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

The result was delete. Will userify upon request if someone wants to move this list (which I'm sure took quite a bit of work) to somewhere else more appropriate. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

List of Anything Muppets

List of Anything Muppets (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of bit characters on Sesame Street. Such a level of detail is overly in-depth for a general encyclopedia, as the general reader isn't going to search for the actor behind "Harvey Kneeslapper's Fat Blue Victim 2." That is something best left to Wikia, while List of Sesame Street Muppets deals with those that are notable enough for general coverage. TTN ( talk) 23:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Not every character that appeared on The Muppets is notable. This is stuff best left for the Muppets Wiki. Rusted AutoParts 00:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete: No references is a real deal-breaker here; also, I'm not sure they're good with WP:GNG. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I personally dislike lists for the sake of lists, and that's what this list is. I believe that this kind of WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but better belongs on Muppet Wikia, which is a great resource and has its place. Also, this list has one reference, and I doubt that it would be possible to find sources to support the existence of most of the items here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 00:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Let this page stay. It was originally started by someone to list the Anything Muppet types. It took me awhile to compile all this information to improve the page. If anyone else supports this keep, perhaps it can be redirected to Anything Muppets. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Martin Murray (footballer)

Martin Murray (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - article notes that he won the PFAI Players' Player of the Year in 1983. Surely this alone is enough to make him notable. Other articles such as [1] [2] Nfitz ( talk) 00:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom, player has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football or appears to have garnered significant, reliable coverage for any other achievements. The additional sources provided above are both interviews from the website of a club for which he played and so are not useable to satisfy GNG as they are primary sources. Fenix down ( talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

'* second link was cut-and-paste error (was actually first link twice!). There's other references [3] [4] in additon to far more when you start searching newspapers from the period of time he was actually playing at [5]. Nfitz ( talk) 00:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete, sources provided by Nfitz are not independent of Murray or the clubs he's played for. It's possible there is coverage of his PFAI award since it pre-dates the Internet, but in lieu of evidence that such sources exist I don't think we can say he meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sans prejudice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Kanat Auyesbay

Kanat Auyesbay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Although in the Kazak WP, there is no notability by our standards. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. I was under the impression that notability is not language specific. The individual appears to be notable in Kazakhstan which should be sufficient. I would suggest translation from Kazakh wikipedia.-- Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Question Do all non-English wikis have the same standards as the English language one? If so that might be an argument, especially if there are RS sources attached. Though I hasten to note that there are a lot of articles on our own wiki that should not be here. So it's not conclusive. But unless the existence of a corresponding article on another wiki confers a presumption of notability, I am leaning towards delete. At present it doesn't seem to meet our standards. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Answer No, they do not. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 14:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Wait. This article is not even a month old. A dedicated editor could translate the original native article for this one. There are ways to ask for help in doing so, more than the expand template. If that is not done, nor if the article is not further sourced or expanded, then it should be deleted for non-notability. — Wylie pedia 08:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Relist, please It's certainly beyond my capability to read through the Kazakh sources, but there is quite a bit of material and apparent references there. Looking at the Wikipedia embassy, I was able to find a single editor, not currently active, who lists Kazakh, and I've left them a note. [6] While I think there's a good chance we won't get a response, I don't see problems pressing enough that we can't give this another seven days. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I have no objection to a one week delay. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Based on the answer to my question above. The article does not currently meet our standards. I will reconsider if substantive improvements are made. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SmartSE ( talk) 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete without prejudice to recreation of a more substantially referenced article. Existing source is inadequate for WP:BIO, but the Kazakh article has a lot more sources listed. I don't read a word of Kazakh, so I can't gauge the quality of these sources, so I'll leave that to a native speaker to try. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Apollo Poetry

Apollo Poetry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article supported by mostly self-published sources. Non-notable individual that doesn't meet WP:BIO KWJimFlynn ( talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. I can't find any significant coverage on google or factiva. SmartSE ( talk) 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Moldavian Spotters

Moldavian Spotters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Second iteration of an article which was deleted yesterday after a Speedy nom by me about 24 hours ago. The article is about an Aircraft spotting enthhusiasts' group that hangs around Chișinău International Airport (nothing wrong with that - I am in the habit of hanging around airports myself) and would likely be eligible for Speedy deletion again in several categories; but its creator has created it again, so here we are to gain a broader consensus. This article is firmly in the middle of What Wikipedia is not and comes nowhere near meeting the general notability guidelines. The first incarnation of the article featured what is there now, which is duplicating content at the Chișinău International Airport article, plus had a couple of sentences of explanatory text and a picture of the group's members (numbering 12 if I recall correctly) with a couple less photos of the group members at 'work' - more like a Yahoo Groups or a Facebook page. Wikipedia is not the place for this YSSYguy ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

The article's creator has also left a messy trail of redirects as he has moved the article several times; regardless of the outcome of this debate (which I think might be a Snow delete before the end of the weekend, but we shall see), they should be deleted as serving no useful purpose. YSSYguy ( talk) 21:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

The article's creator has also removed the AfD notice from the article twice in the hour-and-a-quarter six times in the two hours since I posted it there; he seems to very much want to keep it, so if the outcome is delete it may have to be salted as well. YSSYguy ( talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No indication this is a notable organization, fails WP:ORG. Also I moved it back to the original location and restored the text so we can at least discuss the article and not a moved and vandalized version of it. Can an admin please fully protect it so we can have this debate? - Ahunt ( talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - interested to see what the creator might have to say about the existence (or not) of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I very much doubt said coverage exists and the creator has now been blocked for disruption but should be back inside the 7 days for which this will run. Can't see (at this stage) how the subject could possibly pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart 111 01:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note: Due to the article creator's repeated removal of the article's AfD notice after multiple warnings and without any discussion, the article creator has been blocked for the duration of this AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete, can't see how this meets WP:ORG. Your local hobby group probably is not a good topic for a Wikipedia article. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Cathouse: The Series. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Isabella Soprano

Isabella Soprano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable WP:PORNBIO - minimal coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat ( talk) 21:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• pro-porn editors might argue she meets the crossover criteria. I restored the article after closing a drv. Personally I would support a delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Cathouse: The Series. The one-paragraph "article" discussing her really provides no nontrivial coverage, and she otherwise fails PORNBIO, but this seems to be the way we deal with reality TV figures whose inadequate coverage comes in the context of their series. As a BLP with no reliable sources for biographical content ("she also happens to be the nastiest piece of ass in the place" really, really doesn't make the grade), there's no salvageable content to merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or redirect to Cathouse: The Series. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is correct about the lack of notability. Comes up short on PORNBIO's mainstream media test. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Dinosaur Battlegrounds

Dinosaur Battlegrounds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable software product lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I remember coming across this when it was a PROD. My argument is still the same. This game hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources and everything I could find was done in non-reliable sources by people who look to have been involved with the game's creation and promotion. In other words, it's all blogs, forum posts, and similar. If it does gain coverage after it is released then it can be re-created, but not until then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Rugrats characters. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Phil and Lil DeVille

Phil and Lil DeVille (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Rugrats through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 19:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: They're important characters, so they're good in WP:GNG. As for the quality of the article, I removed the fancruft and added a couple of references (still needs more, though). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• I don't really see how those provide significant coverage for the characters. All you've done is source a piece of primary information and the voice actor, and neither of the sources do more than outline the premise of the characters (and I really don't see how an ancient fan site is reliable in the first place). Without something related to actual reception, it still fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 19:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, that was the best I could do with all the blocks the school put on this computer, but I figure that something's better than nothing. Hopefully someone else with less censorship on their computer can add some more sources (I know, we don't establish notability by what could happen and all that, but they're major characters, all we need is some good sources). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge into List of Rugrats characters: After doing a lot more looking into the page history, what sources I can, etc, I've come to the conclusion that it'd be better to merge this page into the collection of all Rugrats characters. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of Rugrats characters. These characters do not demonstrate notability independent of the cartoon. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Redirect to List of Rugrats characters since there is only few sources, as there is no way to delete it since it meets its notability. JJ98 ( Talk) 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to character list. It's only slightly expanded and uses the same...um, sources given there. Even if expanded, I would scream notability. — Wylie pedia 14:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to character list. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Monty Guild

Monty Guild (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is in question. There are several secondary sources but the coverage appears to be trivial and I'm not sure that in total it meets WP:Notability (people). PROD tag was removed in June 2013. And discussion on the talk page is mixed. — Keithbob • Talk • 19:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree with OP, all the references in the article have trivial mentions of Guild. I don't believe notability has been established. mikeman67 ( talk) 20:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

No objection to deletion. Just had a look at the guidelines. While Guild is fairly widely cited as an investment expert, he is not the main subject of any major media coverage and doesn't appear to have any major awards. EMP ( talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I questioned this subject's notability in 2011 and I judge that sources added since then have not established notability. Spicemix ( talk) 15:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Helen Mason (endocrinologist)

Helen Mason (endocrinologist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC ...William 18:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• CommentKeep Would you mind telling us exactly how she fails WP:ACADEMIC? A cursory search shows several highly cited articles and an h-index of 23 in Web of Science. Searching on Google Scholar you'll find those highly-cited articles, too. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Full agreement with Randykitty. This meets several of the relevant notability guidelines and in addition to her academic achievements she heads up a prestigious medical support organisation and is a fellow of a highly pretigious academic institution. It is difficult to get a lot more notable in Wikipedia terms. The artlce is also a potential candidate for growth in an edit-a-thon organised by the Royal Society, a fact known to the nominator of this deletion before the AfD was issued .   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I don't find her in Who's Who or Debrett's but I do note that she's a full professor (in the UK) and she seems to have had quite a lengthy career in academia. The nominator hasn't really provided any explanation why it should be deleted. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This is a poor stub, but UK Professors are generally WP-notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. GS h-index of well over 20 passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC). reply

• Keep same as Velella (just do simple search on JSTOR or Google Scholar ...) Christophe ( talk) 16:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - a link is not a reason to delete. She seems to be notable enough. Full Professor in the UK is pretty high up in academia. Bearian ( talk) 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Honeycomb (cereal). j⚛e decker ^talk 21:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The Honeycomb Kid

The Honeycomb Kid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any secondary-source discussion of this, the article has been unreferenced for five years. Appears to fail WP:GNG, any salvageable content should be merged to Honeycomb (cereal). Orphaned. Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Redirect and minimal merge to Honeycomb (cereal) is fine. It ain't much, but here is a brief newspaper mention of the "Honeycomb Kid Iron On" you'd get at the bottom of the box (unless weren't paying attention and tried to eat it). [7] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - There's nothing really notable about this advertising mascot. There's no sourced information to merge. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Michael T. Lynch

Michael T. Lynch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. He is an expert in the history of Ferraris and other racing cars, writes for automotive magazines, and has co-authored a book. He has won some awards and prizes, but they are not significant by Wikipedia's standards, and I could not find significant coverage ABOUT him as required for WP:BIO. MelanieN ( talk) 15:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MelanieN ( talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Xxanthippe ( talk) 09:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Patrick Kierkegaard

Patrick Kierkegaard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

According to his GS profile he has been cited 39 times with an h-index of 3. Currently completing his doctoral program. Way too soon, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, WP:GNG, or WP:ANYBIO. Randykitty ( talk) 14:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF and the press attention to his video game studies fails WP:BIO1E. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. Far too early. Xxanthippe ( talk) 07:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Trail Blazer Award (MMVA Award)

Trail Blazer Award (MMVA Award) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Suggest a deletion of the page since it was a one time award give in 2004, don't think that needs it own page for one award winner LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Agreed. Possibly the content can be merged into MuchMusic Video Awards or Beastie Boys (i.e. the fact that they won it and the year it was awarded can be mentioned either on the page for the awards or on the Beastie Boys page). 03:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 13:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete without prejudice to mention of the single award winner in other articles. I don't think it's a likely enough search term to warrant even a redirect, and we don't need AfD to decide if the single award can be mentioned at MuchMusic Video Awards. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 20:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The strongest arguments here relate to the promotional nature of the article. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Alex Hartman

Alex Hartman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Spam. Promotion, which was until recently [8] complete with happy snaps with celebrities, for Hartmans current ventures. This, like other adverts for Hartman related ventures, was built by single purpose accounts using Wikipedia for advertising around Matilda Media (eg Newzulu, Citizenside, Digital Museum of Australia, The Cracks). Hartman may be notable for Young Australian of the Year Award for Career Achievement and Amicus Software but this article just touches on those aspects and instead promotes and linkspams current projects. Sourcing is woeful, mainly just linkspamming to his projects, links to organisations websites and promotional pieces. This should be blown away. Improve Wikipedia by getting rid of spam, stop rewarding bad faith editing. See related afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Media Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rightstrade, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightsCloud Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Scarf for more of their advertising. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete He has done nothing that makes him notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Currently notable for work with major global news organizations including those noted above and has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over many years after receiving a major award from the Commonwealth Government of Australia recognizing his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afpresse ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

— Afpresse ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Afpresse as in Agence France-Presse? An organization who has made a deal with Hartman and whose connection you have promoted here? If that's so that is one of multiple corporate named account dedicating to promoting the interests of Hartman. Digitalmuseum, Filmonair, Rightstrade, Headspace3, Mmedia2012. Most of the other many accounts that exist purely to promote Hartman and his interest are not as obviously badly named. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete I encountered this article, but since it for some reason had no afd template, I did not realize this was at AfD, and simply placed a "News release" template on it. An ip editor removed it, and upon seeing that I decided to bring it here (only to find it was already here) , because I think it is too promotional for a WP article, considering also the very borderline notability. The combination of the two is a good reason for deletion. I especially note the extended discussion praising the work of one of the subjects companies. If someone wants to try to write a satisfactory article, they would need to start over -- after first reading and understanding WP:Reliable sources. I am not at all sure that even the best editing here could make an adequate case for notability , but it would have more of ca chance is this is totally removed to start with.

In particular, Young Australian of the Year is not a notable award. Probably half the recipients are not notable ,and the ones who are, are notable for the work they have done in later years, not the work they did when they were just starting out. We should regard it, like other youth awards, as meaning not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hartman didn't even win Young Australian of the Year (20011 was James Fitzpatrick (Australia) see list). He won one of the lesser known sub categories, for Career Achievement. [9]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The article is clear on the Career Achievement category he won. There are no greater or lesser categories of this award according to the official site for the awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.179.98 ( talk) 18:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Hartman has continued as a public business figure and entrepreneur in Australia and elsewhere since the award. Article evidences appointment of subject to several notable national industry and charity governing bodies by the current Prime Minister of Australia supporting ongoing and current notability as referenced by the article. Subject appeared on major Australian documentary shows including Australian Story and 60 Minutes as referenced which support notability in Australia when article originated at the time some 5 years ago. Ausstory2000 — Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

A business and entrepreneur for the likes of Newzulu, Citizenside, Digital Museum of Australia and Matilda Media? Where is the evidence of appointment by Abbot to these several notable bodies? It appears Hartman was on Australian Story talking about himself (not independent coverage about him) but the link supported does not support the claim he was on 60 minutes and if he was we don't know the nature of that appearance. Both Australian story and talkbalk provided related to 60 minutes occurred around the time of Young Australian of the Year Award for Career Achievement and Amicus Software, both of which this advert puts aside to focus on his new endeavors. None make any mention of these new projects that are continually being spammed here. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable for involvement in Headspace national government mental health services in Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.179.98 ( talk) 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

— 207.164.179.98 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Backer of global citizen journalism news service Citizenside — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.4.122 ( talk) 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

— 216.46.4.122 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• delete fails WP:BIO, his achievements dont meet the bar. a self promotion piece indicated by the whole swarm of single purpose editors who have swarmed to this AfD. LibStar ( talk) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article needs work but have fact checked references. Notable to freelance journalists worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.1.130 ( talk) 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Need it! Wiki article and story are in course work on citizen journalism for my class at MU this semester! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.228.2 ( talk) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I'd be willing to WP:USERFY upon request. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

DesignContest

DesignContest (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB and any number of guidelines.

Discussion

I removed all unuseles primary source and added sources confirming the popularity, as well as examples of cooperation with well known companies. I hope this time will be no claim. :) -- SlavaBest ( talk) 14:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Add more independent reliable sources. Now it must have significant coverage. SlavaBest ( talk) 07:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Don't need the logos inside of the encyclopedic article, it's not a resume (and they're copyright, see the files' pages on Commons). Significant coverage is sort-of ok but you may want to focus more on the relationship of the subject with outside world which the outside world itself initiated — such as interest of press in its work, or user reception. (Eg. like this or that). Gryllida ( talk) 10:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I removed logos examples. And soon will try add topics like you propouse. SlavaBest ( talk) 14:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Great! Hopefully whoever handles this request doesn't close it too soon; I'm not familiar with the timeline (it could be anything from one week, which ends on the 20th). Gryllida ( talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Old Sources:

• The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki - this book describes the basic principles and laws of any crowdsourcing business, and this company as well. So I left.
• Website in Russian. While this may serve as evidence that the business has a website in Russian - so I lest it.
• http://www.lookatme.ru/mag/industry/industry-interview/197309-designcontest and http://www.the-village.ru/village/city/transport/133351-logotip-metro are not user-generated content, so I left it too.

All other - are new and not primary sourse or user-generated content. SlavaBest ( talk) 03:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 21. Mkdw ^talk 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, Mkdw ^talk 04:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete Appreciate the review of sources by Shirt58. Page appears to be advertising - WP:NOTADVERTISING and fails notability requirements per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. To me, the number of non-independent sources suggests that the editor is trying to WP:MASK the lack of notability. mikeman67 ( talk) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Review of sources by Shirt58 means absolutely nothing, because all sources have been redone, and what you say - it means that you did not even check anything. You don`t gives reasons for point of view - it means that your opinion is not objectively. SlavaBest ( talk) 05:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Happy to expand. For an organization to be notable and merit inclusion in WP requires that "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I've looked at all the sources cited right now. Citations like the BBB or press releases aren't reliable for this purpose - the BBB provides pages on a massive number of businesses in American and isn't "coverage", and press releases aren't independent. Other citations are blog posts or incidental mentions, not coverage of the corporation itself, which is what the policy requires. The only thing approaching coverage is the post on fusible.com about the domain selling for $40,000, but again, this isn't coverage of the organization itself, it's incidental coverage. As the WP:CORPDEPTH says, "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" aren't sufficient. These sources don't meet the requirements of WP:NOTRELIABLE. I've done my own searching, and I simply am coming up with nothing about this organization. Again, WP is not WP:PROMO, and right now this page doesn't seem to support inclusion. That's my thinking, but happy to hear your response on this and assist on article if you feel I am wrong. mikeman67 ( talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your response. I agree with you on sources as BBB. But if you take the other pages on the same topic, which for many years in the project such as: 75B, 8vo, AdamsMorioka, Airside, Mars Design, AirSpace Studio and other. I created it's certainly not worse. On many of them I found nothing. They all must be delete in this way. But they srill here in some reason.

I believe that such sources as Fusible.com, PRweb.com, Virtual-Strategy Magazine and Mashable.com can provide the necessary coverage. Perhaps the text may look like WP:PROMO - but if you help me, I remade it in neutral. And I still would like to try to modify the article so that she would not have been removed as well. Do I have a chance? SlavaBest ( talk) 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Sandbox it into a draft somewhere not indexed by search engines for a few weeks. I really appreciate the author being responsive. Gryllida ( talk) 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 ( talk) 12:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The text was completely rewritten to accordance with the rules WP:TONE and WP:PROMO and cleaned from some mistakes. I can`t see any reason to delete this article, since it is not worse then similar. SlavaBest ( talk) 14:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Anything but keep' Sadly, I don't believe that the non-neutral wording issues are behind us here, and that's going to take some time to resolve if the author believes, as she or he indicates above, that PRweb might be a useful source. I'm open to putting this into a draft until it can pass AfC or the like, particularly as the author seems to be working in good faith to improve things, but it is a hard task. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unfortunately, the ed. is correct that some of their other work also has similar problems. In fact, so do at least have the articles in the category. I've listed 2 or 3 of the very worst for speedy, and tried to reduce the promotionalism of some of those that appear salvageable and clearly notable. That leaves a large group in the middle that will need to be dealt with. As others have noticed in various places, it must be more than a coincidence that articles of firms in the advertising and PR industries tend themselves to be rather promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by blocked user who has tried to post this article many times before (note use of weird character to get around salting of Brandon Richardson. NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Brandōn Richardson

Brandōn Richardson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a non-notable actor. The only given citation seems to be user-submitted content (see OVGuide), far from being a publication. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A Google search of the exact name gives nothing but this page itself and a google search for "Brandon Richardson" gives a lot of results, even mentions in news, but they certainly don't seem to refer to this person. Smtchahal ( talk) 10:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I am seeking some more information about this person. I will updated as I find reliable resources as I go. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.202.62 ( talk) 12:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Livestrong Foundation. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Livestrong wristband

Livestrong wristband (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The only well-sourced facts in this article are about Lance Armstrong, the Lance Armstrong doping case, and the Livestrong Foundation. There are no cited facts about the wristbands, even though this is purportedly an article about the wristbands themselves. The wristbands have not been the subject of significant coverage. The wristbands are incidental to the vastly more notable subjects listed above. Or, in short, these yellow bands do not inherit notability from Armstrong, his Foundation, or the doping scandal, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment ( talk) Do you not consider the price of each wristband,the symbolism behind the color, as well as the number of wristbands sold, facts? Also, I believe the doping scandal is an important aspect of the article because it provides background information of the person responsible for their creation. I think that we could add some substance to the article, but shouldn't delete it completely. If you think about how often these are seen on a daily basis, surely people will be curious enough to search what the wristbands are for. Adamh4 ( talk) 21:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

So we need a whole separate article to say they sold 80 million wristbrands for a dollar each, and they're yellow like the yellow jersey? It's one sentence. And still, all three facts are unsourced. If anyone does track down the citations, they can go in some other article.

If you have the sources to add substance to the article -- sources about the wristbands -- now is the time to identify them. You don't have to fix the article now, but if sources exist they're the only thing that can save the article from deletion. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Livestrong Foundation. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG as it has been the subject of significant coverage including by CNN and USA Today way before the Amrstrong doping case. [10] [11] and others. [12]. Even the Arstrong doping articles give significant coverage to the wristbands. WP:GNG does not require all coverage must come from articles only about the topic, but that significant coverage is given to them, even if the article is about a different topic.-- Oakshade ( talk) 06:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Oakshade—highly visible accessory which has spawned many imitators. -- BDD ( talk) 19:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply

That seems to depend on the assumption that the Livestrong was the first of the, now many, silicone wristbands. Is this really supportable and sourced? If so, I'd agree that keeping it as an independent article would be justified, but is this true? Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply

From the book Pride-Ferrell Foundations of Marketing - "A common adage holds that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the yellow wristband campaign quickly spawned a host of imitators in support of other causes." [13] -- Oakshade ( talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Is it the first though? Or was the Livestrong silicone band itself copying another (possibly obscure) silicone campaign wristband? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

There doesn't seem to be any source indicating that the Livestrong Wristband was a copy of another silicone wristband campaign. So far this (and another source [14]) point to this wristband being the one that sparked imitators.-- Oakshade ( talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

We actually have a whole separate article on gel bracelets which incorrectly suggests the Livestrong bands were the first silicone bracelets and mis-attributes this to the NYT. But importunately, the article descibes an urban legend that spread one year before the Livestrong bracelets, concerning teenagers wearing "sex bracelets" in Florida, Illinois, etc. Note that "jelly bracelets" were "First made popular by Madonna and other pop stars in the 1980s," twenty years before the Livestrong promotion.

The idea that this fashion accessory traces its roots to Lance Armstrong is recentism. We really don't need gel bracelet and Livestrong wristband and Livestrong Foundation. What's the point of spreading such thin material so far and wide of so many articles? Not to mention Memorial Bracelets and POW bracelet; an even larger scale merge is probably appropriate. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^{\  talk /} 08:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Livestrong Foundation. The bracelets were a significant part of fund- and profile-raising for the Foundation, and the information here is reasonably well-sourced, but there's no need for separate articles as neither are long. Information on the wristband only makes sense in the context of the Foundation. Qwfp ( talk) 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• obvious merge to Livestrong Foundation Mangoe ( talk) 11:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Livestrong Foundation. The bands are not notable outside of their connection to the Foundation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Livestrong Foundation, leaving a redirect. If somebody wants to start an article on the generic silicone wristband, that would probably clear the GNG bar. This is a needless fork, however. Carrite ( talk) 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, by golly, there already is one... Carrite ( talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice

University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Relies entirely on primary sources, no claimed notability independent of the university, seems intended just to advertise the degrees offered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 14:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 14:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Schools, faculties and departments of larger institutions usually have to be very notable to have their own articles. This one doesn't appear to be. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. All other graduate schools of the University of Pennsylvania (many of less prestige than the school in question) have similarly written articles. Furthermore, as one of the leading Social Work schools (citation added), this school is particularly relevant and worthy of being the subject of an article. Other secondary sources have been added to improve the quality of the article. The section on degrees was removed to increase the perceived neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBrown42 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Seems to meet the basic threshold of notability for a constituent college of a larger university. As User:JimBrown42 notes, it's a top-ranked school in its field. Esrever ^{( klaT)} 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep  These are not deletion issues.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^{\  talk /} 08:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep We normally do keep articles about major graduate schools of a major university, such as this one. There';'s almost always enough material, and they're sufficiently important. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Lisa Hunt

Lisa Hunt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This person does not meet the notability requirements of either WP:ARTIST or WP:AUTHOR. There are no reliable sources cited in the article and a search for them did not find any either. SmartSE ( talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^{\  talk /} 08:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Related AFD — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londa Marks -- slakr^{\  talk /} 08:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not seem to have garnered the significant, independent coverage we require. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Lotus Nightclub

Lotus Nightclub (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is a means of WP:PROMOTION failing WP:NPOV for a nightclub that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources either aren't WP:RS (rather, they are advertising sites) or are WP:ROUTINE covering criminal incidents at the establishment. Hwy43 ( talk) 03:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 ( talk) 03:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Check the references! The article is verifiable! Is it really this hard to contribute to Wikipedia? User:Drummer14cnr

• Delete A run-of-the-mill nightclub with run-of-the-mill coverage (and not much of that) in local media outlets. I am sorry, but a nightclub doesn't become notable because a bouncer once got shot, not at this joint, but at a strip club next door. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I could find no evidence suggesting this is anything other than the run-of-the-mill local bar it appears to be. This is on the edge of being eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 as unambiguous promotion. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 06:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing found general notability guideline about this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.16.186 ( talk) 08:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Do Not Delete. So just because the article has references to promotion websites its deemed a promotional article? We have seen references like this all over Wikipedia. I in no way, shape or form see how this article is promoting anything. The references may be but those references are there to insure that this place actually exists. Drummer14cnr ( talk) 16:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not just about promotion (although the various unsourced claims about its popularity could be taken as promotion), it's about the lack of meaningful in-depth coverage. 2 local newspaper stories and some directory listings aren't enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 20:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.70.20.39 ( talk) 18:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Drummer14cnr, there simply isn't any indication that this business is anything more than a run of the mill local business, and the article looks like advertising, which goes against our strong policy spelled out at WP:NOTADVERTISING. Wikipedia doesn't collect articles on routine local businesses. You asked above if it is "really this hard to contribute to Wikipedia". The answer is that we welcome and try to encourage new editors, but the contributions need to be about topics that actually belong here. For example, in the article for Red Deer, Alberta, I noted that the city has at least three sizable high schools, only one of which currently has an article (and that one is scanty). Red Deer's three high schools are examples of worthwhile subjects for this encyclopedia; the Lotus Nightclub isn't. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I wouldn't quite call for speedy deletion, but it's still not notable. Once it attracts national attention, maybe it will qualify for an article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Marita Cheng

Marita Cheng (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not yet notable. The award alone is not enough. -- see the other nominations for Young Australian of the Year below. I'm nominating them separately, because the degree of lack of notability differs. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep As there is an article on the company she founded, the issue is really whether to merge or not. I would probably merge. But no need for deletion. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 17:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are plenty of sources on her, not all related to the award. I'm adding them to the article, but there are enough in there now to meet the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are sufficient sources for WP:GNG. -- 101.119.15.182 ( talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as it is sourced and now has events other than the Australian of the Year Award. hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• keep her achievements are covered in major Australian newspapers. Is this a snow keep? LibStar ( talk) 10:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I don't blame DDG for thinking that Young Australian of the Year is not notable, but it gets very wide coverage here in Australia. There's also the fact that to even get nominated, you've pretty much got to have enough of a profile that you'll meet the WP:GNG anyway, as demonstrated above. Plus, when you've even got User:LibStar, of all people, calling for a Snow Keep, you know you're onto something ;-). Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC). reply
• Keep Clearly meets WP:N due to multiple secondary sources. Orderinchaos 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It does look like Young Australian of the Year is a notable award. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It appears that a case proving notability has been firmly established, disagree that Young Australian of the Year is not notable. Dfadden ( talk) 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Poppy King

Poppy King (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

founder of a small and unsuccessful company; she received a youth award--Australian of the Year is notable ; Young Australian of the year is not, as her career indicates. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Her book seems to be in a lot of libraries [15]. And was reviewed, eg, 17 May 2008 The Globe and Mail. She has recieved lots of coverage eg Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Times, book, "Poppy King treasures her artwork." 11 October 1997 The Australian, "Poppy King Tells Of Her Will To Survive" BY Peter Wilmoth 8 October 1998 The Age, "Colour is her living" BY ERIN HANAFY 6 January 2004 Montreal Gazette. And some of the ones listed here are probably good. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per very extensive news coverage. -- 101.119.15.182 ( talk) 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep any half decent BEFORE search on google or trove would show that she was highly notable in the late 90s as a young, female entrepreneur, and notability isn't temporary. Still pops up in the occasional "where is she now" article. Easily meets GNG. The-Pope ( talk) 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per previous comments. Dan arndt ( talk) 03:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per The-Pope, plus common sense: being selected as the young Australian of the Year is one of the highest honours going in Australia, and recipients receive huge amounts of coverage! Her company was neither small nor unsuccessful at its peak. In all honesty, this is probably the worst single AfD nomination I've ever seen. Nick-D ( talk) 09:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I don't blame DDG for thinking that Young Australian of the Year is not notable, but it gets very wide coverage here in Australia. There's also the fact that to even get nominated, you've pretty much got to have enough of a profile that you'll meet the WP:GNG anyway, as demonstrated above. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC). reply
• Keep. Heaps of coverage. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 03:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. She still gets coverage, such as this article from The Daily Telegraph. It's not just "where are they now" articles. Consensus seems to be that the award confers notability, and I think I agree with that. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Disagree with the rationale behind this AfD. Poppy has had quite a bit of media coverage over the years, and disagree that Young Australian of the Year is not notable, it is more than just a youth encouragement award! Dfadden ( talk) 23:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Trisha Silvers

Trisha Silvers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Her book is not notable, and I see nothing else, besides being one of the hundreds of thousands of survivors a survivor or a major disaster. she is adequately covered in the article on her husband, Troy Broadbridge, who is notable. Australian of the year implies notability ; Young Australian of the year does not. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sure, she intially became well known as the wife of Troy Broadbridge, the Melbourne footballer who was tragically killed in the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami. However, she has received continuing media coverage over the subsequent 9 years for the building of an education centre in Thailand, ongoing work with the Reach Foundation, writing a book, performing in Torvill and Dean's Dancing on Ice as well as becoming Young Australian of the Year, a Moomba ambassador and CEO of St Kilda Youth Service in 2013.-- Melburnian ( talk) 04:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per substantial news coverage over a lengthy period. -- 101.119.14.221 ( talk) 00:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I'd dispute the nominator's supposition that Young Australian of the Year does not imply notability. St Anselm ( talk) 11:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I agree with the comments above, she has had substantial news coverage for a range of different achievements. I also strongly dispute the claim that Young Australian of the Year is not a not a notable award. Dfadden ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

James Fitzpatrick (Australia)

James Fitzpatrick (Australia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

no visible notability besides a youth award. I'd accept Australian of the Year as notable, but not Young Australian of the Year, because such awards usually translate as "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Only thing is a not-so-notable award. Promising person, too soon. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• delete he seems to have taken a number of roles since winning young Australian of the year. [16], [17] , [18] And was featured on national broadcaster in 2004 [19]. LibStar ( talk) 10:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

my mistake, definitely meant to say keep. LibStar ( talk) 02:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, recipient of a notable award. Also, found sustained independent and substantial coverage, including from Landline, ABC Radio, and a TV appearance on George Negus Tonight. Some of the coverage came years after he got the award in 2001, which would indicate that his notability is not based on that one event. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC). reply
• Keep - the consensus on the other articles nominated is that the award is indeed notable. St Anselm ( talk) 11:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - sources identified by Lankiveil suggest the subject meets WP:N. Orderinchaos 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Redirect - While I feel that the Young Australian of the Year Award definitely does confer notability, there is little other information in this article. I think maybe merging to List of Young Australian of the Year Award recipients and expanding the table to allow the a blurb from information on this page would be a better option than outright deletion, unless someone is able to expand the article. Dfadden ( talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Delete without expansion. As the article currently stands, it does not establish notability. If someone wants to try expanding it with his current roles/jobs, then perhaps it would be different. But I don't think there should be an article on every Young Australian of the Year. A list (similar to the lists of alumni of schools) would make more sense. Enigma ^msg 18:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Lakiveil's earlier comments. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Quickstep buses

Quickstep buses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article doesn't cite any references. It doesn't appear to be notable for inclusion into the encyclopedia. versace1608 ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- NN and probably defunct. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing happened and never will. Szzuk ( talk) 21:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Maybe a sentence could be added in the First Leeds article about the company (which appears to have been called Quickstep Travel), as the Quickstep brand was used for several years after acquisition (which was probably earlier than stated in the article). It's unlikely to be notable enough for a separate article, and the article isn't worth merging in its current state. Peter James ( talk) 20:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a very short non notable company. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Doncaster north bus station

Doncaster north bus station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no references cited, no indiciation of significance, and no articles link to it. versace1608 ( talk) 01:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- a Badly written article on a bus station that is now apprently defunct. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete then Redirect to Doncaster Frenchgate Interchange#History where it is mentioned. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Below non notable. Szzuk ( talk) 21:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. No indication of notability.-- Charles ( talk) 10:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as badly written & non notable. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Jat clans of Multan Division

Jat clans of Multan Division (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. Sitush ( talk) 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is a harmless list and we have plenty of lists on ethnic groups. As far as I can see, there is no policy-based reason for this deletion nomination. Mar4d ( talk) 12:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Eh? WP:RS, for starters. WP:OSE also. - Sitush ( talk) 13:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Agreed with Mar4d, no policy based reason for this deletion nomination, thanks Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 16:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• But since I've given some policy reasons prior to your response, that response makes no sense. - Sitush ( talk) 01:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Answer It meets policies mentioned by you. Wikipedia's policies are so flawed, they can be constorted to meet any point of view you want and I have seen that and experienced. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 03:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete This clearly is a WP:NOT case as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Per WP:NOT, "Cross-categories ... are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" and I don'f find it such. As cited in nom the lead of the article itself says how vague the content of the article are. And same is true for some other similar articles, that I suggest should be considered in this AfD:

1. Muslim Jat clans of Lahore Division
2. Muslim Jat clans of Jalandhar Division
3. Jat clans of Rawalpindi Division

-- SMS ^Talk 03:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• And we can remove the lead, not the whole article. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The whole article comes from the same source as the lead and the source itself says that its content are vague. -- SMS ^Talk 20:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and salt-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Men going their own way

Men going their own way (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems very WP:NEO ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Newish catchphrase trying to catch on. Plus, "No official publication or books is known yet." (Quoting the article itself.)   Senator2029 ➔  “Talk”  13:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a notable concept, as the article admits (also, it seems to have been created as a form of promotion). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• FYI: Men Going Their Own Way was deleted in 2007. Sancho 20:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• As was MGTOW, 4 times. Sancho 20:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Wow. According to the deletion history, these phrases may need to be salted. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Argentina–Bangladesh relations

Argentina–Bangladesh relations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I've looked at all the sources and they do not actually discuss any notable actual relations like signficant trade, agreements, military cooperation etc in depth. there's the usual Bangladesh has potential to be a trading partner without evidence of actual significant trading. 2 of the sources are from the same President's announcement. Bangladesh is one of several countries mentioned in this whirlwind visit, one company exporting ceramics to Argentina is hardly groundbreaking. LibStar ( talk) 01:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article should be kept according to Wikipedia's General notability guideline since the references in the article are from reliable, secondary sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian ( talk) 10:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

is there a significant relationship? There seems to be only to be talk of wanting a significant relationship. LibStar ( talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

But the references have significant coverage, not a passing mention. Nomian ( talk) 19:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Both countries have relations and there are reliable sources that talk about this. If those relations are "big" or "small" is Subjective importance Cambalachero ( talk) 01:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - passes WP:GNG due to signficant discussion in several reliable sources. I might !vote to delete it if I could be convinced that wanting more trade is not sufficient to keep this type of article. Bearian ( talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep I expanded this a bit at the start of the AfD. It seemed to just meet the GNG but I wanted to hold back to make sure I didn't prejudice other voters. -- 99of9 ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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