in his country. werldwayd ( talk) 20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm surprised you haven't noticed that notability is not the only reason I send articles to AfD. Withdrawn.-- Laun chba ller 20:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Well sometimes deletion notices do serve a very good purpose regardless of the reason for the request. It is just one more challenge and good opportunity to revisit the article, provide far better coverage of the artist and present a better structured article to the reader. werldwayd ( talk) 20:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Frank Sinatra and His Friends Want You to Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

Frank Sinatra and His Friends Want You to Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album does not appear to be notable; it is simply a compilation of Christmas songs. Unable to find suitable references other than music-selling websites. Primefac ( talk) 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

While I know it's a verified Sinatra album, WP:NALBUM seems to imply that a recording shouldn't be included simply because someone notable produced it. There's nothing wrong with listing it in his discography (which it currently isn't), it just seems like there's no reason to have a full article on it. I have been informed in the past that albums without notability should not be included on wikipedia (granted that was about three years ago, but I doubt the policies have changed much).
Of course, if I'm completely off-base, let me know. I would rather learn something new than proceed in ignorance. Primefac ( talk) 20:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - NN album. Exactly one college library has the CD. I verified it exists, but can't find any reviews in newspapers. It looks like a novelty give-away type of record. Bearian ( talk) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Here is a brief review from the 2 December 1963 Glasgow Herald. [26] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nominator has Withdrawn and there are no votes for delete. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The Mailbox (film)

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

Frankly I have some doubts this proselytizing short film has some enciclopedical merit. Cleaned up of false positives, Google book turns 0 results, and nothing relevant appears to be in Google as well. The article itself does not assert any claim of notability. Cavarrone 16:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 00:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Seth Hall

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

Similar reasons to Rpclod's nomination for his twin brother. If sole source is YouTube, then this is essentially an unsourced BLP, if there are no valid sources for Bruce Hall, then there are none for Seth too. I do know his famous Underhill photographs, but being in a famous image is not in itself sufficient for notability. The role on Passions doesn't seem sufficent as it was one of the minor Passions characters despite it being an interesting note that one succeeded the other twin in a role. I don't see anything particularly compelling to show that either Hall twin is notable enough to be on Wikipedia - loads of drooling blogs, as per usual for any hottie (male or female), but that's it. Mabalu ( talk) 15:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The only reference is a YouTube video that is no longer available because the user account has been deleted. Even if the YouTube video remained, it would be unlikely to qualify as an authoritative reference. Per WP:YOUTUBE: "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked." Per WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. *** In general, unless the video is not clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it."-- Rpclod ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

YSG Entertainment

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

Articles fails WP:GNG. A google search doesn't yield anything positive. The record label was only mentioned in the news when they got a court injunction against their former artist Vector. Versace1608 (Talk) 14:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 00:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Michelle Madoff

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

Biography of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. While this article does cite some sources, neither the volume of footnoting nor the geographic range of the sources (two local newspapers in her own city) are enough to get her past WP:GNG — and the substance of what they're supporting doesn't constitute a credible reason why she would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international readership. If this were Pittsburghpedia, I'd be all for it — but for a worldwide audience, we need stronger evidence of notability beyond Pittsburgh alone. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 04:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent| lambast 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pittsburgh is not big enough for city council members to have notability by default. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The references currently in the article are probably just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and Google turns up plenty more similar news stories and obituaries. I'm not sure where the idea that GNG requires national or international significance comes from – if you think we shouldn't have articles on people with only local significance that's fair enough, but it's not (to the best of my knowledge) supported by any policy, guideline or consensus. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
GNG requires, at minimum, more coverage than this. Most of the articles are not about her as such, but merely mention her name in passing — which means that the volume of sourcing cited here fails the substantive coverage test. And yes, we do actually require some evidence of notability beyond the bounds of the purely local, which is why for example we exclude most city councillors from WP:POLITICIAN unless they somehow become notable to a wider range of readers and not just residents of one single city. It's not entirely impossible for a person of purely local notability to get past our notability gates, no — but we do set the standards for local notability quite high, because we simply don't have the human resources necessary to properly monitor thousands upon thousands of articles about local city councillors, fire chiefs, police chiefs and the like for WP:BLP compliance. Bearcat ( talk) 21:38, 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 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't agree that what's in the article isn't enough for GNG, but it doesn't really matter because notability's not just about the sources currently in the article. In the first page of Google results we have three substantial obituaries: Post-Gazette, Tribune-Review and Jewish Chronicle – obviously not passing mentions. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say anything about "a wider range of readers"; for local politicians all it asks for "significant press coverage". Again, if you think we ought to ask for coverage beyond local sources then that's totally reasonable and understandable, but it's not the guideline. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 00:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Oops, you're right, thanks, I almost made off with the wrong Madoff, struck it out, so I added another in-depth source on hopefully the right one. :).-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 02:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. People known only for membership of city councils don't usually warrant WP articles, and I don't see any real exception to be made here. Don't think the obits are strong enough, as they seem to focus on the asthma/local battle against air pollution that marked her time on the council. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment; I don't believe city council membership is sufficient to sufficient to establish notability, but I've lost that discussion before, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Khamis, the article was kept even though the individual has no basis for notability other than serving as a San Jose council member. On the other hand, San Jose is about 3 times the size of Pittsburgh, and is the tenth-largest city in the US, compared to Pittsburgh, the 62nd. TJRC ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm satisfied that the existing sources and the ones listed here by Tomwsulcer meet sufficient coverage to establish notability. Tiller54 ( talk) 12:41, 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 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Dangerous demos

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

Not enough reliable coverage for this competition. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Just for clarification in reply to Zellfaze, all of the Dangerous Demos shows mentioned in this article are run by the same people. The show is simply nomadic in from where it is broadcasted and the 'Up-gunned version' is referring to simply changing the format of the show, not a different person taking the show and copying it and putting their own spin on things. -- User:Alexandertagg — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 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. Deor ( talk) 11:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

National Express Coach route 040

National Express Coach route 040 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Buscruft that belongs on Wikia or similar, Most of these articles hardly have any information other than a "frequency table",
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG and to some extent WP:NOTGUIDE, – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm also nominating:
National Express Coach route 060
National Express Coach route 280
National Express Coach route 444
National Express Coach route 561
National Express Coach route 564
National Express Coach route 592
– Davey2010 • (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was revert to the version about the footballer. I'll add the article to my watchlist and try to keep an eye on it. Deor ( talk) 11:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Billy Law

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

Television reality cook who failed to score a place in the series. Subsequent work is not notable. Only sources are self-published or relate to the unsuccessful TV appearance. WWGB ( talk) 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 14:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Dragon and Soldier

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. RadioFan ( talk) 00:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 14 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  ♔ 03:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the reference list has been expanded and should now meet WP:GNG standards. There was also a review in School Library Journal, but I don't have a copy, and it is no longer online. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:40, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mojo Hand ( talk) 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Alistair hanna

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

This person lacks WP:Notability. Three sources are given, but one is Tweeter (not reliable), other two do not have wp:significant coverage. Searching Google for him in connection with his company returns few hits. mostly social networks [27]. Vanjagenije ( talk) 13:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 13 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) 13:46, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Miss Universe 2015

Miss Universe 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unconfirmed event, too early for we don't even know if the Miss Universe 2014 pageant will be held. GrayFullbuster ( talk) 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2003 Van Nuys Courthouse Shooting

2003 Van Nuys Courthouse Shooting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but a case of WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of long term notability Gbawden ( talk) 11:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The Cinema

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

Completely unsourced article about a band which makes no substantive claim of passing WP:NMUSIC — as written it just asserts that the band exists, and then fails to explain why an encyclopedia should care that they exist. It's certainly possible that they might qualify for a better written and properly sourced article, but they aren't entitled to keep this. Delete. Note also their album My Blood Is Full of Airplanes, which will also need to be speedied A9 if this goes; band member Matt Malpass will get a separate AFD discussion since his separate article presents slightly different issues. Bearcat ( talk) 02:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:47, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Tjipikita Hipondoka

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

This person lacks notability. No sources are cited. Google search retuns no hits [28]. Vanjagenije ( talk) 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:57, 13 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 02:45, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e decker talk 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

A Sectioned Beam

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

Article about an EP. The only sources I could find was the one in the article, which fails WP:RS, and two short blubs in Spin magazine. The EP is not a subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus it fails WP:NALBUMS (and WP:GNG). I propose that the title be redirected to the artist article. - Mr X 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 13 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 02:37, 21 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Donald Upton, Jr.

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, lets make a decision either way. A google search for donald upton fairfield index returns very little. I believe he fails GNG Gbawden ( talk) 10:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to draft space, now present at Draft:Linguistic Survey of Tirwa. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Linguistic Survey of Tirwa

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, delete. There are no references to verify the content or establish notability. Although three items are listed in the references section, two are simply external links to an organization that (presumably) funded the project and a newspaper that (presumably) said something about it at the time it happened, but with no titles or other information, that can't be verified. The other reference at least includes a title, but a web search for that title as written finds only this Wikipedia article. Maybe someone who reads Hindi could search for the item using other likely terms, but that seems like an awfully big burden for some rescue-squad type. Even then, one source would probably not satisfy WP:GNG. Cnilep ( talk) 02:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Published in Hindustan Newspaper
News about this article was published in Kanpur edition of the Hindustan Newspaper on 24th jan 2012 I am uploading an screenshot of the news and adding it to the main article. Thanks
  1. SatyamSats ContactMe-- Satyam 'Sats' ( talk) 11:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Preceding message was left at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Linguistic Survey of Tirwa; copied here by Cnilep ( talk) 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC). reply

I have collected some more references to the other newspaper articles-

  • "अंग्रेजी भाषा के सुधार हेतु जुटाएंगे आंकड़े" [Data will be collected for improvement in English Education]. हिन्दुस्तान. Kanpur: Hindustan Dainik. Hindustan Times. 2012-01-24.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा की परिकल्पना" [The concept of the linguistic survey of tirwa]. Dainik Jagran. Kannauj. Dainik Jagran. 2012-01-24.
  • "सर्वेक्षण की रूप रेखा एवं दिशा निर्देश के लिए कार्यकर्ताओं की सभा" [A meeting organized for training volunteers and deciding objects]. हिन्दुस्तान. Kanpur: Hindustan Dainik. Hindustan Times. 2012-01-25.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का प्रथम दिन" [First Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-29.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का पहला दिन सभी शैक्षिक संस्थानों के लिए" [All educational institutes will be surveyed on the First Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-29.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का दूसरा दिन" [Second Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-30.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का लोगों द्वारा समर्थन" [People supporting Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Aj. Kannauj: Aj. Aj. 2012-01-30.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा का तीसरा दिन" [Third Day of Linguistic Survey of Tirwa]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-31.
  • "लिंगविस्टिक सर्वे ऑफ़ तिर्वा परिणाम एवं निष्कर्ष" [Linguistic Survey of Tirwa- Results and decisions]. Amar Ujala. Kanpur: Amar Ujala. Amar Ujala. 2012-01-29.

These papers have more than 39 million readers in India. Further I can produce you the documents signed by the Head Dept. of Linguistics BHU for organizing the survey. Documents for Pre and Post Seminar; Permission and LOA for survey by Chairman Tirwa. I think that is enough for notablity.

This is the second Linguistic Survey after Linguistic Survey of India done by George Abraham Grierson, in India so I think it should be here.-- Satyam 'Sats' ( talk) 08:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 16:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

United States Air Force Web Posting Response

United States Air Force Web Posting Response (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this fails WP:NOTHOW How US Airmen reply to blogs is an internal USAF function and not something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia An orphan article, nothing reaches here anyway Gbawden ( talk) 09:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Fahad Nasib Bamasila

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:45, 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. (I know nothing about soccer stats, but it seems to me that the page cited by Alhosniomani20 indicates that this person did not appear in the game but was merely an unused substitute. Not that that affects the outcome of this AfD.) Deor ( talk) 11:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Faraj

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2013/10/15/asia/asian-cup-qualification/jordan/oman/1401872/
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:45, 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. Deor ( talk) 12:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Zaki Al-Saadi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/02/02/asia/afc-champions-league/al-suwaiq/al-qadsia-sc/1605877/
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:42, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yahya Al-Dughaishi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:43, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Assad Al-Busaidi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 29 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) 06:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Player plays for Al-Suwaiq Club in Oman Professional league in Oman which is in its second season now. There is a fully professional league in Oman and Oman gets one AFC Champions League play-off place. I live in the country he plays in last season he was injured and was substitute in few AFC Cup matches which is the second biggest club football competition in Asia, There are many Arabic sources which can prove that but Wikipedia doesn't accept them. Alhosniomani20 ( talk) 10:50, 2 August 2014 (MCT)
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:46, 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. Deor ( talk) 12:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Cory Underwood

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

I believe he fails WP:NBASKETBALL. He isn't in one of the leagues mentioned under point 1 and he hasn't won an award in the NDL under point 3 Gbawden ( talk) 09:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This will confirm that the subject did play several seasons in the NBA Developmental League, but not the NBA itself: see here. Absent a major award in the D-League, the subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NBASKETBALL. I have not yet had an opportunity to do the due diligence to see if the subject might have the required depth of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. As it stands right now, the article is also a giant BLP violation with no sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable small college and minor league basketball player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH (no major college awards) or WP:NBASKETBALL (never played a regular season game in the NBA or other top-tier league). Subject was briefly on the training camp roster of the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers before being delegated to the NBA's D-League. Therefore, subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG to qualify for inclusion. I have just reviewed 240+ articles from a Google search, and I find the typical WP:ROUTINE mentions in post-game coverage for high school and college game, trade, signing and waiver one-liners, fansites, team pages, blogs, etc. The closest thing to "significant" coverage were a couple of one-paragraph stories when he signed with minor league teams posted by OurSportsCentral.com, a website dedicated to minor league sports, which often prints team press releases. On balance, subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and fails WP:GNG as a result. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 07:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails both WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' fails notability guidelines for basketball players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep played in the Chinese Basketball Association (see [29]). Judgement call if that qualifies as "a similar major professional sports league" for prong 1 of WP:NHOOPS. To me it does qualify considering the caliber of players that have come out of the CBA. Since I think the presumption stands, unless otherwise shown I say keep. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Basically an unsourced BLP about a player who fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Jakejr ( talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - didn't garner a significant level of coverage to constitute GNG in either college or in the D-League (neither brings an assumption of notability on its own). The question about the Chinese Basketball Association (is it a "comparable league" to the top leagues in Italy and Spain?) is a reasonable one to ask. Personally, based on my experience and knowledge of international basketball, I wouldn't say China quite rises to that level (though stars there certainly tend to meet GNG). According to his FIBA profile, Underwood only played 5 games (over 16 days) with the Dongguan Leopards of the CBA. That is a short stint that I don't think should be taken as an assurance he meets GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 20:38, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Al-Muhannad Al-Balushi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Mahmood Al-Hasani

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:45, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Bassam Al-Rawahi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:46, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Salah Al-Siyabi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:44, 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. Even if we don't apply WP:FPL as suggested by Hmlarson, there is no evidence either that GNG is met. Randykitty ( talk) 17:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Al-Hattali

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - please see WP:FPL, there is no consensus that any team in Oman plays in a fully professional league. We don't keep player articles on the grounds that a league "might" be fully professional, only if reliable sources can be provided to indicate that it is. Fenix down ( talk) 16:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WP:FPL is an essay, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:GNG would be more applicable here with resources most likely found in native country/region. Correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt there's anyone here commenting that lives there or speaks/reads Arabic. Two other essays for your review and consideration: WP:WORLDVIEW, WP:IMBALANCE. Hmlarson ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • and one for you WP:CONSENSUS, hundreds and hundreds of AfD results have created the consensus that if a player has never played in an agreed upon FPL or senior international football then they have to have done something pretty special. It would be more helpful if rather than flinging around essays you took the time to explain how the player meets GNG in order to support your keep vote. Simply saying keep because there might be sources out there is insufficient. there might be, but if there is no one to read them and cite them then notability cannot by definition be asserted. Fenix down ( talk) 17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Refs I added some additional references from the region. It also appears as if he may play beach soccer for the national team. 1 Perhaps original author @ Alhosniomani20 could confirm and add additional references, if so. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Hmlarson ( talk) 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Player plays for Fanja SC in Oman Professional league in Oman which is in its second season now. There is a fully professional league in Oman and Oman gets one AFC Champions League play-off place. Also the player has played games in AFC Cup. The second biggest club football competition in Asia. Isn't that enough. Alhosniomani20 ( talk) 10:40, 2 August 2014 (MCT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Arif Al-Balushi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:46, 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Salem Al-Shamsi

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - unfortunately, the base level for notability required by WP:NFOOTY is that he has played in a fully professional league or played senior international football unless other achievements that have gained significant, reliable coverage in non- routine sources can establish GNG (i.e. not just match reports, transfer news, etc). Continental competition appearances can according to current consensus satisfy NFOOTY as long as they are in matches between two teams that play in FPLs. In this instance there is no consensus that the Omani is fully professional and this article indicates that at the start of last season, although steps were being taken to get to a fully professional level, it was not there yet, so players in the Omani League would not be inherently notable unless they have played senior international football or played in an FPL in another country. Fenix down ( talk) 07:44, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Sunil Padwal

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

Article written in a way that seems to be inclined towards promotion . The subject seems to be mentioned in many newspapers and magazines , although mostly either in interviews or as a passing mention. No notable achievements can be noticed apart from news about the subject exhibiting his works in and outside India. -- SaHiL ( talk) 07:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SaHiL ( talk) 07:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - significant amounts were copy-pasted from online gallery bios, so I've removed these promotional paragraphs. He won awards in the 1990s, though I'm not in a position to decide whether they were important awards - they seem to be awards for up-and-coming artists, so maybe he hasn't 'come' yet? Sionk ( talk) 08:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - I agree the article wasn't good, but Padwal's work (particularly his 2008 Mumbai solo show) had multiple lengthy reviews. His other exhibitions have had some coverage, though several (as the nominator says) are mainly interview format. Meets the very minimum for WP:ARTIST and I suspect (though I haven't been able to do an in-depth search) he may be one of India's more notable contemporary artists. Sionk ( talk) 09:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    Comment - I agree that the article just barely manages to touch base at WP:ARTIST , in which case the article needs major rework.It still feels like an essay when i read it :D . It seems to have a biased point of view ; no neutrality - SaHiL ( talk) 10:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
That can be a problem with articles about artists. 'Art speak' can sound pretentious and promotional. I think it's okay in small doses if it is well sourced. Like you say, the article needs work to improve it. Sionk ( talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Jinsei

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

Fails WP:NBOOK.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 14:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer  (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I restored this close per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACD, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Let an administrator reopen this or go to WP:DRV if you disagree with the closing editor's analysis of the consensus. Also, WP:BRD is not a guideline or policy and is meant more for content additions/removals from articles. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

GamesRadar

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

This article is about a NN website and it relies almost entirely on primary sources.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 06:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh 666 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - searches on Books and Scholar show that GamesRadar is used commonly as a source itself in VG-related media (and is indeed considered a reliable source in Wikipedia itself), and as such meets WP:NMEDIA. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotaku for a similar case. Ansh 666 07:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article's subject has no established notability, which is required per WP:GNG. Many of the GBooks results appear to be copies of Wikipedia, and even ignoring that, brief citations without context or significant coverage do not establish notability for the subject. In comparison, the Kotaku AfD showed a significant amount of coverage in the press (meaning Kotaku itself, as opposed to brief snippets saying "Kotaku gave so-and-so 6/10" and saying nothing beyond that; Kotaku was significantly covered), whereas this article's subject is lacking that from what I can tell. All I was able to find were a bunch of social media sites for GamesRadar and forum posts discussing the site in detail, that's about it and that isn't sufficient to warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh ( talk) 07:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nominator. Indeed, the website is famous and reputabe but notability has nothing to do with fame.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar  ♔ 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The first one you linked from Highbeam is a copy of a press release, the second one from Bath Chronicle is puffed-up coverage from the parent company's local newspaper and is about the parent company not GamesRadar, the biz, and Shacknews, and Wired articles are all about a lawsuit, not the company/website, suggesting that the content those sources reflect should be mentioned at a more appropriate article such as Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, as otherwise the article would be about a lawsuit as opposed to the company. A company only noted in connection with a lawsuit doesn't warrant a standalone article any more than a person only notable for a single lawsuit should have their own article. - Aoidh ( talk) 23:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, maybe so. I guess I'll strike my vote, as you've put enough doubt in my mind that I don't feel comfortable voting to keep. I still think that I might be able to find better sources, but I'm unwilling to put in more than hour of scouring Google to prove notability for a website I've never visited. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think it is since the only thing reliable sources note about the website is the lawsuit, and the article is completely lacking in any mention of that, so there's nothing worth merging aside from maybe the first half of the lede, but that's really about it. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: A quick search shows quite a few sites mentioning it and/or using it as a source, FWIW. There's also a lot of Russian sites mentioning it, but I can't vouch one way or the other for those since I don't know Russian. Note:I'll be in and out, so I might not be able to respond to a comment. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Okay, I bit. A simple WP:VG/RS search for "-site:gamesradar.com -site:en.wikipedia.com gamesradar" shows many sources that discuss GamesRadar as a publishing entity in great detail:
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-debuts-26-mln-visitors/
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/gamesradar-names-new-uk-editor/05741
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/04/investigation_gamesradars_laun.php
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-opens-api/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-15-new-publisher-for-futures-cvg-and-gamesradar
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/01/19/never-alt-tab-again-with-the-free-gamesradar-cheats-and-guides-app/
http://www.edge-online.com/news/gamesradar-releases-iphone-app/
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/revealed-the-biggest-uk-games-websites/0129973
http://www.wired.com/2007/12/texas-attorney/
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2007/12/07/texas_sues_gamesradar/1
http://www.vg247.com/2009/02/12/future-claims-10-million-game-site-users-per-month/
http://www.vg247.com/2008/08/14/future-claims-73-million-unique-users-on-games-sites-posts-abc-rises/
useful self-published sources: [38]
and so on
With this significant coverage, I say the topic meets the GNG. czar  ♔ 05:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
With 13 sources, that looks like a good bit of significant coverage until you actually analyze the sources. Edge Online is not an independent source, it's owned by GamesRadar's parent company. So is PCGamer. The gamesindustry.biz article is about a person who came to work for Future over two sites, one of which was GamesRadar. The article contains no significant or even trivial coverage of GamesRadar in any way. The vg247 pieces are about the parent company and part of its network, of which this site is only a part of. This is barely a mention. These two are about the lawsuit which would benefit an article about the lawsuit or COPPA, but not this website. So regarding sources which would contribute towards WP:GNG, we have sources for the lawsuit (which would suggest notability for COPPA if anything), and MCVUK, an industry paper that reports on all industry goings on to the point that their coverage is routine, especially given the intended audience which is not the general public but other members of the industry. Take those away and we're left with an editorial blog I'm not claiming that it being defunct means it's not a useful source, but nobody was reading the blog, which gives it a limited audience. But it's still a reliable source that shows notability in some way (though not a strong case for it). However, that's one source, the others are all either routine coverage, are about the lawsuit and can easily be covered elsewhere, or is content owned by the website's parent company and not an independent source. A single source isn't enough to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I can respond blow for blow, if you'd like, but it remains that all prongs of the GNG (sigcov in multiple, independent secondary sources) are still covered even in that draconian interpretation. Every one of those sources has been vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS, which includes GameSetWatch and Edge's independent coverage of another news outlet. There are more than enough sources to write an article about this topic. czar  ♔ 14:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
You are welcome to go to WP:RSN and have them explain to you why Edge and PCGamer are not independent coverage and thus fail to show notability per WP:GNG, which requires independent coverage. Two websites owned by the same company are not independent sources for one another, that's one of the most fundamental aspects of independent coverage; the two sites have a vested interest and do not write from a disinterested perspective. I didn't even have to know they were owned by the same company to see that, when I read the Edge source I thought it was a press release because of the overly promotional way it was written. Saying that "every one of those sources has been vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS" is critically missing the point; I didn't say Edge and PCGamer were not reliable, I said they were not independent. The other show insignificant coverage. Them being reliable is irrelevant. - Aoidh ( talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • See my talk page for the explanation. A single editor using primary sources as justification to keep an article and other editors simply saying "per this other editor" with no elaboration is not a clear keep rationale, especially as a NAC from an editor from the same WikiProject as all of those editors. Leave it to an administrator, please. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The sidelining and characterization of my list of sources as primary sources is wildly inaccurate and your prior reply was terribly condescending. It doesn't help to forward us to your talk page where you can claim there were no arguments from policy and belittle a non-admin closure without even an attempt at preemptive discussion before reverting. There is really no need to so recklessly alienate people with whom you disagree. czar  ♔ 01:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Given that you described my rationale as "draconian" and the tone of your own reply, complaining about my response to that as condescending is a little odd. NACs are done in very specific circumstances, this is not one of them, especially when done from an editor that is actively associated with the WikiProject members that argued to keep the article based on primary sourcing. That you don't see how two websites owned by the same company are not independent sources for one another is neither inaccurate nor condescending. Instead of accusing people of "alienating others" for pointing that out, you could have easily explained how they are independent sources, yet you did not do so. Instead of addressing the content, you choose to comment on me personally, when as you said, there is really no need. - Aoidh ( talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
It is technically against policy for a non-administrator to revert a NAC, but since few people know this, it really isn't inforced. Just FYI. Ansh 666 04:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Your close was inappropriate for the reasons explained you are welcome to disagree and discuss. - Aoidh ( talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
From WP:NACD: Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. (Emphasis mine.) And, it wasn't my close anyways. Ansh 666 18:13, 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Satellizer  (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ryōta Ōsaka

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 03:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
That isn't true. The article contains two citations, each of which verifies one of his roles. Those roles are as the primary protagonists in two notable TV series, so those citations alone would be enough to verify that he meets WP:NACTOR #1. Calathan ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

A Cheerful Gang Turns the Earth

A Cheerful Gang Turns the Earth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 陽気なギャングが地球を回す

Non-notable film.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 01:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 SK#1, withdrawn by nominator. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

AfDs for this article:

Kamisama Kazoku

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

Non-notable anime series.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics_and_animation-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 06:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Rosh Hashanah Terror Tunnel Plot

2014 Rosh Hashanah Terror Tunnel Plot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This story has only one original source: anonymous statements in a Maariv article. All other articles referring to this story refer back to the Maariv article. It has not been picked up in any other mainstream Israeli media outlet, and no IDF or other official Israeli source has publicly acknowledged a Rosh Hashanah plot.

With one (weak) source, this is essentially WP:NOTNEWS unless it can be better verified. Jprg1966  (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. For reasons above, but also because this is a speculative story about a hypothetical future event spu out in the midst of a war that involves propaganda from both sides. The tunnels, according to the latest Israeli intelligence assessments, appear to be means of abducting soldiers, not attacking civilians, as one would expect from past experience and military readings, despite a huge amount of press reportage talking of them as 'terror tunnels' aimed at civilians. I don't think it should be 'merged' unless the information gets a securer footing in mainstream sources either. Those of us who remember other wars with inflammatory declarations of incipient plots that never took place look at such reports very warily, and wait for real world assessments to come in. Nishidani ( talk) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Remove I wrote this article at a time when this appeared to be a developing story. I now have information that the story in Ma'ariv, a reputable Israeli Daily, resulted form misinterpretation of preliminary intelligence reports (misinterpretations happen in wartime). I would like to take the article down. ShulMaven ( talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. This should be speedied, Seriously, an "alleged plan" coming in the middle of present Gaza crisis? There is absolutely nothing to be saved here. Huldra ( talk) 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Wait This story is still breaking. I'm going to continue to edit the article, as reliable sources continue to come in. In accord with dozens of Wikipedia articles about thwarted terror plots. ShulMaven ( talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Sree Vidya Ramayanam

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

This uncited work could well be a hoax or a highly non-notable work based on the Ramayana. Could not find a ref to prove that it is notable. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 16:28, 1 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  ♔ 00:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There appears to have been a snafu here in relisting this discussion--Czar relisted it and added it to the July 9 log page, then Joe Decker added another relist template, reverted himself, but then commented out Czar's listing on the log page. Now re-added to the current log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Finngall talk 06:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Ukraine train bus collision

2014 Ukraine train bus collision (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This really doesn't seem like a notable event that requires a Wikipedia article, and is bare-bones by any standard. I'd like to remind people here that we are not a newspaper, and that this event has no significant coverage, no continued coverage, and no depth of coverage. It has absolutely zero lasting effect. In short, it fails all the event notability criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

If it happened in an English-speaking town and did not meet the event notability criteria, it still would still not be acceptable. It does not meet those criteria, therefore, it should be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Since when does "people dying" make something notable? RGloucester — ☎ 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Some policy stated it or therebaouts but have absolutely no idea what it was called now, Meh striked it. – Davey2010 • (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw this proposal – Since it is clear that I've lost this battle, I'll withdraw my request. I do find it sad that we do not hold ourselves to higher standards of notability, but that is neither here nor there. RGloucester — ☎ 20:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig ( talk) 06:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Ann Arbor Derby Dimes

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

Other than a couple of local articles and routine coverage, I haven't been able to find much coverage of this organization. I don't see the significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. Tchaliburton ( talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Not sure how it doesn't meet the majority of the criteria:
  • Significant coverage - well, the articles cited do address topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - in most cases the subject is the main topic.
  • Reliable" - Sources are reliable, in English, and includes secondary sources. Primary sources are only used for basic facts to supplement the rest.
  • "Sources" - again, in English and available, from various authors and publications. This is no single-source article, although one author is used twice.
  • "Independent" - there are independent sources.
  • "Presumed" - one would presume that membership in the world-wide Women's Flat Track Derby Association, and being ranked in the upper 50%, would be sufficient.
The article is a stub at this point, not a Good Article candidate. I don't see the value in removing it from Wikipedia, immediately upon its creation. Frankly, I subscribe to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Removal of content, that by its presence causes no harm, is by definition not an improvement. Seeing as this is the second attempt at deletion by this editor, I am baffled as to why they are so determined to have it removed. Echoedmyron ( talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There's no presumed significance here as you suggest. It needs to meet GNG, which means it needs to have significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. This must go beyond routine sports coverage. You assert that it has this coverage, but I'm not seeing it. Tchaliburton ( talk) 14:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
It is beyond routine sports coverage. The citations discuss the position of the organization within the community, probably more so than the sport itself. Echoedmyron ( talk) 14:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - looks to me to clearly meet the GNG. I count three different news sources all with articles focusing on the league. Routine, with regard to sports coverage, would be listings of fixtures and results, or a rehashed press release announcing an upcoming game. None of these three sources is routine. Warofdreams talk 18:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Arabesque Asset Management

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

can't see it meeting WP:CORP. it has a mere 18 employees and existed less than a year. the coverage provided is rather WP:ROUTINE. LibStar ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment The report from Reuters seems acceptable. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 08:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 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  ♔ 06:28, 19 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  ♔ 02:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 06:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Faculdades Integradas Hélio Alonso

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

I tried to have this deleted via CSD and then PROD, but both were contested by two different editors on the basis that schools and universities are in general considered notable. Well, this is not what I understand from WP:ORG and, more precisely, WP:NSCHOOL - for me, they basically state that any educational institution must adhere to our general notability guidelines - and this sentence, I mean, this article is far from it. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Provisional Keep. Is it a degree-granting institution? It appears to be, but my Portuguese isn't good enough to confirm this. If it is then it should be kept per longstanding consensus and precedent. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As to the length of the article, we don't delete articles just because they're stubs. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment: Yes, it is degree-granting, but... now I'm confused. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, and the very first section clearly states that that page "is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change.". It also recommends pages like the aforementioned WP:SCHOOLS as the actual notability guidelines, besides highlighting that "notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability. [...] All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies.[...]". Why should WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES take precedence over WP:SCHOOL and WP:ORG? Victão Lopes Fala! 14:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply
What SCHOOLOUTCOMES does is not set policy but record precedent and consensus. It has been established over many afds that all degree-granting institutions are kept. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We determine what is notable through discussion and we have had this discussion many, many times and determined a consensus on notability standards for educational institutions, as recorded in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:27, 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, czar  ♔ 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I've seen some lengthy and relatively recent discussions on this "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME vs. WP:NSCHOOL" matter, and there is no apparent consensus about it. I'll have to keep reluctant about accepting common outcomes as a sole reason for "keep". Anyway, nobody else's made a comment here yet, so I guess it'll be simply closed as no consensus. Victão Lopes Fala! 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - High schools are deemed notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - (Just a friendly note - I wouldn't debate the whole SCHOOLCOME thing as you won't get very far, High schools are deemed notable for reasons I've completely forget.) – Davey2010 • (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a 43 year old degree-awarding institution with 3600 students covered by reliable, independent sources such as this. Our well established consensus is described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The solution to a poorly referenced stub article about a notable topic is to expand the article and add sources, instead of deleting the article. Portuguese language sources are perfectly acceptable for a Brazilian topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • KeepI don;t see any divided consensus here, besides a single challenge--and I think even that challenge was based on not realizing that this is in fact a major educational institution. All seriously divided afd debates have been over really marginal institutions, and the only deletions have been where real existence cannot be proved, or at least real existence as a school, rather than some sort of tutoring academy of homeschooling arrangement. Policy is made by what we do, and guidelines state what we usually do. The actual policy is demonstrated by the fact that we have kept all such genuine institutions since at least 2009/2010. Hundreds of absolutely consistent decisions over many years establishes an consensus more firm than most so-called guidelines, few of which show such consistency. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Goaltimate

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

This game does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. I found one passing mention in a Highbeam article; Google Books hits all (?) seem to be those "articles from wikipedia" titles. 1 G-news hit, in Polish. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulty may be relevant (it's what led me to this page). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:37, 13 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 02:47, 21 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  ♔ 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only argument for keep was based on holding this to a lower notability standard because it's a student journal. Unfortunately, there's no support for that idea in current policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Journal of European Psychology Students

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep TKivisik: I strongly support the idea to keep Wikipedia organised and full of noteworthy information. Although deleting JEPS article seems to go too far. I went through the general guidelines ( WP:GNG) and based on that there is ground for improvement but not enough for deletion.
  • JEPS article has independent sources as well as nonindependent (taken from the JEPS website). All of the things taken from JEPS website are referred to (so anyone can see what was from an independent source and what not). Further work can be done to provide more independent sources.
  • JEPS has significant coverage, is reliable and the sources of the article are varied (independent sources added…) and no original research is needed to extract the content.
  • It is not appropriate to measure JEPS with the same standard ( WP:NJournals) as other highly professional academic journals as it’s a student journal. Thereby it should be enough that JEPS is known in its league (as a student journal) and has a high standard within it - contract with Ubiquity Press, reviewers must have PhD’s and are most probably professors etc.
  • independent sources where added (righttoresearch.org, Berufsverband Österreichischer PsychologInnen, British Psychology Society)
  • I respect the critique you have made and would be glad if you could help with some futher hints on how to improve the article. Tkivisik ( talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Your intentions are very laudable, however, in order to qualify for an article a subject (even a journal such as this one) needs to be notable in the WP sense. If there are independent sources that have discussed the journal in-depth (that is, not just cited one or a few articles from it or mentioned it in-passing), then those sources should be added to the journal to satisfy WP:GNG. In general, that is harder for an academic journal than meeting WP:NJournals, but you don't need to meet both, just one is enough. At this point, the article meets neither and your comment does not give any policy-based arguments to think otherwise. (see WP:AFD and especially WP:DISCUSSAFD for more info on this deletion procedure). -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:56, 17 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, § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I agree with Randykitty about this not meeting WP:NJOURNALS, but due to the fact that this is a journal for undergrads and masters students I think in this case trying to meet the general notability guidelines would be easier than the journal guidelines. That said I would recommend creating an article for the European Federation of Psychology Students Associations first since it would probably be easier to show notability for them, and then merging this article about their journal into that article, and keeping it there until enough sources can be found to establish its own notability at which time it could have its own stand-alone article. I like the work that Tkivisik has put into this article, and I personally wouldn't mind keeping this article, but I do not think any amount of work is likely at this time to be able to get this article to meet WP:GNG. AioftheStorm ( talk) 18:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 04:48, 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, czar  ♔ 01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Reference 1 is a blog. Reference 2 is a list of journals from the publisher. It is not a third-party source, and it only provides a passing mention. I am not able to view reference 3, although I found this page, which indicates that the source is "A Call for Papers". References 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 11 are by the journal editors themselves. Reference 10 gives a passing mention to the journal.
Reference 3 might be a suitable reliable source that helps to establish notability. However even if it is, this would not be sufficient to satisfy the GNG.
I have previously argued with Randykitty about WP:NJournals. That page is an essay. It does not have widespread community consensus.
As an aside, I do not know what a "double-blind" journal is. (The journal editors do indeed make that claim.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:55, 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. A version of the Esper article was userfied to User:DonaldKronos/Esper (language) in October 2013 (and TechnoZeus is aware of it, since he's edited that draft until it's almost identical to the article in question here). Anyone who wants to work on the draft can do so there. Deor ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Esper (language)

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

Non-notable made up language lacking support for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Hello? Is the purpose of this to insult, to frustrate, or what? Am I responding to this in the right way? At least I found a link this time to a discussion page, but I do nt see how we are supposed to "discuss" anything here.

TechnoZeus ( talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I've removed the heading you made for "hello" to avoid it messing up the AfD page. In any case, the issue here is that the page does not have any coverage in reliable sources to show how the language passes notability guidelines. By reliable sources, I mean coverage in things such as academic texts, newspaper articles, and the like that discuss Esper in depth. I've been looking and so far I can't really find anything out there that would really be considered a reliable source. I can see where it exists, but not where it's ultimately notable enough for an entry. For something that's been around since the 70s, it doesn't really seem to have gained any true coverage. I'd suggest a merger into Esperanto since it's a variant of the language or at least a mention there, but so far I'm not seeing where there's enough to show where it merits its own article. I've left some information on Reddogsix's talk page, but I'd like to caution you about accusing other editors of nominating the page for deletion as a way of frustrating or insulting you or Esper. As far as reasons for deletion go, I've got a bit of a primer for the basics here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't know how to do this right, and it is EXTREMELY frustrating. There have been many things published on Esper online, but they tend to end up deleted. Unfortunately I think it has something to do with the emotional scars inherited in the Esperanto community from the Ido incident. It is a contemporary language, so don't expect to see very old stuff on it, but I don't know where to find ANYTHING on it right now other than stuff I've made myself, and EVEN MOST OF THAT has gotten deleted! Much of it is under the name Pont, which is the other parent language of Esper. I will look around for news articles and such, but I really haven't got time to do it right away. I think this is just sickening that a person has to feel they have wasted time every time they try to add something in here that isn't so well known as to already be covered. TechnoZeus ( talk) 01:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. I would recommend that TechnoZeus have this article copied to their userspace where they can work on finding sources to support it, without having to worry about the deadline for this AfD discussion. The fact that this language is not "so well known as to already be covered" is part of the problem here; a constructed language can be fairly obscure and still have an article on Wikipedia, but it does need to be known enough to have had things published about it to be used as sources for the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/02/02/asia/afc-champions-league/al-suwaiq/al-qadsia-sc/1605877/
  2. ^ http://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/02/02/asia/afc-champions-league/al-suwaiq/al-qadsia-sc/1605877/
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_July_28&oldid=1142628701"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE