![]() |
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A personal project that does not have significant secondary source coverage. The external links in the article do not establish notability of the subject. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Self-published book. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (books). It is dubious whether the author meets Notability also. maclean ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article has been reverted to the 2014 version which is significantly different than the version nominated for deletion. Please re-nominate should you feel it's still a candidate for deletion. Nakon 23:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
corporate promo and advertising The Banner talk 23:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Article has been around for eight months but nothing in it really establishes notability. Neither of the newspapers he writes for seem to be very significant. ... discospinster talk 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
<a href=" http://www.journalismpakistan.com/myprofile.php?profileid=MzM5&msg=1">Reference</a>
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 21:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On first inspection the article contains a number of sources, but many of them only contain a passing mention of the subject, or sometimes no mention at all. The sources that do mention the subject in a non-trivial manner are themselves unreliable. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Subject appears to fail to meet the notability guidelines. Achievements do not include any awards, references are not independent of the subject, does not appear to have attracted sufficient independent substantive coverage to warrant an article. KDS4444 Talk 06:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
edited thanks for the comments and additional references. these have been included and irrelevant refs deleted. copy also toned down. any other suggestion to avoid deletion, appreciated. user: roller1001
The result was keep. SmartSE ( talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBAND. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I am an editor who is a follower of, but not associated with the subject. I vote to keep the article. Among its references are an article from a writer for Steppin' Out Magazine, and a published book from a notable author who writes about underground rock music. Additionally, there is reference to significant coverage by web periodicals which specialize in the band's particular music niche.
Edit: I have added a "press coverage" section, and included examples of writing about the band from Spartanburg Herald, Maximum Rock N'Roll, The Press of Atlantic City, Trentonian, and others. I know that this is heavy handed and introduces a new problem of non-neutral tone. The article now needs more work than it did prior to my effort. However, I wanted to meet the notability critique head on. Keithramone33 ( talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33
Note: I have recently added a couple new references that I have found. I do look forward to eventually improving the article for tone, style, and (perhaps) content, but this discussion is about notability, which I hereby reassert. Keithramone33 ( talk) 17:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Non Notable Garage Band, that isn't even notable in it's home nation of Sweeden. The use of it's own website as a primary source lends credibility that it isn't a viable article. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG CrazyAces489 ( talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Majority of the article concerns biographies of partners; Fred Levin already has its own article; so does Reubin Askew and Mike Papantonio - those sections should be merged or deleted. The sources cited for the company, and those I see on the web, refer to it in passing - I don't think that's sufficient to prove notability. Ref 8 is a good example (with the quote included in the article): it concerns trial lawyers in general, and has nothing to do with the company in question. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The book notes from the Google Books snippet view:
Levin-Papantonio became a giant in the field, with lawyers all over the country consulting them to handle their cases. The firm performs the work and extends the money, and the lawyer referring the case gets a piece of the action, if and when it...
The book notes:
Walter Olson has followed the career of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Olson is the author of The Rule of Lawyers and The Litigation Explosion. Called "an intellectual guru of tort reform by the Washington Post, Olson has helped to shape the debate on tort reform, and his publications have been cited in Supreme Court opinions. "[Kennedy] is a number of different things," said Olson. "He is a professor at Pace University Law School. He is the chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeepers. And he is also an attorney with one of the largest and best mass tort law firms in the country." It is this last association that has most intrigued Olson.
In 2000, Kennedy joined a group of trial lawyers to sue pork producers in the South and Midwest. During the litigation, the Associated Press ran an article that quoted Kennedy as well as a lawyer named Mike Papantonio. Although Kennedy and Papantonio were described as representing two different organizations, their appearance in the same article wasn't a coincidence. "Michael Papantonio is a flamboyant, very well known personal-injury lawyer who has been involved in a lot of mass tort cases," says Olson. "He is the second named partner in the law firm of Levin Papantonio, one of the best known mass tort firms. They were involved in tobacco litigation. They were involved in asbestos. They have eighteen different product-liability areas that are important enough for them to list [on their Web site]. They are a very rich, very successful firm. And they are not a firm that incidentally does plaintiffs' work. They are very close to the glowing heart of the product-liability industry. A firm of that sort, even if it doesn't list vaccine litigation as one of its major activities, is well aware of the large amounts that could be made if it cracks open. The firm doesn't list what Kennedy's financial arrangements are, but that there are financial arrangements is certainly implied by the fact that he is 'of counsel' to the firm."
The result was redirect to List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka. I was going to close this as delete, but in case anyone does want to perform some sort of a merge, I have redirected with history intact. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Similar article already exists, List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka Blackknight12 ( talk) 06:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails to meet notability guidelines, heavily based on opinion with few, if any, reliable sources of fact FitzJD ( talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This looks to me like a
POV fork. The matter can be easily addressed in existing articles like
Who's Who and
Marquis Who's Who. Having a separate article like this appears especially inappropriate because the scam allegation seems to apply to the whole "Who's Who" business, rather than just a piece or aspect of it.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
the alliance is notable, and the refs how it. She is not., for the refs merely indicate that she is exec director of the organization.; theydo not discuss her to a significant extent . DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
utterly trivial firm, $1.1 Million funding, has the usual publicity of an intent-relatedstatup, all of which does not add up to significance. , let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ShopBack is also currently working with established organisations like Citibank, Packet One Networks (Malaysia Telco) and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants. The article has also been edited to include references for ShopBack's partnership with these organisations. In addition, Citibank, Packet One Networks and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants also have their own Wikipedia articles, as linked. —Lievesun[[User talk:Lievesun| 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete: as plainly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Nonnotable author. Her books are not even on worldcat, which is a bare minimum requirement. Everything else is a notice or an advertisement, including the cbc item DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*Delete. Un-needed article, and the following sentence in the article looks suspiciously negative; "Tessa Richarde is an American actress mainly cast as likable dumb blondes."
Zeke Essiestudy (
talk)
21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions must be given less weight as less convincing in the light of Wikipedia policy and practice, particularly because they do not seriously address the concerns voiced about the sources, as also discussed on the AfD talk page. Sandstein 08:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This organization exists, but I see nothing to show it's notable. The sources appear to be either event results or not independent, but I'll admit I couldn't find many of them. However, the burden of proof is on those creating the article to show there's significant independent coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like i walked between a personal grudge fight so not wishing to get involved in that but i agree with crazyace489 again, when he says "lets try to keep things civil." Although i thought the answer to the question was self evident, nevertheless the answer is, nothing other than the WCKF are members of the SKU http://wckf.org/ and the second link supplied http://wckf.org/members.php shows the spread of countries that are represented as members Bazatom ( talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Bazatom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
it clearly states that the wckf are members of the the sku and not visa versa, i do see the 3 sku members listed who are also members of the wckf but i dont see anything on the sku site saying that the sku as a group are members of the wckf. Notability is a very subjective point of view, which is heavily dependent upon ones prejudices and therefore somewhat of a mine-field to be avoided, just like the opinions of someone with a track record of bias. But no matter how one chooses to view it, the original contribution suggests that the sku is more than a uk only group. Bazatom ( talk) 21:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Bazatom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Epeefleche in answer to the foreign enteries that cite the SKU from what i have seen the SKU has members in lots of countries and organisations that are members of them too for example the WCKF in the examples below say they are members and looking at their pages they are in many countries so i understand that by using the acronym i could find more examples.
Bazatom (
talk)
06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Well if they received their grade from or are members of the SKU GB - then they are not independent.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
21:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I Disagree completely with you as they appear in my opinion to be former members, and as such can only therefore, be defined as currently independent. Bazatom ( talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You are very wrong on two counts firstly as they do not merely say shotokan karate as you state, but they say "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)" or i would have not been able to find them as i was using the acronym in the search, what i think it is saying is that is the style of karate of the grade that they achieved was taken in the style of "shotokan karate" but in clarification they directly place one character space after the words "shotokan karate" the statement that it was with the SKUGB that they gained their grades, so not only have you read the links wrongly but you are unjustly presenting your wrong conclusion with some authority as if your misreading of the citation is a true and corrective fact, i like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt so i assume this is merely an oversight on your behalf and you will correct this immediately, and it is not just another totally unfair, biased point of view, as this confusion is a very misleading representation to anyone who just takes your misreading of the citation, without being bothered enough to read it themselves, as it clearly says "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)" . Another thing you seem to have conveniently overlooked is that there was an independent report in there from a local independent newspaper that states SKU name Bazatom ( talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Another burning question is, why do the people who nominate an article for deletion, not have enough conviction to put their name to the act ? are they feared in someway of the comebacks if they signed it, especially if they are regularly nominating this that and the other ? or is it part of the fun being the unknown warrior ? and why if they are so incensed to nominate article after article for deletion do they not vote to delete as often as they seem to freely nominate and comment negatively ? Bazatom ( talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (April 2015) This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2015)
Bazatom ( talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
cheers for changing that but i wasn't voting again, i was just stating as i said that "i am still of the opinion to keep" this and it was arrived at after further research on the tip of using acronym was given by Epeefleche. I found those relatively easily and more besides. So I strongly disagree with there is a lack of notability because if they are being quoted enough by various sources and people and they have people who are associated to them in lots of countries who are mentioning them and they are taking part in sports competitions then notability goes with all those things and the length of time that they have existed and the number of members and former members that still refer to them. And on the question of former members they can by disassociation only be classed as independent. Bazatom ( talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep The subject is notable and interesting. Chunlinc ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 06:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable. failed politician, with vague claims for having been involved in various movements. Relatively minor executive position--not head of the firm DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says:
The sources provided by ThaddeusB ( talk · contribs) above:Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Will Brooke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify.
WP:BLP1E does not apply because Will Brooke is not a low-profile individual. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (which is linked to in BLP1E) says:
Because condition 2 of BLP1E is not met, BLP1E does not apply because the policy requires that "each of three conditions is met". Condition 1 is not met either per ThaddeusB's comment above at 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC).A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 06:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was a recreation or not, but regardless this does not meet project Tennis guidelines for notability. Stan did not win a major tournament in 2013 (not until 2014). See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Article_types_and_recommended_practices for clarification. I had thought of going the speedy delete route but went with standard "proposed deletion" instead, which was nixed by the article creator. So now we are at formal deletion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing but highly indiscriminate listcruft. Nothing notable or defining about being a twin in itself to begin with. Aside from BBC and maybe STV, none of the references used are even good quality sources. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Retracted by filer. By blanking this page. No discussion has been had. Sandstein 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This article does not cite any sources. Supdiop ( talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Band I can't find any refs at all for-all my results are stuff like "make birds out of clay!" (Kind of not surprised though) as well as ancient readings of this. Wgolf ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite being in over 40 films none of the roles stand out. (Also the refs that keep on getting added seem to go to spam sites) Wgolf ( talk) 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The discussion below had a majority consensus that there is insufficient independent coverage to warrant an article on either Ali Fadavi or his doctrine. Der yck C. 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a cut-and-paste move from Favadi Doctrine, which was created the day of the speech in question with essentially the text we have now. Three years later this has no GBook footprint and (once you eliminate WP) no significant link footprint; it's not hard to figure that what hits there are arise from copying/paraphrasing our text, since nobody provides much more than a definition and reference to the speech. After this much time, in a hot geopolitical topic, there should be a lot of commentary if this were a real thing. Mangoe ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep but consider whether Fadavi Doctrine should instead be redirected to an article on Ali Fadavi (which currently is redirected to the article on Falavi Doctrine). WP:MILPEOPLE accepts notability as established if an individual has "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." Perhaps Fadavi's statements equating Israel to the United States (the "Fadavi Doctrine") are something of a flash-in-the-pan, but his position with the Iranian military renders those statements hard to ignore. Independent and reputable sources appear if his name is fed into search engines. The reason for the appearance of his name in those sources is irrefutably his statements forming the Fadavi Doctrince. So, again, my recommendation is to keep the substance of the article although I can go along with a judgment call to subsume it elsewhere and provide sufficient redirects to make it easy to find. Perhaps, however, the best treatment is still to leave "Fadavi Doctrine" as a self-standing article and to redirect his name to it while also beefing up the cited sources. Rammer ( talk) 03:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. This and others are currently being discussed at WP:RFD. Persian and Arabic names are often transliterated in different ways into English, so the redirects suggested would be valid, but it has to go somewhere. I agree with Buckshot06 to reorganise the whoe lot, but until we get consensus at WP:RFD I can't see how we can do that with consensus. 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable martial artist. Has no accomplishments that meet WP:MANOTE and the only source is his press release of an event he was sponsoring so there are no sources that show he meets WP:GNG. Studying a bunch of different arts does not make him notable. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete Even I can't find a reason to keep him. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to David Baldacci. Nakon 22:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK. Although a Google search may suggest, on first inspection, that the book has good coverage from independent sources, many (if not all) of these sources are either the publisher, online bookshops that offer the book for sale, or otherwise non-independent. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 14:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*Keep. Merge per
User:Coolabahapple.
seven weeks on the bestseller list of USA Today,
discussed by the Washington Post, by
the LA Times, by
the New York Times, by
Forbes, by
The Wall Street Journal, et cetera.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
22:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite the vehement defence from several SPAs, the "delete" !votes are more firmly policy-based. No convincing sources meeting any notability guideline have been brought forward. Randykitty ( talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Let's review the sources presented:
All right, so I think it's pretty clear none of this material justifies a separate article - it's either not independent or trivial. Which leaves us with this, a long, glossy Vanity Fair piece about the tribulations of the Dia Foundation. Here, the subject does rack up more mentions, but I would submit none of them remotely indicate encyclopedic notability. They're almost a parody of the idle rich:
“ | When Georges and Lois moved to Paris, they started using the de Menil family house in the country on weekends, and Lois redecorated it, in her style, which was not everyone else’s style. What’s the difference? Well, when my grandfather was near the end of his life, he gave Georges and Lois a Matisse cutout, and she went to Pierre Deux and found this print fabric in the same colors and had their whole living room in New York done in it. | ” |
“ | Lois de Menil, who had already given $150,000 in 1994, pledged $350,000 more. | ” |
“ | Lois de Menil was [upset]: 'The motivation was to take control. This group wanted power. And Michael thought they had lots of money and would just say yes to anything he wanted. There was never a full board discussion of the policies Michael was carrying out, or whether we should go forward with the sale of the buildings we had planned to sell.' | ” |
That's all very interesting, I'm sure, but it hardly seems notable, as defined by WP:BASIC. At best, again, this could be mentioned in the context of the Dia Foundation, but as far as standalone notability for this individual is concerned, that simply is not apparent.
Note: this was previously deleted as part of another discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Thank you for taking the time to review my entry on Lois de Menil in such detail. I am continuing to edit it and I would like to contest the proposed deletion because of recent changes. In response to the critiques, I have supplied further references from Cambodian sources, as well as sources relating to her work in Romania, both of which are more recent and relevant contributions than her time at DIA, though the former received greater visibility in English language news sources. The Center for Khmer Studies which Dr. de Menil contributed to founding, constitutes the only research library in Cambodia outside of Phnom Penh. I struggle to see how that is not a notable contribution to education. I am open to all constructive criticism of this piece and welcome your response. Vwikiv ( talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv — Vwikiv ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hello Biruitorul,
I take your point about the sources including "non-independent" publications and not being of the quality you would hope for in a wikipedia bio. There is an inherent challenge, however, in holding up notability in Cambodia to the same standards as in the US, since the number of English language publications about Camboodia -- particularly about library scholarship -- are minimal. That is partly a product of the particular history of Cambodia, which destroyed most of the educational infrastructure in the late 1970s. I'm not sure where this leaves us, but I would contend that the article demonstrates enough evidence to show that Lois de Menil really did found the Center for Khmer Studies, and that the legacy of that institution in terms of research infrastructure and cataloguing the National Museum constitutes notability.
Please also note that I corrected the reference to the National Museum Catalogue so that it no longer links to google. Thanks for spotting that.
As before, I appreciate the time you are putting into this and other wiki entries on a volunteer basis. Vwikiv ( talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv
Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. It has a total of 16 sources as I write this comment and it is a coherent and interesting article. With regard to it been non-notable I disagree also. By virtue of the fact that 16 sources can be found it is notable. The subject matter is notable in any case. The article does not qualify for deletion. Keep Thank you Trout71 ( talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) — Trout71 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. The subject is a published author, has held prominent positions, and has been influential in several notable organizations: Dia, World Monuments Funds, National Gallery of Art, Andy Warhol Museum, Center for Khmer Studies - all of which have Wikipedia entries and are noteworthy, and the last of which she founded. Also, since the original deletion request, more citations have been added. Biruitorul, in both this request for deletion, and the related request for deletion of Georges de Menil entry, you take issue with the subjects' finances. I don't see how this is relevant. Keep Thank you -- Bdemenil ( talk) 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. I have been a longtime/frequent user of Wikipedia, and I only registered today so that I can oppose the proposition to delete the page related to Lois de Menil. That proposition really surprises me. I am a Cambodian national, and I am working for an independent Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Cambodia since 2007. I know very well CKS, the organisation for which Mrs De Menil serves as a president. I can testify on 2 points. 1/ CKS is a very well known and reputable organisation, from an academic and from an intellectual perspective. It achieves good results, it generates high level studies and knowledge that is shared with Cambodian scholars and it has very strong credentials in the country, and has collaborated with international organisations like the United Nations, with Cambodian Universities, and with International NGOs. CKS has been operating for many years in Cambodia, brought in the country high level international researchers, academics, experts and professors which are providing lot of insights and knowledge related to Cambodia's history and culture; the organisation's reputation and quality are excellent. Mrs De Menil is a well known, well respected professional, and the role she played in supporting Cambodia's cultural preservation and history is very important. Mrs De Menil has been instrumental in ensuring CKS credibility and quality. I understand Wikipedia policy to ensure quality of all references and information that are posted on the website. It is a commendable standard. Therefore, please allow me to ask you to keep the page online and accessible to the public so that those improvements can be made. I am not sure that I agree with the nature and the form of some of the above criticism made by Biruitorul, but I can see that somebody is already working to address the comments that have been made. I am sure constructive improvements can be made, so that future Wikipedia's readers remain well informed. 71.174.42.185 ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 ( talk • contribs) — Khmer15 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note to closing administrator - the participants on this AfD thus far have been User:Vwikiv (edits only articles related to the de Menil family), Trout71 (new account, first AfD edit here), Bdemenil (probably the article subject's son, first AfD edit here), Khmer15 (single-purpose account) and 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (likewise). - Biruitorul Talk 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note to the administrator - The nature of the participants, how old or new their accounts are, do not change anything to the accuracy of the facts and the reliability of the new information that is presented. The quality and the relevance of many of the criticisms formulated by User Biruitorul makes me question the impartiality and the objectivity of that person, and therefore the validity of the feedback. The person seems to have engaged in a personal "vendetta" against the De Menil family. Some of the assumptions formulated by Biruitorul are borderline calumnious and biased. I quote: Press release, not an independent source, meeting someone is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC). User Biruitorul needs to be much more accurate with his feedback, better informed, and less disrespectful. Not an independent source? I disagree. In addition, the fact that Mrs De Menil has met with the King of Cambodia, is a significant event, that fully proves notability of Mrs De Menil. King Sihamoni is not "someone', as suggested, but he is Head of State of Cambodia, and a symbolic and well respected public figure for all Cambodians, and for many foreigners too. Being invited and received by the King of Cambodia in his residence is not a common fact, and it is to say the least a very significant event. As a Cambodian I would please ask you to be culturally more sensitive. I am not contesting the fact that some of the above mentioned references can be improved. But please, let's stay objective and impartial here. And let's have as a shared goal to improve the quality of the information that is presented on Wikipedia. Please let's not enter into any personal "vendetta", specifically when there is no ground for it. 71.174.42.185 ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 ( talk • contribs)
OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. Note to the Editor. Dear Sir, My name is Solinn Lim and i am a Cambodian working in international development field in Asia based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. I came across the proposed deletion of Ms. de Menil's profile and I would like to share with you my experience. I met her once in Cambodia when she was visiting a local orphanage called Children’s Peaceful Home in Srer Ampil locality. She introduced her friends who were potential donors to the founder's orphanage, and then went on to visit a group of local authority who managed a small museum in the middle of nowhere (about 10 mins or so from the orphanage). I was a guest of the orphanage's founder and my interest was to visit the museum because i heard about this amazing project trying to educate and stop local farmers from looting priceless artifacts of thousands years of age and sell them to black markets in exchange for a bag of rice. Such looting happens every day and my worst nightmare as you can imagine is that nothing would be left for my children's generation. In my 15 years of professional experience in programme development in Asia, i can humbly share with you, that funding for area such as cultural preservation in Cambodia has diminished, and we rely mainly on private funding such as that of Ms. de Menil's. A local expert whom i know very well explained to me how important it was that someone like Ms. de Menil chose to focus on cultural preservation adn development work. Let me be clear that the funding alone would not have been sufficient. Her negotiation skills and acute political awareness were so essential for her project to succeed in the area that is full of powerful business interest such as this. At a seminar I attended on digitalizing the entire catalogue of the National Museum i got a good glimpse of the complexity - just on the technical level alone they had to deal with 3 languages that CAmbodia uses: Khmer, French and English. Let me tell you how important the work of Madame de Menil to Cambodians. As a nation, we went through a century of colonization and the recent murderous genocide accounted for the death of 25% of our population. As the UN's hybrid Khmer Rouge/genocide trial is still on going, we Cambodians are confused of our history, fearful of living our present, and not ready for our future. We are in limbo. We need to preserve and rediscover our past, our once glorious ancient civilization in Southeast Asia, through the work of Ms. de Menil that would help us understand where we came from. Such preservation and education are so important because it would help our fragile nation to regain our confidence, overcome sufferings from centuries of humiliations, rebuild our national identity, and pass on the pride to our next generations. I can go on and on about Ms. De Menil and especially about the CKS's achievement since i am a regular participants of their valuable research seminars. I can provide you more references to the work of the CKS and Ms. de Menil as i have learned a lot about her from local media. I hope this humble testimony would help you reconsider to keep this profile on Wikipedia. Please let me knwo if i could be of service to Wikipedia in regards to the case of Ms. de Menil. Please accept my apologies for the typos as i am writing to you on my mobile. Sincerely, Solinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengkiim ( talk • contribs) — Sengkiim ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note to the administrator - the same arguments are repeated again and again from the pro-deletion users, while the side that opposes deletion brings new testimonies into the picture. Mrs Lois de Menil has an established proven track record of actions and results. She legitimately deserves a page in Wikipedia. Many professionals that have met her and that collaborated with her can testify, with example and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 ( talk • contribs)
Note to the administrator -Please allow time so that Mrs De Menil profile can be improved, and edited. The feedback on what needs to be changed is clear. It is just a matter of time before independent sources are found that can support her achievements and her contributions. Please also note that the pro-deletion users are applying double standard, lecturing others on high standards that needs to be respected, while they are feeling comfortable making emotional judgement about others that are groundless fantasies e.g. FreeRangeFrog assumptions. Their action and words reinforce my point: what they are looking for is simply to take down the page, and not to contribute objectively to improve the page quality and accuracy, and therefore to contribute to improve with impartiality the quality of wikipedia, to a larger extent. Quality of content in Wikipedia is the goal. I am not interested in blindly speculating on who is who, and who is doing what. 71.174.42.185 ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15
Note to the administrator - While supporting to keep the article so that modification can be made to improve compliance with WIkipedia policies and regulation, specific parts of the text and selected references that are in contradiction with those policies and regulation can be easily improved. However, seeking better alignment with important principles of neutral point of view and of verifiability, I would like to seek guidance and clarifications as per why the Phnom Penh Post article or the official Website of King Sihamoni are not qualified by the pro deletion as fitting with those 2 principles. Could you please provide clear example and advice as per what criteria you use to define neutral, and verifiability? That would be very useful. Many thanks in advance for your support. 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.185 ( talk)
Note to the administrator There are two facts that I will now submit. The first is that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of notability. It has succeeded in indicating it's notability. The sources aren't the best but it is sourced. In response to User:I am One of Manys comment I am not in anyway associated with the other voters as can be checked. I don't think we even live in the same continent. I don't appreciate unfounded accusations. In any case, such a comment seems to suggest that you have run out of arguments for the deletion of this article. The comment made by User:Biruitorul regarding the age of my account should not have been mentioned as it is both irrelevant and an attempt to discredit my view without actually having to challenge my view. I contest that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of non-notability or for being unsourced. So on what grounds can it be deleted? Thank you Trout71 ( talk) 13:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non Notable band that existed for 2 years. No major hits or placings. Fails WP:BAND CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I merely stated my opinion to one of his/her articles for deletion, and he/she started taking it personally. But yes, I will cease interaction with the user. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 11:10, 15 April 2015
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I declined a CSD as this person appears to have starred in one notable film, but I don't think anything else. I'm a complete ignoramus to this topic (I prefer a nice cup of tea) so I'll leave it to the floor to decide what to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
As it stands, the article is heavily promotional, containing a list of bulleted projects and multiple buzz language. Apart from that, the article is mostly supported by regional news in NJ/NY. Looking through both search and G-News, I found publications here, here and here that are somewhat from non-regional sources, but those are also iffy. Just glancing at sourcing, the subject appears to be notable, but upon review, it doesn't satisfy WP:ORG and is highly advertorial at that. Jppcap ( talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This film doesn't seem to quite satisfy WP:MOVIE, but I'm not 100% sure, so here we are. There is a DVDtalk review and Daniel Blum's Screen World 1965 volume 16 (whoever he is and whatever the book says). P.S. Dom DeLuise was not top billed, or anything close to it. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh I only put him up the top because he's the best known. I'll see if I can source some other things but I'm not particularly inclined to go into bat for this. Dutchy85 ( talk) 10:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This person does not meet the notability standards. Atsatsa ( talk) 23:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage online is mostly blogs and what appears to be PR interviews, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Can't find any evidence online that the single he (performed? produced?) was in the UK charts, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. It can be difficult to find online coverage for Ghanaian artists, but not impossible, and there just doesn't seem to be enough to show notability here. I've cleaned out the promotional copyvio, but the notability issue remains. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Really. I said Around Sounds Radio Show Uk not uk charts show. You changed that after the editing. Gogglee moxkito Around sounds show mixcloud
Dai Pritchard *Keep: I vote for keep because I dont see anything wrong with the article. I think everything is alright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quame Zane ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC) — Quame Zane ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG, so as it has been tagged for notability for over 3 years, have brought it to AfD. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Zodon, Mark viking, Thumperward. Boleyn ( talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
While working on a rewrite of territorial evolution of the United States, I decided to include every infinitesimal change to the country. Thus, I've been scouring the minutes of the International Boundary and Water Commission for exchanges between the U.S. and Mexico. And while I have found various references to bancos (land that became separate from their origin because of movements of the river) in the Presidio-Ojinaga region, I have found zero reference to an "Ojinaga Cut" or the specific numbers mentioned in this article. It has gone unsourced for over five years, and I am unable to find any sourcing either of the numbers or of the term "Ojinaga Cut" anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. It may be real, but we have zero sourcing saying such, and it should be deleted until or unless proper sourcing is discovered. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTESSAY Pishcal — ♣ 18:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Album long tagged for notability that I can't find any more. (and it seems the previous album redirects just to the word anthem) Wgolf ( talk) 01:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a distinct lack of reliable sources on here, and fails WP:NMUSIC. Subject has also requested deletion ( Ticket:2015031510004211) Mdann52 ( talk) 19:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild ( talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable actress-has only had a few roles and none of them seem important. Since she seems to just have nameless characters for the most part even. Wgolf ( talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Could not find any reliable independent secondary sources describing this project, see WP:GNG. Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This is getting a bit complex. Thanks to Fiachra10003's research we have sources from the American Recreation Coalition, including the ones cited ( [66], [67]) as well as three NY Times sources from the 1980s ( [68], [69], [70]). Browsing through ARC's coverage of TPIA it appears ARC wasn't independent of TPIA. They actively promoted the program and may have helped to set it up. There's also a question of the reliability of their content. Then, they have an FAQ in which they say there was a separate program that ran from 1986 to 1992. All in all I still don't think we meet the GNG bar, as we have no independent, reliable secondary sources significantly covering the subject. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Fiachra10003 ( talk) 21:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). Of note regarding the first !vote following the nomination, while it's highly desirable for articles to be sufficiently sourced, as per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's based upon the availability of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of a topic. North America 1000 17:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Doncram under following edit summary: "Appears to be a significant law firm in the country. Sources included. Not obviously bad. There's at least one other in the category at AFD, related, will comment there." Being a significant foo-ian firm is not related to notability. Sources, in my view, are bad, because they discuss the company only in passing, are self-published, or come from some trade/professional publications/websites of dubious visibility. Let's discuss, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable ATHLETE. Quis separabit? 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator with the following edit summary: "reliable information and secondary sources added". I am afraid I still don't see the references ans sufficient. Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference is to a webpage containing the rules of the game. This does not speak to notability. ubiquity ( talk) 19:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
My main concern is the English name. The Chinese Pinyin would write it as Daguai Luzi (not DaGuai LuZi as in the original article, which I redirected to here.). Wild Escape is not the name that I've heard -- I've heard "The Joker's Way" which would be the literal translation of 大怪路子. However, I believe that the original author ( User:Beautifulsummerdays) who wrote [ DaGuai Luzi History] would be better placed to explain it. I just tried to improve the English.
Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier440 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Armie Hammer. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Cannot find any signficiant coverage on her. The only reliable sources I could find are just bit stories about her and her husband ( Armie Hammer) but nothing strictly about her - fails WP:GNG. It also seems that she hasn't done anything really major which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so dramatic, I didn't demand anything, I was giving an example of what significant coverage to me is like. I didn't say "has to be 5-6" I said to TO ME it would like 5 or 6 because 2 or 3 articles isn't a significant number. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The result was delete. Dismissing Hhplactube's comment as "per X" and by a very new account. Sandstein 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Film that I can't find much notability for as well as a major COI given the people who have made the article are the producer and the writers names. Wgolf ( talk) 16:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. North America 1000 12:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope I'm proved wrong, because they seem like a worthy organisation, but I couldn't verify that they meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years without resolution. Pinging those who have been involved in discussing its notability before: Ironholds, Foxj, Fritzpoll. Boleyn ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 04:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The subject has not been discussed in reliable publications. The sources currently in the article are all unreliable. The accolades mentioned in the article are not notable accolades. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus herein is that the topic presently does not meet WP:N to qualify for a Wikipedia article. North America 1000 04:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This neologism has no significant support in the scientific literature. I can find only two papers in Google scholar that use this term, one with very few citations and the other unpublished and uncited. Without reliable secondary sources that cover this topic in-depth, it fails WP:GNG. I tried prodding the article, but the prod was removed by an anonymous editor (who also removed the cleanup tags on the article) without comment, so here we are. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Scottish_Premier_League#Records_and_awards. Nakon 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that this article is notable enough to merit inclusion. I know that there was a previous discussion about deletion, and the main argument for keeping it was that it was an SPL record victory. However, the SPL only existed under that name for 15 years, while the Scottish top flight has a history stretching back over 120 years. The Scottish top flight record was Celtic's 11-0 victory over Dundee in 1895. The Scottish top flight was rebranded again as the Scottish Premiership in 2013, and therefore the SPL no longer exists. The "record win" is therefore of even more questionable relevance than it was at the time of the previous discussion. The article itself is fairly short and doesn't provide much information about why the match would be considered relevant. Craig1989 ( talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eels (band). ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 10:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete Does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy for neologisms. Reliable secondary sources are minimal and mostly discuss the issue peripherally. Vectro ( talk) 01:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any indication, as expressed through multiple, independent, reliable sources, that this individual passes WP:ATHLETE, WP:BASIC or any similar standard of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 15:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you have a closer look at Equestrian_sport mentioned above? This individual Marius Curteanu had noticeable results as per the page mentioned:
Other than that, the main reason this page exists is to reveal a Romanian who had great achievements in a not-so-common-in-Romania sport and only few online resources are available (I still research and update the article as I find them). If pages like this one does not exist, readers will not be aware of such people. I have access paper publications and I can prove that Marius Curteanu had also media coverage, just that those publications are not available online because it all happen back then. I would need some guide here about how to reveal in a proper manner those proves (which are actually scans or photos of those paper articles). - comment added by iulmit 06:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 03:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Comes across as a odd dictionary term. Could be redirected to something-but who knows what. Wgolf ( talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
'Delete' and put this single line in the bodybuilding article under the diet section FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 01:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising of promotion) and CSD G12 (copyright infringement). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This page fails to provide sufficient context to explain the subject and appears to serve only to promote its subject Rubbish computer ( talk) 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A personal project that does not have significant secondary source coverage. The external links in the article do not establish notability of the subject. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 21:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Self-published book. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (books). It is dubious whether the author meets Notability also. maclean ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article has been reverted to the 2014 version which is significantly different than the version nominated for deletion. Please re-nominate should you feel it's still a candidate for deletion. Nakon 23:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
corporate promo and advertising The Banner talk 23:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Article has been around for eight months but nothing in it really establishes notability. Neither of the newspapers he writes for seem to be very significant. ... discospinster talk 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
<a href=" http://www.journalismpakistan.com/myprofile.php?profileid=MzM5&msg=1">Reference</a>
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 21:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On first inspection the article contains a number of sources, but many of them only contain a passing mention of the subject, or sometimes no mention at all. The sources that do mention the subject in a non-trivial manner are themselves unreliable. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Subject appears to fail to meet the notability guidelines. Achievements do not include any awards, references are not independent of the subject, does not appear to have attracted sufficient independent substantive coverage to warrant an article. KDS4444 Talk 06:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
edited thanks for the comments and additional references. these have been included and irrelevant refs deleted. copy also toned down. any other suggestion to avoid deletion, appreciated. user: roller1001
The result was keep. SmartSE ( talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBAND. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I am an editor who is a follower of, but not associated with the subject. I vote to keep the article. Among its references are an article from a writer for Steppin' Out Magazine, and a published book from a notable author who writes about underground rock music. Additionally, there is reference to significant coverage by web periodicals which specialize in the band's particular music niche.
Edit: I have added a "press coverage" section, and included examples of writing about the band from Spartanburg Herald, Maximum Rock N'Roll, The Press of Atlantic City, Trentonian, and others. I know that this is heavy handed and introduces a new problem of non-neutral tone. The article now needs more work than it did prior to my effort. However, I wanted to meet the notability critique head on. Keithramone33 ( talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33
Note: I have recently added a couple new references that I have found. I do look forward to eventually improving the article for tone, style, and (perhaps) content, but this discussion is about notability, which I hereby reassert. Keithramone33 ( talk) 17:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Non Notable Garage Band, that isn't even notable in it's home nation of Sweeden. The use of it's own website as a primary source lends credibility that it isn't a viable article. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG CrazyAces489 ( talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Majority of the article concerns biographies of partners; Fred Levin already has its own article; so does Reubin Askew and Mike Papantonio - those sections should be merged or deleted. The sources cited for the company, and those I see on the web, refer to it in passing - I don't think that's sufficient to prove notability. Ref 8 is a good example (with the quote included in the article): it concerns trial lawyers in general, and has nothing to do with the company in question. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The book notes from the Google Books snippet view:
Levin-Papantonio became a giant in the field, with lawyers all over the country consulting them to handle their cases. The firm performs the work and extends the money, and the lawyer referring the case gets a piece of the action, if and when it...
The book notes:
Walter Olson has followed the career of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Olson is the author of The Rule of Lawyers and The Litigation Explosion. Called "an intellectual guru of tort reform by the Washington Post, Olson has helped to shape the debate on tort reform, and his publications have been cited in Supreme Court opinions. "[Kennedy] is a number of different things," said Olson. "He is a professor at Pace University Law School. He is the chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeepers. And he is also an attorney with one of the largest and best mass tort law firms in the country." It is this last association that has most intrigued Olson.
In 2000, Kennedy joined a group of trial lawyers to sue pork producers in the South and Midwest. During the litigation, the Associated Press ran an article that quoted Kennedy as well as a lawyer named Mike Papantonio. Although Kennedy and Papantonio were described as representing two different organizations, their appearance in the same article wasn't a coincidence. "Michael Papantonio is a flamboyant, very well known personal-injury lawyer who has been involved in a lot of mass tort cases," says Olson. "He is the second named partner in the law firm of Levin Papantonio, one of the best known mass tort firms. They were involved in tobacco litigation. They were involved in asbestos. They have eighteen different product-liability areas that are important enough for them to list [on their Web site]. They are a very rich, very successful firm. And they are not a firm that incidentally does plaintiffs' work. They are very close to the glowing heart of the product-liability industry. A firm of that sort, even if it doesn't list vaccine litigation as one of its major activities, is well aware of the large amounts that could be made if it cracks open. The firm doesn't list what Kennedy's financial arrangements are, but that there are financial arrangements is certainly implied by the fact that he is 'of counsel' to the firm."
The result was redirect to List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka. I was going to close this as delete, but in case anyone does want to perform some sort of a merge, I have redirected with history intact. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Similar article already exists, List of named passenger trains of Sri Lanka Blackknight12 ( talk) 06:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails to meet notability guidelines, heavily based on opinion with few, if any, reliable sources of fact FitzJD ( talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This looks to me like a
POV fork. The matter can be easily addressed in existing articles like
Who's Who and
Marquis Who's Who. Having a separate article like this appears especially inappropriate because the scam allegation seems to apply to the whole "Who's Who" business, rather than just a piece or aspect of it.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
the alliance is notable, and the refs how it. She is not., for the refs merely indicate that she is exec director of the organization.; theydo not discuss her to a significant extent . DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
utterly trivial firm, $1.1 Million funding, has the usual publicity of an intent-relatedstatup, all of which does not add up to significance. , let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ShopBack is also currently working with established organisations like Citibank, Packet One Networks (Malaysia Telco) and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants. The article has also been edited to include references for ShopBack's partnership with these organisations. In addition, Citibank, Packet One Networks and Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants also have their own Wikipedia articles, as linked. —Lievesun[[User talk:Lievesun| 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete: as plainly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Nonnotable author. Her books are not even on worldcat, which is a bare minimum requirement. Everything else is a notice or an advertisement, including the cbc item DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*Delete. Un-needed article, and the following sentence in the article looks suspiciously negative; "Tessa Richarde is an American actress mainly cast as likable dumb blondes."
Zeke Essiestudy (
talk)
21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions must be given less weight as less convincing in the light of Wikipedia policy and practice, particularly because they do not seriously address the concerns voiced about the sources, as also discussed on the AfD talk page. Sandstein 08:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This organization exists, but I see nothing to show it's notable. The sources appear to be either event results or not independent, but I'll admit I couldn't find many of them. However, the burden of proof is on those creating the article to show there's significant independent coverage. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like i walked between a personal grudge fight so not wishing to get involved in that but i agree with crazyace489 again, when he says "lets try to keep things civil." Although i thought the answer to the question was self evident, nevertheless the answer is, nothing other than the WCKF are members of the SKU http://wckf.org/ and the second link supplied http://wckf.org/members.php shows the spread of countries that are represented as members Bazatom ( talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Bazatom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
it clearly states that the wckf are members of the the sku and not visa versa, i do see the 3 sku members listed who are also members of the wckf but i dont see anything on the sku site saying that the sku as a group are members of the wckf. Notability is a very subjective point of view, which is heavily dependent upon ones prejudices and therefore somewhat of a mine-field to be avoided, just like the opinions of someone with a track record of bias. But no matter how one chooses to view it, the original contribution suggests that the sku is more than a uk only group. Bazatom ( talk) 21:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Bazatom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Epeefleche in answer to the foreign enteries that cite the SKU from what i have seen the SKU has members in lots of countries and organisations that are members of them too for example the WCKF in the examples below say they are members and looking at their pages they are in many countries so i understand that by using the acronym i could find more examples.
Bazatom (
talk)
06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Well if they received their grade from or are members of the SKU GB - then they are not independent.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
21:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I Disagree completely with you as they appear in my opinion to be former members, and as such can only therefore, be defined as currently independent. Bazatom ( talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You are very wrong on two counts firstly as they do not merely say shotokan karate as you state, but they say "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)" or i would have not been able to find them as i was using the acronym in the search, what i think it is saying is that is the style of karate of the grade that they achieved was taken in the style of "shotokan karate" but in clarification they directly place one character space after the words "shotokan karate" the statement that it was with the SKUGB that they gained their grades, so not only have you read the links wrongly but you are unjustly presenting your wrong conclusion with some authority as if your misreading of the citation is a true and corrective fact, i like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt so i assume this is merely an oversight on your behalf and you will correct this immediately, and it is not just another totally unfair, biased point of view, as this confusion is a very misleading representation to anyone who just takes your misreading of the citation, without being bothered enough to read it themselves, as it clearly says "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)" . Another thing you seem to have conveniently overlooked is that there was an independent report in there from a local independent newspaper that states SKU name Bazatom ( talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Another burning question is, why do the people who nominate an article for deletion, not have enough conviction to put their name to the act ? are they feared in someway of the comebacks if they signed it, especially if they are regularly nominating this that and the other ? or is it part of the fun being the unknown warrior ? and why if they are so incensed to nominate article after article for deletion do they not vote to delete as often as they seem to freely nominate and comment negatively ? Bazatom ( talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (April 2015) This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2015)
Bazatom ( talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
cheers for changing that but i wasn't voting again, i was just stating as i said that "i am still of the opinion to keep" this and it was arrived at after further research on the tip of using acronym was given by Epeefleche. I found those relatively easily and more besides. So I strongly disagree with there is a lack of notability because if they are being quoted enough by various sources and people and they have people who are associated to them in lots of countries who are mentioning them and they are taking part in sports competitions then notability goes with all those things and the length of time that they have existed and the number of members and former members that still refer to them. And on the question of former members they can by disassociation only be classed as independent. Bazatom ( talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep The subject is notable and interesting. Chunlinc ( talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Davewild ( talk) 06:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable. failed politician, with vague claims for having been involved in various movements. Relatively minor executive position--not head of the firm DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says:
The sources provided by ThaddeusB ( talk · contribs) above:Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Will Brooke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify.
WP:BLP1E does not apply because Will Brooke is not a low-profile individual. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (which is linked to in BLP1E) says:
Because condition 2 of BLP1E is not met, BLP1E does not apply because the policy requires that "each of three conditions is met". Condition 1 is not met either per ThaddeusB's comment above at 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC).A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 06:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was a recreation or not, but regardless this does not meet project Tennis guidelines for notability. Stan did not win a major tournament in 2013 (not until 2014). See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Article_types_and_recommended_practices for clarification. I had thought of going the speedy delete route but went with standard "proposed deletion" instead, which was nixed by the article creator. So now we are at formal deletion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing but highly indiscriminate listcruft. Nothing notable or defining about being a twin in itself to begin with. Aside from BBC and maybe STV, none of the references used are even good quality sources. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was Retracted by filer. By blanking this page. No discussion has been had. Sandstein 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This article does not cite any sources. Supdiop ( talk) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Band I can't find any refs at all for-all my results are stuff like "make birds out of clay!" (Kind of not surprised though) as well as ancient readings of this. Wgolf ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite being in over 40 films none of the roles stand out. (Also the refs that keep on getting added seem to go to spam sites) Wgolf ( talk) 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. The discussion below had a majority consensus that there is insufficient independent coverage to warrant an article on either Ali Fadavi or his doctrine. Der yck C. 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a cut-and-paste move from Favadi Doctrine, which was created the day of the speech in question with essentially the text we have now. Three years later this has no GBook footprint and (once you eliminate WP) no significant link footprint; it's not hard to figure that what hits there are arise from copying/paraphrasing our text, since nobody provides much more than a definition and reference to the speech. After this much time, in a hot geopolitical topic, there should be a lot of commentary if this were a real thing. Mangoe ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep but consider whether Fadavi Doctrine should instead be redirected to an article on Ali Fadavi (which currently is redirected to the article on Falavi Doctrine). WP:MILPEOPLE accepts notability as established if an individual has "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." Perhaps Fadavi's statements equating Israel to the United States (the "Fadavi Doctrine") are something of a flash-in-the-pan, but his position with the Iranian military renders those statements hard to ignore. Independent and reputable sources appear if his name is fed into search engines. The reason for the appearance of his name in those sources is irrefutably his statements forming the Fadavi Doctrince. So, again, my recommendation is to keep the substance of the article although I can go along with a judgment call to subsume it elsewhere and provide sufficient redirects to make it easy to find. Perhaps, however, the best treatment is still to leave "Fadavi Doctrine" as a self-standing article and to redirect his name to it while also beefing up the cited sources. Rammer ( talk) 03:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. This and others are currently being discussed at WP:RFD. Persian and Arabic names are often transliterated in different ways into English, so the redirects suggested would be valid, but it has to go somewhere. I agree with Buckshot06 to reorganise the whoe lot, but until we get consensus at WP:RFD I can't see how we can do that with consensus. 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable martial artist. Has no accomplishments that meet WP:MANOTE and the only source is his press release of an event he was sponsoring so there are no sources that show he meets WP:GNG. Studying a bunch of different arts does not make him notable. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete Even I can't find a reason to keep him. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was merge to David Baldacci. Nakon 22:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBOOK. Although a Google search may suggest, on first inspection, that the book has good coverage from independent sources, many (if not all) of these sources are either the publisher, online bookshops that offer the book for sale, or otherwise non-independent. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 14:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*Keep. Merge per
User:Coolabahapple.
seven weeks on the bestseller list of USA Today,
discussed by the Washington Post, by
the LA Times, by
the New York Times, by
Forbes, by
The Wall Street Journal, et cetera.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
22:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Despite the vehement defence from several SPAs, the "delete" !votes are more firmly policy-based. No convincing sources meeting any notability guideline have been brought forward. Randykitty ( talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Let's review the sources presented:
All right, so I think it's pretty clear none of this material justifies a separate article - it's either not independent or trivial. Which leaves us with this, a long, glossy Vanity Fair piece about the tribulations of the Dia Foundation. Here, the subject does rack up more mentions, but I would submit none of them remotely indicate encyclopedic notability. They're almost a parody of the idle rich:
“ | When Georges and Lois moved to Paris, they started using the de Menil family house in the country on weekends, and Lois redecorated it, in her style, which was not everyone else’s style. What’s the difference? Well, when my grandfather was near the end of his life, he gave Georges and Lois a Matisse cutout, and she went to Pierre Deux and found this print fabric in the same colors and had their whole living room in New York done in it. | ” |
“ | Lois de Menil, who had already given $150,000 in 1994, pledged $350,000 more. | ” |
“ | Lois de Menil was [upset]: 'The motivation was to take control. This group wanted power. And Michael thought they had lots of money and would just say yes to anything he wanted. There was never a full board discussion of the policies Michael was carrying out, or whether we should go forward with the sale of the buildings we had planned to sell.' | ” |
That's all very interesting, I'm sure, but it hardly seems notable, as defined by WP:BASIC. At best, again, this could be mentioned in the context of the Dia Foundation, but as far as standalone notability for this individual is concerned, that simply is not apparent.
Note: this was previously deleted as part of another discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Thank you for taking the time to review my entry on Lois de Menil in such detail. I am continuing to edit it and I would like to contest the proposed deletion because of recent changes. In response to the critiques, I have supplied further references from Cambodian sources, as well as sources relating to her work in Romania, both of which are more recent and relevant contributions than her time at DIA, though the former received greater visibility in English language news sources. The Center for Khmer Studies which Dr. de Menil contributed to founding, constitutes the only research library in Cambodia outside of Phnom Penh. I struggle to see how that is not a notable contribution to education. I am open to all constructive criticism of this piece and welcome your response. Vwikiv ( talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv — Vwikiv ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hello Biruitorul,
I take your point about the sources including "non-independent" publications and not being of the quality you would hope for in a wikipedia bio. There is an inherent challenge, however, in holding up notability in Cambodia to the same standards as in the US, since the number of English language publications about Camboodia -- particularly about library scholarship -- are minimal. That is partly a product of the particular history of Cambodia, which destroyed most of the educational infrastructure in the late 1970s. I'm not sure where this leaves us, but I would contend that the article demonstrates enough evidence to show that Lois de Menil really did found the Center for Khmer Studies, and that the legacy of that institution in terms of research infrastructure and cataloguing the National Museum constitutes notability.
Please also note that I corrected the reference to the National Museum Catalogue so that it no longer links to google. Thanks for spotting that.
As before, I appreciate the time you are putting into this and other wiki entries on a volunteer basis. Vwikiv ( talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv
Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. It has a total of 16 sources as I write this comment and it is a coherent and interesting article. With regard to it been non-notable I disagree also. By virtue of the fact that 16 sources can be found it is notable. The subject matter is notable in any case. The article does not qualify for deletion. Keep Thank you Trout71 ( talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) — Trout71 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. The subject is a published author, has held prominent positions, and has been influential in several notable organizations: Dia, World Monuments Funds, National Gallery of Art, Andy Warhol Museum, Center for Khmer Studies - all of which have Wikipedia entries and are noteworthy, and the last of which she founded. Also, since the original deletion request, more citations have been added. Biruitorul, in both this request for deletion, and the related request for deletion of Georges de Menil entry, you take issue with the subjects' finances. I don't see how this is relevant. Keep Thank you -- Bdemenil ( talk) 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. I have been a longtime/frequent user of Wikipedia, and I only registered today so that I can oppose the proposition to delete the page related to Lois de Menil. That proposition really surprises me. I am a Cambodian national, and I am working for an independent Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Cambodia since 2007. I know very well CKS, the organisation for which Mrs De Menil serves as a president. I can testify on 2 points. 1/ CKS is a very well known and reputable organisation, from an academic and from an intellectual perspective. It achieves good results, it generates high level studies and knowledge that is shared with Cambodian scholars and it has very strong credentials in the country, and has collaborated with international organisations like the United Nations, with Cambodian Universities, and with International NGOs. CKS has been operating for many years in Cambodia, brought in the country high level international researchers, academics, experts and professors which are providing lot of insights and knowledge related to Cambodia's history and culture; the organisation's reputation and quality are excellent. Mrs De Menil is a well known, well respected professional, and the role she played in supporting Cambodia's cultural preservation and history is very important. Mrs De Menil has been instrumental in ensuring CKS credibility and quality. I understand Wikipedia policy to ensure quality of all references and information that are posted on the website. It is a commendable standard. Therefore, please allow me to ask you to keep the page online and accessible to the public so that those improvements can be made. I am not sure that I agree with the nature and the form of some of the above criticism made by Biruitorul, but I can see that somebody is already working to address the comments that have been made. I am sure constructive improvements can be made, so that future Wikipedia's readers remain well informed. 71.174.42.185 ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 ( talk • contribs) — Khmer15 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note to closing administrator - the participants on this AfD thus far have been User:Vwikiv (edits only articles related to the de Menil family), Trout71 (new account, first AfD edit here), Bdemenil (probably the article subject's son, first AfD edit here), Khmer15 (single-purpose account) and 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (likewise). - Biruitorul Talk 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note to the administrator - The nature of the participants, how old or new their accounts are, do not change anything to the accuracy of the facts and the reliability of the new information that is presented. The quality and the relevance of many of the criticisms formulated by User Biruitorul makes me question the impartiality and the objectivity of that person, and therefore the validity of the feedback. The person seems to have engaged in a personal "vendetta" against the De Menil family. Some of the assumptions formulated by Biruitorul are borderline calumnious and biased. I quote: Press release, not an independent source, meeting someone is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC). User Biruitorul needs to be much more accurate with his feedback, better informed, and less disrespectful. Not an independent source? I disagree. In addition, the fact that Mrs De Menil has met with the King of Cambodia, is a significant event, that fully proves notability of Mrs De Menil. King Sihamoni is not "someone', as suggested, but he is Head of State of Cambodia, and a symbolic and well respected public figure for all Cambodians, and for many foreigners too. Being invited and received by the King of Cambodia in his residence is not a common fact, and it is to say the least a very significant event. As a Cambodian I would please ask you to be culturally more sensitive. I am not contesting the fact that some of the above mentioned references can be improved. But please, let's stay objective and impartial here. And let's have as a shared goal to improve the quality of the information that is presented on Wikipedia. Please let's not enter into any personal "vendetta", specifically when there is no ground for it. 71.174.42.185 ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 ( talk • contribs)
OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. Note to the Editor. Dear Sir, My name is Solinn Lim and i am a Cambodian working in international development field in Asia based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. I came across the proposed deletion of Ms. de Menil's profile and I would like to share with you my experience. I met her once in Cambodia when she was visiting a local orphanage called Children’s Peaceful Home in Srer Ampil locality. She introduced her friends who were potential donors to the founder's orphanage, and then went on to visit a group of local authority who managed a small museum in the middle of nowhere (about 10 mins or so from the orphanage). I was a guest of the orphanage's founder and my interest was to visit the museum because i heard about this amazing project trying to educate and stop local farmers from looting priceless artifacts of thousands years of age and sell them to black markets in exchange for a bag of rice. Such looting happens every day and my worst nightmare as you can imagine is that nothing would be left for my children's generation. In my 15 years of professional experience in programme development in Asia, i can humbly share with you, that funding for area such as cultural preservation in Cambodia has diminished, and we rely mainly on private funding such as that of Ms. de Menil's. A local expert whom i know very well explained to me how important it was that someone like Ms. de Menil chose to focus on cultural preservation adn development work. Let me be clear that the funding alone would not have been sufficient. Her negotiation skills and acute political awareness were so essential for her project to succeed in the area that is full of powerful business interest such as this. At a seminar I attended on digitalizing the entire catalogue of the National Museum i got a good glimpse of the complexity - just on the technical level alone they had to deal with 3 languages that CAmbodia uses: Khmer, French and English. Let me tell you how important the work of Madame de Menil to Cambodians. As a nation, we went through a century of colonization and the recent murderous genocide accounted for the death of 25% of our population. As the UN's hybrid Khmer Rouge/genocide trial is still on going, we Cambodians are confused of our history, fearful of living our present, and not ready for our future. We are in limbo. We need to preserve and rediscover our past, our once glorious ancient civilization in Southeast Asia, through the work of Ms. de Menil that would help us understand where we came from. Such preservation and education are so important because it would help our fragile nation to regain our confidence, overcome sufferings from centuries of humiliations, rebuild our national identity, and pass on the pride to our next generations. I can go on and on about Ms. De Menil and especially about the CKS's achievement since i am a regular participants of their valuable research seminars. I can provide you more references to the work of the CKS and Ms. de Menil as i have learned a lot about her from local media. I hope this humble testimony would help you reconsider to keep this profile on Wikipedia. Please let me knwo if i could be of service to Wikipedia in regards to the case of Ms. de Menil. Please accept my apologies for the typos as i am writing to you on my mobile. Sincerely, Solinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengkiim ( talk • contribs) — Sengkiim ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note to the administrator - the same arguments are repeated again and again from the pro-deletion users, while the side that opposes deletion brings new testimonies into the picture. Mrs Lois de Menil has an established proven track record of actions and results. She legitimately deserves a page in Wikipedia. Many professionals that have met her and that collaborated with her can testify, with example and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 ( talk • contribs)
Note to the administrator -Please allow time so that Mrs De Menil profile can be improved, and edited. The feedback on what needs to be changed is clear. It is just a matter of time before independent sources are found that can support her achievements and her contributions. Please also note that the pro-deletion users are applying double standard, lecturing others on high standards that needs to be respected, while they are feeling comfortable making emotional judgement about others that are groundless fantasies e.g. FreeRangeFrog assumptions. Their action and words reinforce my point: what they are looking for is simply to take down the page, and not to contribute objectively to improve the page quality and accuracy, and therefore to contribute to improve with impartiality the quality of wikipedia, to a larger extent. Quality of content in Wikipedia is the goal. I am not interested in blindly speculating on who is who, and who is doing what. 71.174.42.185 ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15
Note to the administrator - While supporting to keep the article so that modification can be made to improve compliance with WIkipedia policies and regulation, specific parts of the text and selected references that are in contradiction with those policies and regulation can be easily improved. However, seeking better alignment with important principles of neutral point of view and of verifiability, I would like to seek guidance and clarifications as per why the Phnom Penh Post article or the official Website of King Sihamoni are not qualified by the pro deletion as fitting with those 2 principles. Could you please provide clear example and advice as per what criteria you use to define neutral, and verifiability? That would be very useful. Many thanks in advance for your support. 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.185 ( talk)
Note to the administrator There are two facts that I will now submit. The first is that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of notability. It has succeeded in indicating it's notability. The sources aren't the best but it is sourced. In response to User:I am One of Manys comment I am not in anyway associated with the other voters as can be checked. I don't think we even live in the same continent. I don't appreciate unfounded accusations. In any case, such a comment seems to suggest that you have run out of arguments for the deletion of this article. The comment made by User:Biruitorul regarding the age of my account should not have been mentioned as it is both irrelevant and an attempt to discredit my view without actually having to challenge my view. I contest that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of non-notability or for being unsourced. So on what grounds can it be deleted? Thank you Trout71 ( talk) 13:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non Notable band that existed for 2 years. No major hits or placings. Fails WP:BAND CrazyAces489 ( talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I merely stated my opinion to one of his/her articles for deletion, and he/she started taking it personally. But yes, I will cease interaction with the user. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 11:10, 15 April 2015
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I declined a CSD as this person appears to have starred in one notable film, but I don't think anything else. I'm a complete ignoramus to this topic (I prefer a nice cup of tea) so I'll leave it to the floor to decide what to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
As it stands, the article is heavily promotional, containing a list of bulleted projects and multiple buzz language. Apart from that, the article is mostly supported by regional news in NJ/NY. Looking through both search and G-News, I found publications here, here and here that are somewhat from non-regional sources, but those are also iffy. Just glancing at sourcing, the subject appears to be notable, but upon review, it doesn't satisfy WP:ORG and is highly advertorial at that. Jppcap ( talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This film doesn't seem to quite satisfy WP:MOVIE, but I'm not 100% sure, so here we are. There is a DVDtalk review and Daniel Blum's Screen World 1965 volume 16 (whoever he is and whatever the book says). P.S. Dom DeLuise was not top billed, or anything close to it. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh I only put him up the top because he's the best known. I'll see if I can source some other things but I'm not particularly inclined to go into bat for this. Dutchy85 ( talk) 10:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This person does not meet the notability standards. Atsatsa ( talk) 23:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage online is mostly blogs and what appears to be PR interviews, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Can't find any evidence online that the single he (performed? produced?) was in the UK charts, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. It can be difficult to find online coverage for Ghanaian artists, but not impossible, and there just doesn't seem to be enough to show notability here. I've cleaned out the promotional copyvio, but the notability issue remains. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Really. I said Around Sounds Radio Show Uk not uk charts show. You changed that after the editing. Gogglee moxkito Around sounds show mixcloud
Dai Pritchard *Keep: I vote for keep because I dont see anything wrong with the article. I think everything is alright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quame Zane ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC) — Quame Zane ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG, so as it has been tagged for notability for over 3 years, have brought it to AfD. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Zodon, Mark viking, Thumperward. Boleyn ( talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
While working on a rewrite of territorial evolution of the United States, I decided to include every infinitesimal change to the country. Thus, I've been scouring the minutes of the International Boundary and Water Commission for exchanges between the U.S. and Mexico. And while I have found various references to bancos (land that became separate from their origin because of movements of the river) in the Presidio-Ojinaga region, I have found zero reference to an "Ojinaga Cut" or the specific numbers mentioned in this article. It has gone unsourced for over five years, and I am unable to find any sourcing either of the numbers or of the term "Ojinaga Cut" anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. It may be real, but we have zero sourcing saying such, and it should be deleted until or unless proper sourcing is discovered. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTESSAY Pishcal — ♣ 18:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Album long tagged for notability that I can't find any more. (and it seems the previous album redirects just to the word anthem) Wgolf ( talk) 01:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a distinct lack of reliable sources on here, and fails WP:NMUSIC. Subject has also requested deletion ( Ticket:2015031510004211) Mdann52 ( talk) 19:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild ( talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Non notable actress-has only had a few roles and none of them seem important. Since she seems to just have nameless characters for the most part even. Wgolf ( talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Could not find any reliable independent secondary sources describing this project, see WP:GNG. Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This is getting a bit complex. Thanks to Fiachra10003's research we have sources from the American Recreation Coalition, including the ones cited ( [66], [67]) as well as three NY Times sources from the 1980s ( [68], [69], [70]). Browsing through ARC's coverage of TPIA it appears ARC wasn't independent of TPIA. They actively promoted the program and may have helped to set it up. There's also a question of the reliability of their content. Then, they have an FAQ in which they say there was a separate program that ran from 1986 to 1992. All in all I still don't think we meet the GNG bar, as we have no independent, reliable secondary sources significantly covering the subject. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Fiachra10003 ( talk) 21:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 18:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). Of note regarding the first !vote following the nomination, while it's highly desirable for articles to be sufficiently sourced, as per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's based upon the availability of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of a topic. North America 1000 17:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Doncram under following edit summary: "Appears to be a significant law firm in the country. Sources included. Not obviously bad. There's at least one other in the category at AFD, related, will comment there." Being a significant foo-ian firm is not related to notability. Sources, in my view, are bad, because they discuss the company only in passing, are self-published, or come from some trade/professional publications/websites of dubious visibility. Let's discuss, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Nakon 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable ATHLETE. Quis separabit? 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator with the following edit summary: "reliable information and secondary sources added". I am afraid I still don't see the references ans sufficient. Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference is to a webpage containing the rules of the game. This does not speak to notability. ubiquity ( talk) 19:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
My main concern is the English name. The Chinese Pinyin would write it as Daguai Luzi (not DaGuai LuZi as in the original article, which I redirected to here.). Wild Escape is not the name that I've heard -- I've heard "The Joker's Way" which would be the literal translation of 大怪路子. However, I believe that the original author ( User:Beautifulsummerdays) who wrote [ DaGuai Luzi History] would be better placed to explain it. I just tried to improve the English.
Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier440 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Armie Hammer. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Cannot find any signficiant coverage on her. The only reliable sources I could find are just bit stories about her and her husband ( Armie Hammer) but nothing strictly about her - fails WP:GNG. It also seems that she hasn't done anything really major which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so dramatic, I didn't demand anything, I was giving an example of what significant coverage to me is like. I didn't say "has to be 5-6" I said to TO ME it would like 5 or 6 because 2 or 3 articles isn't a significant number. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The result was delete. Dismissing Hhplactube's comment as "per X" and by a very new account. Sandstein 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Film that I can't find much notability for as well as a major COI given the people who have made the article are the producer and the writers names. Wgolf ( talk) 16:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. North America 1000 12:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope I'm proved wrong, because they seem like a worthy organisation, but I couldn't verify that they meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years without resolution. Pinging those who have been involved in discussing its notability before: Ironholds, Foxj, Fritzpoll. Boleyn ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 04:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The subject has not been discussed in reliable publications. The sources currently in the article are all unreliable. The accolades mentioned in the article are not notable accolades. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus herein is that the topic presently does not meet WP:N to qualify for a Wikipedia article. North America 1000 04:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This neologism has no significant support in the scientific literature. I can find only two papers in Google scholar that use this term, one with very few citations and the other unpublished and uncited. Without reliable secondary sources that cover this topic in-depth, it fails WP:GNG. I tried prodding the article, but the prod was removed by an anonymous editor (who also removed the cleanup tags on the article) without comment, so here we are. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Scottish_Premier_League#Records_and_awards. Nakon 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that this article is notable enough to merit inclusion. I know that there was a previous discussion about deletion, and the main argument for keeping it was that it was an SPL record victory. However, the SPL only existed under that name for 15 years, while the Scottish top flight has a history stretching back over 120 years. The Scottish top flight record was Celtic's 11-0 victory over Dundee in 1895. The Scottish top flight was rebranded again as the Scottish Premiership in 2013, and therefore the SPL no longer exists. The "record win" is therefore of even more questionable relevance than it was at the time of the previous discussion. The article itself is fairly short and doesn't provide much information about why the match would be considered relevant. Craig1989 ( talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eels (band). ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 10:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete Does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy for neologisms. Reliable secondary sources are minimal and mostly discuss the issue peripherally. Vectro ( talk) 01:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any indication, as expressed through multiple, independent, reliable sources, that this individual passes WP:ATHLETE, WP:BASIC or any similar standard of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 15:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you have a closer look at Equestrian_sport mentioned above? This individual Marius Curteanu had noticeable results as per the page mentioned:
Other than that, the main reason this page exists is to reveal a Romanian who had great achievements in a not-so-common-in-Romania sport and only few online resources are available (I still research and update the article as I find them). If pages like this one does not exist, readers will not be aware of such people. I have access paper publications and I can prove that Marius Curteanu had also media coverage, just that those publications are not available online because it all happen back then. I would need some guide here about how to reveal in a proper manner those proves (which are actually scans or photos of those paper articles). - comment added by iulmit 06:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 03:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Comes across as a odd dictionary term. Could be redirected to something-but who knows what. Wgolf ( talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
'Delete' and put this single line in the bodybuilding article under the diet section FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 01:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising of promotion) and CSD G12 (copyright infringement). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This page fails to provide sufficient context to explain the subject and appears to serve only to promote its subject Rubbish computer ( talk) 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit ( talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)