Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 May	16 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DiLorenzo[edit]

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

AfD tag was placed on the article yesterday ([1]) but OhioJack did not leave a reason for the nomination. I am completing the nomination as a neutral editor, however I intend to comment below after reviewing the article. Ivanvector (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a curriculum vitae and WP:LINKFARM for a non-notable businessperson, and that's all the article has ever been. It appears the subject of the article has personally contributed much of the material. Ivanvector (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with Ivanvector and I apologize for forgetting to mention the reason why I felt the need to nominate this article for deletion. I nominated it as there are no concrete objective sources mentioned, it seems that the subject itself has contributed extensively to the article and I question the notability of the subject. It seems more like a promotion/resume article as Ivanvector has also mentioned.--OhioJack (talk) 15:31, 16 May 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, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adeyemi Okanlawon[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet any of wikipedia's Notability criteria:

He hasn't received a well-known and significant award or honour, or has been nominated for one several times.
He hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The only mainstream and notable film he has acted is Journey to Self and it isn't a major role.
He doesn't have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Finally, he hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to his field. Most of the few sources provided are either unreliable or the reliable ones are focused on a short film he acted and not focused on him as an actor.

I think this article is too early! Maybe in the next 2 to 3 years the subject will be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but presently, he doesn't meet the notability guideline. Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources to have a stand alone article. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from its failure to pass GNG, major contributors to the article seem to have a very close connection with the subject and 90% of all the content of the article are not cited. There are so many things wrong with the present state of this article. Darreg (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: He appeared in just a SINGLE scene in Journey to Self and did not even make more than 3 sentences in the entire film! more like a cameo appearance. Definitely not notable to have an article on it. Darreg (talk) 21:39, 18 May 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, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour News Source[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, cruft. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a copyrighted concept and all WP:OR...also I'd hate to see a news operation that doesn't cover news 24 hours a day (even with a late night stringer). Nate • (chatter) 03:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the Youtube videos all show their respective stations showing the logo the article references, but frankly Youtube is easily not a reliable source but the two non-Youtube links clearly establish the brand at least. That being said, Fox News Alert, special report, etc are also all news brands but don't have articles and this strikes me as more of a general term than a specific brand that news organizations had in common. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:16, 24 May 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!} 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Lunkins[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:NBOX. Astudent0 (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NBOX and there are no sources in the article that show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 19 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring powered exoskeletons[edit]

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

WP:TRIVIA: This is a trivial association. "Exoskeleton" is not a genre or storytelling device that binds together media (such as "horror" or "noir" or "magical realism") nor is it even a particular technical device (such as CGI or Technicolor). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to satisfy WP:LISTN. There are a few "list of ..." citations in the article. I guess I'd prefer these short, random lists as categories, but WP:NOTDUP is pretty specific that they're allowed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." (Note: I created this list article.) There are several references in this article that list such elements—powered exoskeletons—out of interest for its readers. This Wikipedia article consolidates these references and additional ones per WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." WP:TRIVIA does not apply anyway because it applies to trivia sections, so very little actually applies here. If we were to apply it in spirit somehow, the section "Not all list sections are trivia sections" can apply here: "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." Clearly we have a "relatively narrow theme" here rather than "miscellaneous information", and this is a good way to present these items -- with references and bidirectional navigation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added some commentary to this list article's lead section. It is also worth noting that the upcoming film Edge of Tomorrow features powered exoskeletons. Considering that last year's Elysium had a lot of coverage about its exoskeleton (just Google for headlines), the relevance of this topic will continue to build. Sorry to add on, I am just wanting to indicate that this is not just a bunch of indiscriminate details put together for laughs. It's real and interesting for people, as the references demonstrate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LISTN. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 16 May 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small post-closure note to indicate I just completed the discussed histmerge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carpe Fulgur[edit]

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

Non notable corporation. It was being reviewed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carpe Fulgur where it failed, patently. One day it may be notable, just not yet. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this copy and paste creation breaks the entire chain of attribution of authorship and edits. If the outcome of this discussion is to keep the article then a history merge will be required with the AfC version. Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 15 May 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) 13:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've a number of sources that discuss them in detail, listed below. (And there's countless other "passing mention" sources out there that could help flesh out the article with little details, like this.) All sources below have consensus through WP:VG at WP:VG/S to be usable sources. (Siliconera has consensus to be used for article's dealing with Japanese games, which is entirely what Carpe Fulgur deals with.)

Keep (and histmerge) - Per the plethora of significant coverage found by Sergecross above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plentiful sources in a WP:VG/RS search, and that's atop Serge's list above. I'll grant that the current version is a disaster, but the topic's still notable. Nom, based on the direction of this discussion, you may want to consider withdrawing your nomination. czar ♔ 05:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This scenario plays out too often, a disaster of an article is kept at AfD and then never improved. I encourage all interested editors here to make some needed improvements to the article ASAP, before it's forgotten. Disclosure: I saw this mentioned on the AfC reviewer help page. Gigs (talk) 17:45, 21 May 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 03:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not an ambiguous term; it is, rather, a collection of products and venues named for a single company, all of which are discussed in the article, Verizon Communications. No disambiguation page is needed in such a circumstance. bd2412 T 21:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I guess it's not hurting anything, but it does seem a bit unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a dab page. Could be made into a set index article, but as BD2412 noted, it's already subsumed in the main article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that it is fully subsumed at Verizon Communications. --Bejnar (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is properly set up to serve readers who are looking for one or another entity or building named Verizon. It is hard to find "Verizon FiOS", for example, by scanning only within the current main Verizon article. Are the buildings sometimes known as "Verizon" explicitly covered there? If so, that would be odd, as probably not all of them are important in the context of a huge business. There is no requirement that the main Verizon article should keep mentioning these at all, much less in a convenient list; in fact it only mentions some of them in scattered places within long article. Keeping the disambiguation page ensures that all usages are kept together to serve disambiguation need (for readers and for editors, too). --doncram 02:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there really any buildings actually known as "Verizon"? They all seem to be the Verizon Something, which raises WP:PTM. If it can't be shown that they are, there is no point in manufacturing ambiguity where it doesn't exist naturally. bd2412 T 03:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well there are multiple buildings named "Verizon Building", including Verizon Building in NYC and Verizon Building (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Neither of those are disambiguated vis-a-vis each other, while one has hatnote disambiguation to yet another building also apparently sometimes using the same name. And there is Verizon Center with hatnote disambiguation to several more Verizon buildings, including Verizon Arena and Verizon Wireless Arena and Verizon Wireless Center that are not in this disambiguation page yet. There is no Verizon Building (disambiguation) page and one is needed, if it is not redirected to one big Verizon (disambiguation) page. So I suggest either expanding the Verizon (disambiguation) page or moving it to Verizon Building (disambiguation) and expanding there. And having it cover all the Verizon Centers, Arenas, etc. Or, less sensibly, delete it per nom and provide a copy of the article so that a new Verizon Building (disambiguation) page can be created and be sure to cover its relevant contents. I would really prefer to expand this dab page, Verizon (disambiguation), to be a combo dab clearly covering all of the alternative names. --doncram 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words, you would like to create a page that violates WP:PTM six ways from Sunday? This would go in exactly the opposite direction of what our guidelines require. There is no such thing as a "combo dab" - that is exactly what WP:PTM prohibits. If there are multiple buildings called the "Verizon Building" then the appropriate solution is to have a disambiguation page titled Verizon Building (disambiguation). bd2412 T 12:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the problems that editor do has, relate to the Verizon article and not to this disambiguation page. --Bejnar (talk) 04:23, 22 May 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 userfy. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found Footage 3D[edit]

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

Filming has not yet begun, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Too bad these can't be speedily deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This is a little teensy bit too soon, but this is the sort of thing that should absolutely be userfied. I fully volunteer to userfy this if User:Cassidyschap doesn't respond to the AfD. (I'm worried that since he hasn't edited since March, that he wouldn't edit it at all and has abandoned the account.) This does come somewhat close to NFF, but primary filming hasn't begun and as such doesn't really merit an article at this point in time. Normally I'd just suggest redirecting with history to the director's page, but Steven DeGennaro doesn't have an article at this point in time. I don't know that redirecting it to the producer is really a good alternative since normally we redirect to the directors, but it could work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also slightly worried that there's a bit of COI here with the original editor, although I have nothing to substantiate that. Although I do want to say that it looks like filming has yet to actually begin. Everything I'm finding shows that it's in pre-production and filming won't begin for a few more weeks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production for Found Footage 3D has begun, and filming begins on May 25. A press release is coming soon, at which point 3rd party sources will be available to cite this start date. Until then, a redirect to producer Kim Henkel's page is all we ask for, as opposed to deletion. 70.115.144.179 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that press releases are seen as WP:PRIMARY sources regardless of where they're posted. At most they could be seen as trivial since most of the time the news outlets just put a small paragraph of prose at the top and leave the rest as is. Sometimes they re-write the PR in their own words, but most of the time the press release isn't really usable and we'd need some sort of other coverage to really pass notability guidelines. Even once filming has begun, we still have to show that the filming coverage has been in-depth, which means that the coverage doesn't rely mostly on press releases. It's a bit tough to accomplish, to say the least, and lately people have been more strict over this sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The director has just had two more interviews, one with Dread Central, so this we're very confident that this will meet notability criteria very soon. In the meantime, I request that we close this AfD so I can userfy the article until a time at which it is appropriate for the article space. Cassidyschap (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to author per request, though I'm very hesitant about who "we" is. Please mind our COI guidelines, if any conflict may exist. czar ♔ 12:45, 23 May 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!} 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbiter (magazine)[edit]

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

New magazine, no independent sources, no indication of any notability. Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16/05/14

External sources and references added
Additional information as to the current & past editorial teams re-added (as it is the norm with student magazine wikipedia entries to list this)
Regardless of age of magazine, the page serves to make more complete the picture that wikipedia presents of student magazines in Australia, which has more dead links than active links. Deleting this page for the above reasons would be unnecessarily heavy-handed and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwill1991 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your arguments will have more weight if they are based in policy. For notability guidelines see WP:GNG and the links therein. As for the lists of non-notable people that at some point were involved with a magazine, there's a long-standing consensus that they don't belong in encyclopedic articles, magazines have their own websites for that. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that no "long standing consensus" is applied to student run magazines in the List of student newspapers in Australia entry, where many linked articles contain lists of non-notable people within their entry. Examples: Australian National University's Woroni has a dedicated section for both editorial function and recent non-notable board members, University of Sydney's Honi Soit also has a dedicated section for both editorial function and a complete list of non-notable editors since 1929 and University of Queensland's Semper Floreat also has a list of non-notable editors from this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwill1991 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really an issue for AfD, but for cleanup. In any case, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are over 4 million pages here and only a limited number of editors, so not all articles are up to par (yet...) --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing special or notable about this publication. There are probably thousands of similar magazines which have no widespread significance and do not deserve to have a Wikipedia page. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My own taste is towards ultra-inclusionism of publications. A new student magazine, however, seems to fall a bit short of the mark. Needs independent sourcing for verification. This may meet GNG sooner rather than later. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 21 May 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, as has already been done by the original author of the article.. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Abella Group[edit]

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

No significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources, therefore does not meet WP:NCORP standard and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the policy, I agree with your deletion nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribbeanbio (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 15 May the author, editor Caribbeanbio, redirected this title to Warren Cassell, Jr. --Bejnar (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are many junk sources here... but I'm looking at [2][3][4][5]. If I can convince myself the latter few are reliable and aren't promotional in nature, which is hard, there are a few sources dedicated to him. However, I can't. Between citing Business Insider's "20 under 20" listicle for facts that don't pertain to him and not being able to find anything more in depth, I don't think the subject yet meets the GNG. czar ♔ 12:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Howard Veterans Hospital[edit]

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

Unsourced article, no claim to notability. Article is mostly about transport links to the place, and bottom of the barrel scraping mention of security patrols. TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a great amount of in-depth coverage about this former hospital, even almost two decades after its closing, signifying easily passing WP:GNG. [6][7][8][9] That the article has too much focus on transportation is an improvement issue, not a deletion one. Bizarre that the spot where the British invaded the US in 1812 and where George MacAurthur lived [10] was even considered for AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only substantial source is #1, and it's about the place not the hosptal.TheLongTone (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hospital is the place and that piece goes very in-depth about the hospital anyway. All the others area substantial enough to demonstrate passing WP:GNG too. The primary reasons of this AfD, "unsourced" and "Article is mostly about transport links to the place...", are now non-existent. This should have been a case of WP:SOFIXIT, not AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The location is covered in Fort Howard (Maryland), which mentions the hospital. There is nothing worth merging.TheLongTone (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about a military fort, not a veterans hospital for which the grounds were used for later. This article "mentions" the military fort too as its a different topic.--Oakshade (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were arguing that the hospital is notable because of the site. Which is covered elsewhere. I see nothing to establish notability of the hospital in the sources you give.TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, as is this article, are about the VA hospital and go very in-depth about it. You've now completely shifted as to why you want this article deleted from "unsourced" and ""Article is mostly about transport links to the place..." now to another article "mentions" this hospital. I recommend you withdraw this nomination as the AfD rationale is non-existent and subsequent arguments are ever-shifting nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In depth? Where? I see a mention of a doctors work, a mention of some IT technology, a short piece about the site and a photograph of the building included in a selection of photos of other buildings. You have a very odd idea of what constitutes in-depth coverage. I have not shifted my argument, which is essentially that the hospital is not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire contents of the sources about his hospital just to prove to you the coverage is significant. Editors can look at the links, see the content and judge for themselves if this topic passes WP:GNG and if your AfD rationale is correct.--Oakshade (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. While Fort Howard is notable, the VA hospital is not. It's not even notable within the VA system. Just because it sits on the site, doesn't mean the site's notability transfers to it. I like keeping articles and I always look for sources. I've recently changed my vote and helped save a few. But sorry, I'm not seeing it in this case. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to keep is not "because it sits on the site", but because there is easily enough coverage to pass WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG. Do you have any arguments regarding our actual guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your hectoring tone is unpleasant and patronising. Your idea of what constitutes ' very in depth coverage' is bizarre: you give four sources above. One is about the site, and briefly mentions the hospital. The second is a thick book which mentions it briefly. The third is a bunch of pictures of the site, one of which is of the hospital. The fourth is abouth the site, not the hospital. I applaud your efforts to rescue the article, but I still see nothing like a credible claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, your constantly being unpleasant and patronising and then attacking another editor for being unpleasant and patronising is not helping your case. You're just repeating your false "briefly mention" claim. These sources go into detail about the VA hospital, not just "breifly mentions" it. The example in WP:GNG of coverage that is not "significant" is a "one sentence mention." These sources, [11][12][13][14] are far beyond a "one sentence mention" or "briefly mentioning" the hospital. And sorry, but going into detail of a VA hospital function at this VA hospital is not just a "brief" mention. But I'll ask this !voter again, do you have anything argument that relates to our WP:GNG guideline?--Oakshade (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely poinin out that, inter alia, a single photograph of a building is not "in depth coverage". Making false claims does not strengthen your case.TheLongTone (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the coverage constitutes much more than a "single paragraph", which by the way is in itself much more than your previously claim of "briefly mentions" and more than WP:GNG's example of what isn't significant being a "one sentence mention". While not your intent, you're actually making the case for this passing WP:GNG. Your constantly shifting your arguments from the very beginning of this AfD whenever you get proven wrong is truly not helping your case. My opinion that this !voter so far has not presenting any argument in regards to our WP:GNG guidelines still stands.--Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not shifted my argument at all: I hold that the place is not notable, and that your sources do not establish notability. Maybe I'm seeing something diffeent from what you see, but only one of them covers its activities as a hospital at all. I'd call a single paragraph a brief mention. And certainly not in depth.TheLongTone (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Afd rational: "Unsourced article." False. "no claim to notability" False. "Article is mostly about transport links to the place, and bottom of the barrel scraping mention of security patrols." False and false. That's was your entire AfD rationale. Now that you've been shown sources, you've totally shifted to WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE and claiming you never shifted. All of them cover the activities at the hospital. And of course a very in-depth article about the now-closed hospital and what the VA intends to do with it is about this hospital. You're fighting a losing battle here. --Oakshade (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, the substantial part of the AfD nomination was the non-notability. If I am fighting a losing battle it is trying to make you see how very flimsy your sources are: something that the only other person to have contributed to this discusion clearly agrees with.22:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

Your total stated rationale, not only "substantial part," was all statements that have all be shown to be false yet you continued this AfD. That's why I suggested you withdraw the nomination. That other person has said zero about sources or our guidelines. That's what my response was requesting they address that primary issue of our WP:GNG guideline. That person I notice in other AfDs also uses arbitrary opinions that has nothing to do with sources or our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 23:17, 14 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable hospital. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more than a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE? --Oakshade (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something useful instead of just harassing everyone here who disagrees with you!, Other than that nope. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your honesty, but WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE isn't enough of proper rational for deletion just like WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't enough of one for keeping. Over the last few days I've created multiple articles. Been quite useful, thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current version of article has several references. Notability is not temporary, so even if it is defunct as a hospital it can still be notable based on past references, and I rather expect there was offline coverage of its creation and operations, as much as there is coverage of its denouement. --do ncr am 15:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirecting to List of hospitals in Maryland would be highly superior to deleting, per wp:PRESERVE. The list-article could/should be expanded, photos and descriptions about each entry, perhaps as a table eventually. It would be a start to begin to add description text to some entries, starting with this one. The list-article is complementary to nav-template {{Hospitals in Maryland}} and to Category:Hospitals in Maryland. Is the article creator active on other Maryland hospitals? Or other VA hospitals? If so the article creator could consider developing the MD or Veterans Admin hospital list-article(s) first, or concurrently with other maryland hospital articles, and keep the stubbiest items within the list-article until more sources are collected, to avoid controversy like this AFD. However, I do support this article being kept, i !vote Keep above. --do ncr am 15:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, List of Veterans Affairs medical facilities by state#Maryland does not yet link to the article. Mention of this facility, even as a defunct one, could be added there. Seems the whole list-system of VA facilities, current and former, could be improved. --do ncr am 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject passes WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:Notability. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:25, 24 May 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) 01:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurette Koellner[edit]

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

Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Executive chairman is NOT CEO. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion the subject passes GNG. Amsterdad (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes, Seattle Times, Businessweek, Bloomberg - certainly not a "Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" 基 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage seems sufficient for GNG.--Staberinde (talk) 15:30, 21 May 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) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Raj[edit]

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

Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion the subject passes GNG. Amsterdad (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While most of the independent reliable coverage in the article is about his operations and not himself per se, it seems to me much better to have one central article about him and his works than several smaller ones about each corp. --Bejnar (talk) 02:50, 17 May 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!} 13:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luisana Mia (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

WP:NOTE No evidence this will be a noteable production WP:TOOSOON Even if it noteable wihout a release date its quite possibly too soon Amortias (T)(C) 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The user who creates these items has several warnings to be creating soap operas article unconfirmed.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & TOOSOON. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 16 May 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 Kennedy's Confection magazine. Although there is no clear consensus for or against deleting this article, notability does seem to be borderline at best. Together with the BLP1E issue, it would appear that merging to Kennedy's Confection magazine would be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Kennedy (chocolate taster)[edit]

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

This subject is somewhat on the edge of notability and given that the article was written by his PR agency (see for example the upload information for the photo) I think this needs to be reviewed by the community.

The Telegraph is the only source that I consider to be reliable and even that wreaks of PR (for example not listing a reporter's name). The others are all tabloid sources which are not any use and are most definitely rehashed press releases. I've searched in factiva and google books to find more coverage but haven't found anything else that would be useful. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this isn't my field but I note at Kennedy's Confection magazine that that article states (unsourced as is the rest of that article) the magazine started in September 2008 which is at variance with the claim that Kennedy edited it for 20 years. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just redirected/ merged to the publication's article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See COIN for more details on the COI. This interview that I came across makes it clear to me that the sources in the current article are of no use for establishing notability as they can't be considered independent. SmartSE (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find a few RS Mirror UK, The Telegraph, and Huff Post, and mentioned trivially in NBC. Multiple sources and passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, this link user:Smartse provided presents some interesting problems. The PR agency who wrote this Wikipedia page and secured the media coverage specializes in hiring journalists that write articles for the media and shops them around until someone publishes them as-is under their own byline. So in this case the whole idea that PR has corrupted the the editorial process so that publication's are no longer independent, something I would normally have a dim view on is a legitimate problem. It is completely reasonable in this very rare case to speculate that all those news stories don't actually meet GNG, because they are not independent, but actually written by their agency's own team of writers. But how can we know for sure? Maybe someone could email the reporters and just ask... CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a chocolate taster is of minor human interest for a newspaper but it isn't a suitable subject for a serious encyclopedia. M ight be WP:TOOSOON depending on how his writing career goes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing administrator, As of right now there are more than one reliable source which including The Telegraph, Huff Post, and NBCNews. Right now we have a claim that these are mirror sources. I feel more evidence is need to provide a definite determination. Per policy right now I am seeing multiple coverage from independent sources and passes GNG as it stands. The image is a bit concerning, but nonetheless can be cleaned. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Angus has been the subject of multiple, in-depth articles in the media, however there are some unique circumstances that put the independence of those articles in-question. Primarily that he has hired a PR agency that claims to write articles for the press that are published without a disclosure that they are not independent, but are actually PR materials carefully written to pass as a news article. We may never know for sure if those press articles were actually written by PR or independent journalists, but I feel we should err on the side of caution. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make two assumptions and then reiterate why this is an improper rationale. His profession is unique and unusual. Per policy at this time he has been covered in multiple reliable sources. The concern is that some sources maybe connected. At this time we cannot be sure which one are and which ones aren't. If we can definitively prove these sources are the case then by all means delete. But right now what I am seeing is a dangerous precedence being set. We are saying delete the uncertain and this person will never be notable because all sources will be dubious. This is the issue why this article must be retained. This situation is unique and new policy needs to be established until then we follow what we know, watch the tone in the article, and remove the image, deletion is not the way. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a chocolate taster is hardly unique. See for example: [15] [16] [17]. I don't think that this should be deleted because it was written by his PR agency, but because we know that the few sources that are available are clearly churnalism rather than journalism. Notability shouldn't be a matter of there being sources, we have to consider the quality of those sources as well. Has he been taken note of, or has he paid to appear in newspapers? That's an important distinction to make as it determines whether the sources are truly independent. If there were sources in higher quality sources that discussed his career in depth, then I would change my mind, but those don't exist. There's no precedent being set, we're discussing this article and only this article - that's the point of AFD! I do agree that this is an unusual case though. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some clarification here. What you showed me is that chocolate tasting is a legitimate profession. My question is how many tasters receive coverage from reliable sources? I've cited what are three clear reliable sources, Huff Post, NBC News, and The Telegraph. It is common for these sources to reference one another. What we need is evidence that they were paid to cover him, otherwise mere allegations are not enough. Do we know who that company pays? Everything is speculation, in fact do we even have other chocolate tasters who are deemed notable to compare to? As far as I can tell his is the only chocolate taster to have an article here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another source CNBC, I'm fairly confident that this is not paid editing. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take a second look per the sources noted by Valoem. The coverage he found reaffirms my opinion that the appropriate outcome is a merge to Kennedy's Confection magazine where the subject was active for two decades and where there's plenty of room to note a few bits about who he is and his career. He has received some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG multiple reliable sources. -- GreenC 03:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm all for oddball BLPs, but this is really a BLP1E, and also advertising-created. If this was at all a negative BLP, there would be nary a keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in reduced form to Kennedy's Confection magazine. It appears that he is principally covered for his job as a chocolate ... reviewer? ... there. Sandstein 18:46, 30 May 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!} 13:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veeran Azhagumuthu Kone[edit]

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

Appears to be a recreation of Azhagu Muthu Kone, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azhagu_Muthu_Kone for having "insufficient coverage available, in any language, to demonstrate that notability and produce a verifiable article." The same argument applies to this article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything on this guy. Article severely fails WP:NRV.

Yikes! Preceding Delete vote is mine. I must have forgotten to sign it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spartans Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:NGO Most of the cited sources appear to be from affiliated groups/organizations and or the depth of coverage is insufficient to meet notability criteria. A Google search failed to yield enough material to ring the notability bell. Maintenance tags were removed without any improvement in the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going past the first page of a google search got me this and this, plus a few others that required an account. There is also ref #3, which isn't one I added, but seems to be accurate, reliable, and not self-published (it is used in numerous other drum corps articles). The article might also fall under WP:BAND, of which I think it would pass criteria 1, 4, and 9. Gamma Metroid (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the page to add information & cites & discovered that it had been nominated for deletion due to non-notability. Here is the current list of references:

Yes, some of them are from sources that are primarily concerned with the drum and bugle corps activity, but others are certainly not. Fredref123 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ad Orientem states, "Most of the cited sources appear to be from affiliated groups/organizations..."

Of twelve cites, one (1) is from the organization itself, verifying the sponsorship and current leadership.

One (1) other cite is from Drum Corps International, verifying the affiliation of the two organizations.

Three (3) cites are from corpsreps.com, an independent organization unafiliated with any drum corps or drum corps association that reports principally on the historic repertoires of hundreds of drum and bugle corps primarily in North America and Europe. corpsreps.com also contains much other information of historic value to the activity. To claim that corpsreps.com is affiliated to the subject of the article is akin to claiming that Sports Illustrated or the sports section of any newspaper are affiliated with the National Football League or Major League Baseball, since those publications report on the activities of those organizations.

To claim that Steve Vickers' "History..." is "affiliated" is to also claim that any history concerned with the subject of the Wikipedia article is "afiliated" and, therefore, an invalid reference.

To claim that any of the other references is "affiliated" would be to require a far stretch of the imaginination... GWFrog (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GWFrog ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP GWFrog (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fredref123 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Corpsreps are not a reliable source. A link to the allmusic front page says nothing about them. A passing mention in ny times is trivial. Best is three routine local interest pieces which is not significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:45, 26 May 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 Acrobits. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acrobits Softphone[edit]

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

This article is about a VoIP client which appears to fail our general notability guideline as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. The client also fails WP:INTERNET, as it doesn't have the requisite impact on the world to describe it from an encyclopedic standpoint. Them From Space 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Acrobits. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Acrobits per Stuartyeates. I found a few mentions here and there (there was even a review, although I don't know how reliable the source is), but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage about it. It could instead be mentioned at the company's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above comments. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Acrobits- this software has marginally better references than the other current acrobits afd, and though it is not enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article, a merge to the company is appropriate.Dialectric (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move and dab. Move to Loutre, delete the French translations, and use to disambiguate La Loutre Dam, Jean-Louis Le Loutre, Loutre River, Loutre Township, Audrain County, Missouri, and probably Saint-Cirgues-la-Loutre. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Loutre[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a (translation) dictionary, and this isn't a proper disambiguation page. Saint-Cirgues-la-Loutre wouldn't be looked up under "La Loutre", and "Le Loutre" isn't the same as "La Loutre". Removing those and all uses of "otter" leaves a single entry, La Loutre Dam, with nothing to disambiguate it from. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Loutre, delete the French translations, and use to disambiguate La Loutre Dam, Jean-Louis Le Loutre, Loutre River, Loutre Township, Audrain County, Missouri, and probably Saint-Cirgues-la-Loutre. Disambiguation policy allows disambiguation pages to include terms regardless of article (le, la, the, etc), and it's reasonable to suppose that J-L Le Loutre, Loutre Township, or Loutre River might be referred to simply as "Loutre" or in the last case "the Loutre". --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a valid dab page per MOS:D. I'm sympathetic to the idea of a dab at Loutre, but the examples given above all appear to be partial matches. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Loutre, per Colapeninsula and the sympathy of Boleyn. If something is called "La Loutre" even if it has a longer name, it is not a partial match. --Bejnar (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the village of La Loutre on Anticosti Island (L'Île-d'Anticosti) known in English as Otter, Quebec, 49°37′N 63°48′W / 49.617°N 63.800°W. --Bejnar (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move and dab as per above comments. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move and dab leaving a redirect. Several things might be referred to as just "Loutre" or "the Loutre" etc. Siuenti (talk) 20:33, 16 May 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khaled Al Juffali[edit]

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

The only ref is a blog. Notability not established. TheCascadian 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG, only reference is a self-published blog. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 10:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable car enthusiast. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:03, 17 May 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!} 13:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Witch (The Vampire Diaries)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about the concept of witches in a particular TV series franchise, which contains no real-world perspective to attest to the concept of "witches in The Vampire Diaries" having any real notability as a topic in its own right — and, in particular, not a shred of hard evidence that the concept actually differs in any substantive way from the concept of witches as they've existed in countless works of literature, film, television, legend and oral tradition over the past thousand years or more. ("Supernatural beings with the power to affect and change reality by magical means" — what a stunningly original idea!) But I struggle to know whether this should be deleted, redirected to The Vampire Diaries or just redirected to witchcraft — the only thing I'm sure of is that we really do not need separate standalone articles about every marginal difference in the depiction of witches in every individual work of creative storytelling that ever depicted witches. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete as a duplicate of Witch. Nerd in Texas (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove vote from banned sockpuppet. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fancruft that consists of nothing but original research and plot details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 15 May 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!} 13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Russell[edit]

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

Small town (pop 2K) mayor with no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:POLITICIAN — while it's not a hard and fast rule, AFD consensus rarely extends notability to the mayor of anything smaller than a midsized (~50K) city. While the article is not entirely unsourced, it relies entirely on two weekly community newspapers, published by the same company, in her own hometown and the only slightly larger town just a few miles down the highway — neither of which is large enough or widely distributed enough to confer any real notability if they're the best we can do for sourcing. If she were getting her name into the Denver Post on a regular basis, then maybe there might be a stronger case for inclusion than there is here, but local community weeklies don't cut it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She made notice by writing a balanced letter to the editor on city expansion. That just is not something of exncyclopedic note in a city of less than 5,000, of which there are thousands in the US alone. If we were to create articles on all mayors world-wide who reach her level of notability, we would probably double the size of wikipedia and people would call it "mayor-pedia". She is not notable enough for inclusion here. This is the ultimate in one-event, presentist bias coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local position in small town with local coverage. Already covered in the town's article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:39, 15 May 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. Number 5 7 17:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Organization for a Participatory Society[edit]

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

Possibly notable (though at present every reference is either from them or their allies) , and also a promotional article that I have not been able to get to a non-promotional state: note the reversal of my attempts to remove long quotes of praise from even the captions of the pictures. Better at this point to remove it altogether and let it be started with a proper NPOV. Promotionalism as well as notability is good grounds for deletion. The combination with borderline notability is very good grounds. The previous AfDs were both no consensus because of very limited participation.

As further evidence of promotionalism, the contributor has attempted to include for every member of the organization who has an article, a mentimn of the fact in the lede paragraph, and made a category out of them as well-- see CfD DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly notable based on the people involved alone. Not sure what you mean by references from them "or their allies" -- I assume it means you support a particular POV. Furthermore, you did not make several attempts of changing the article but only one, which was reversed for several good reasons, one of which included that you left out the organizations focus, which is important information and is all well documented in the articles history of course. Also the article includes no "praise from even the captions". In fact it includes no praise at all but mere statements. Some of those statements are from specific individuals so it makes perfect sense to attribute those statements to these individuals specifically rather than portraying them as facts which would be extremely misleading. Whether those statements are perceived as positive or negative only depends on the person reading them and what their own views are. Leaving out information concerning membership in the respective articles of members would make absolutely no sense in an encyclopedia and has nothing to do with promotionalism. Obviously, no grounds for deletion. --JohKar (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the statements in the captions are praise of the organizations can be seen by reading them: "IOPS strikes the right chords, and ... could carry us a long way " and " "The IOPS commitments ... We believe they correspond closely to the most prevalent, advanced, and widely accessible political beliefs on which to build an organization for winning a better world." (note the us and the we.

References: Refs 1, 6, 12 and 13 are from the organization. Ref 2 is an editorial, not a news account quoting from them extensively & amounts to PR; it's an editorial, not a news account--Al Jazeera is a reliable source--for news. Ref 4 is advocacy from a website;. Ref 5 & 10 are just an "interviews" where the founders say what they please to advocate the organization, Ref 11 is written by the founders, and is an appeal for members. Ref 3 & 9 I cannot find, but I think they'd be like the others. Ref 7 is a footnote giving the membership of the committee, not a ref. None of them are neutral news accounts from a reliable source.

I apologize for removing the paragraph on misaion; but looking at the article, there is more that I should have removed: the opinion by Schechter, the multiple focuses in the infobox, the duplication between "History"and "Structure", and the many spam insertions of the organization in every possible bio--along with listing them here.

Ambitious plans do not make an organization notable, only accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irredeemably promotional: full of name-dropping (WP:NOTINHERITED), statements in the figure captions that read like ads (cf. blurbs of books that are not allowed into articles either), etc. In addition, notability is indeed weak at best. I agree that this may be notable, but to get to a neutral encyclopedic article, it's better to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above, full of name dropping and lacking third party coverage about the actual work of this organization. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As nominator seems to acknowledge, the organization is Wikipedia-notable (passive-aggressively(?) stating it is "possibly notable", in the nominator's words), with a complaining tone about not being successful in changing the article. Noam Chomsky's participation is important and so is the participation of other listed notables. These endorsements are relevant and important, much like the endorsements of other scientists along with Albert Einstein were important in establishing the importance of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, for just one example. The Al-Jazeera reference alone is plenty to establish notability. Other complaints about "promotionalism" are for tagging or Talk page discussion, not reasons to delete. I dunno, maybe I want to join this worthy-sounding organization. It is clearly Wikipedia-notable. I don't dismiss DGG's concerns and I will watch the article and try to participate constructively, but the concerns seem not about notability. --do ncr am 20:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --do ncr am 21:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Al Jazeera alone establishing notability, WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Also note that it's an editorial, mostly written in the first person, with the publisher's disclaimer "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy." Agyle (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have trouble understanding this nomination. According to nominator, the topic is notable, although only marginally so. I should think that one would only nominate an article for deletion based on lack of notability if there is a clear lack of such, and refrain from doing so when notability exists but is merely marginal.

A factor apparently deemed 'aggravating' is identified as 'promotionalism'. As far as I know, this alleged fault is not among the various policy-based reasons for deletion. It is, moreover, hard to mount a defence against this complaint lacking a definition or clear description of 'promotionalism'. There is an essay in the sandbox space of nominator, promisingly named 'What is promotionalism?', written for a non-existent WikiProject 'Promotionalism clearance campaign'. Instead of defining 'promotionalism', it presents a list of aspects (style, material included, article organization, article format, referencing) apparently deemed characteristic of articles inflicted by 'promotionalism'. But in fact, none of the thirteen points given appears to apply to the nominated article.

An important issue for any encyclopedia is to decide what material to include and what to exclude. Ultimately, I think, the basis for that should be what serves the readership best. The article we have here is not a very good one, but still serves to provide the reader who wants to know more about its subject matter, a revolutionary organization, with what I think is mainly relevant information. The reader needs to know something about the agenda of the organization, in particular what distinguishes it from many other revolutionary organizations. It is also highly relevant information that so many people who are already widely known for their political viewpoints have joined and have agreed to serve on its consultation committee. This is all factual information that helps the reader to understand and assess the topic; I don't see any of it as being unduly promotional.

Full disclosure. I believe I am the editor referred to above as 'the contributor'. I have not attempted to include a mention of their membership for every member of the organization who has an article, but only for those who are well known precisely because of their political views, such as Chomsky, who has said of himself he is not much of a 'joiner'. I have added this because, for these persons, it is relevant to know that they are a member of a revolutionary organization. In many cases the easiest or most obvious place for this information was in the lead paragraphs, but if I saw a better spot down in the body of these articles I put it there. There are many more members of IOPS who do have an article but who are not known for their political positions, and for them information on their membership, although not a secret, is not included here on Wikipedia. Lambert Meertens (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert you say article we have here is not a very good one, but still serves to provide the reader who wants to know more about its subject matter, a revolutionary organization, with what I think is mainly relevant information. The reader needs to know something about the agenda of the organization, in particular what distinguishes it from many other revolutionary organizations. It is also highly relevant information that so many people who are already widely known for their political viewpoints have joined and have agreed to serve on its consultation committee . that may all be true but how does this subject meet WP:ORG, not just being WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that specifically in response to nominator's claim that this is "a promotional article". My claim is that it is not particularly promotional: removal of the passages deemed promotional will result in an insufficiently informative article. The alleged "promotionalism" is presented as an important component of the argument for deletion. Lambert Meertens (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert, the nominator did not say that the topic was notable, but "possibly notable". Agyle (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator stated that the "combination [of promotionalism] with borderline notability is very good grounds [for deletion]". So he appears to be of the opinion that the article topic is marginally notable. But even if he thinks it is "possibly" notable, and thus definitely not undoubtedly non-notable, my bewilderment applies equally: why nominate an article for deletion if you have merely doubts about its notability? The answer appears to lie in the claim of "promotionalism", which I've tried to answer above. Lambert Meertens (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find significant coverage from what I'd consider independent reliable sources to establish notability. I disagree with arguments above that otherwise non-notable organizations inherit the notability of their members. Some references I considered:
- An Al Jazeera editorial is the only one I might consider a reliable source. It provides significant coverage, and while I wouldn't ordinarily count an opinion piece like this toward notability, its author, Danny Schechter, is notable and has an extensive journalism background. While I'm still on the fence about this, without other sources the question is moot.
- Syndikalismus blog entry provides detail, but the blog's About page indicates that it's run by people in an "anarcho-syndicalist movement", and "not an official website of an organization"; overall this does not seem like a reliable source.
- Colorado.indymedia.org has some good coverage, but the publication's motto is "become the media", and solicits articles from the public; again, this does not seem like a reliable source.
- Dailycensored.com provides a lot of detailed information, but is a word-for-word copy of the IOPS website About page and its subpages, so I wouldn't consider it independent.

And so on for all of the references cited. I found three independently-published books in books.google.com that mentioned IOPS; two were in single sentences, and one that provided about a paragraph of coverage was in an introduction, written by Chomsky, to a comic book, but I wouldn't consider the coverage significant. I found no academic articles in scholar.google.com that mentioned IOPS. Agyle (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of rulers of India . -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of rulers of India[edit]

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

The article is original research and the topic/scope fails WP:GNG. No source I can find talks about "rulers of India" as a coherent group. (note "Encyclopaedia of Indian Rulers (2001) from Cosmo Publications available via Google Books is copy-paste of the earlier Rulers of India series edited by W. W. Hunter and is not reliable). Solomon 7968 08:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 08:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The OR claim seems dubious. That there were many rulers of kingdoms and countries which now make up the state of India seems beyond dispute. Nor is this the first source to suggest that the rulers of India are a topic as a group. See [18], [19]. I also think it's wrong to discount W. W. Hunter. While the historical accuracy of his work may be questionable, that he considered it a notable topic is not. Pburka (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of rulers of India which is basically a disambiguation-like page that takes readers to List of Indian monarchs for pre-independence era rulers and List of Presidents and PMs for post-independence era rulers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge per §§Dharmadhyaksha§§. It is very obvious that this article is creative, informative. Though the title is pretty incorrect, "lists", whole article should be pasted to List of rulers of India. OccultZone (Talk) 13:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#2, this was a WP:POINTy nomination performed in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles-Butler Hughton. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination on valid deletion grounds. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchess of Duke Street[edit]

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

Should be deleated only source IMDB. Not reliable. SillyPotatoe (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bad faith nomination, article is clearly a notable subject and other references have now been added. Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Tesoro[edit]

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

Non notable person. Sources are mostly primary Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Not all the sources are primary as you have mentioned but this person basically famous for marrying someone famous. He has however since founded a company and has gained some notability in his own right. Seasider91 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have found only one reliable non-primary source Ventura County Star. But that's not enough to meet WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Not all the sources are primary as you have mentioned and this person has notability in his own right. He is a well known public figure (Christian Minister) known nationally and internationally. Rather the the article being deleted, it should be reviewed and non-nuetral content removed, and additionally citations added ILoveCountryMusic (talk) 20:21, 22 May 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!} 13:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John "Irish Johnny" Copeland[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, no notable fights, single source is only about his demise. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Golden gloves runner-up doesn't show notability. No significant pro title fights and not ranked by Ring magazine.[20] Those aren't surprising given his lifetime losing record. Only significant coverage is his obituary in the local paper and that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 19 May 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!} 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ross (trader)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable source. Has a bunch of self published (Ross Trading, Inc.) books but none are notable. Recreation of a vanity bio advertising this individual. (as an aside, the edit history of the creator looks very much like the history of accounts used by the likes of Morning277) duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced advertisement. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:42, 15 May 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 redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy. I carefully read the different arguments presented here. I agree with pbp only partly: LDS church publications would indeed not be independent, but I don't see any reason to exclude other LDS-related sources, such as Deseret News. That said, even those sources barely mention Hamilton. It would therefore appear that he does not meet WP:GNG. However, we do have a List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I am leaving a redirect to the appropriate section (Second Quorum of the Seventy) of that list. Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin S. Hamilton[edit]

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

No sources from non-LDS publications. Since his notability stems from being an LDS church official, that means there are no sources independent of the topic. BTW, claiming keep solely on the basis of being an LDS official is not a valid keep vote. p b p 13:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Hamilton is not just an LDS official, he's a currently serving LDS offiicial. That makes him relevant. And I'm sure there are non-LDS sources that reference Hamilton. They just aren't often cited because his notability stems from his LDS Church service. A cursory internet search of his name reveals that this same Kevin S. Hamilton played some part in the Proposition 8 situation in California. That is one clearly non-LDS source that could be used. See this link. I find it interesting that Hamilton is being singled out for deletion when there are other articles about men who have served as members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy and the only sources listed are LDS, but no one is nominating those for deletion. An article isn't eligible for deletion simply because it uses LDS-related sources. Often someone in the Church is not in general in the public eye unless and until they get called to general Church service. Therefore, most of the sources available that cite information about them are LDS-related. I would be unalterably opposed to deletion of this article because Hamilton's current service makes the article about him relevant. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stokes, you don't understand notability guidelines. First off, being currently serving doesn't make you more notable. Being an LDS official at any time doesn't make you notable. Having a blog post about you doesn't make you notable. Being about as notable as another poorly-sourced article doesn't make you notable. And, yes, an article requires sources independent of the topic to pass GNG and be kept. Please read GNG and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting further in deletion discussions p b p 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being a general authority. According to the article on that subject there are only 99 of them and they are the highest officials of the church. So I deem this kind of Bishop like status to be defacto notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say to you what I said to Stokes: there's no such thing as "de facto notability". There's GNG and there ain't. This fails GNG p b p 01:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Candle. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the LDS, but he does appear to hold a very high post in it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm happy to change my vote if notability can be shown, but the mere fact that someone holds a position of authority in a religious organization does not make them notable. I see he is a general authority, of which there are currently 106 in the LDS Church, and he is in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, which I interpret to be lower on the list, i.e., no an apostle or quorum president. Without sourcing showing notability, there's no way to show notability of Mr. Hamilton just as we would require for anyone else, say, a vestryman of any influential large church. I'm big on precedent, and I don't see any prior precedent suggesting that general authorities might be de facto notable. Based on this discussion, many of these Second Quorum articles may have been recently created. To compare to bishops, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Bishops, where notability has (as always) been based on GNG; I don't see bishops as equivalent to Second Quorum members, as demonstrated by the lack of sourcing this case. LASTLY, for those who want general authorities to have articles despite the meager sourcing, please keep in mind that you are exposing these bios to potential mischief. A well-sourced article is a better protected one, which we always need to consider for living persons.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you linked to makes clear that Roman Catholic Bishops are "rarely if ever deleted". It's a bit like high schools, there is a presumption of notability. And it's not as though we don't have any sources, we have the LDS itself. While not wholly independent, I think it can be considered a reliable source for some content on its leadship and the positions they hold no? Are Catholic sources not used for Catholic Bishops? I know the U.S. government is used a source for U.S. government officials and university websites are used as sources for their personnel. This guy is notable because of his rank and leadership role within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's what the sources we have establish. It's unfortunate that Google News is no longer functional otherwise we would have more. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your argument boils down to "he's notable because I think he's important and notable." E.g., you can't extrapolate from high schools or bishops without evidence showing that the subject is almost always deemed notable. That's what's happened with high schools, as I spent quite some time proving empirically a few years ago. Church sources may be used to help verify information, but they are not an indicator of meeting GNG. For Google news, one helpful trick is to search at Google "site:google.com/newspapers "search query" ". I tried it for Hamilton a few ways with no luck.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If people want to maintain and improve this article, the article should remain. It is a good article that is interesting and important to many Wikipedia readers. The criteria should be in the interest of Wikipedia readers. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a rationale for deletion. It's not a good article because good articles have reliable, third party references. You haven't provided any evidence that the subject is interesting or important, and, even if you did, being interesting or important in and of themselves are not sufficient reasons for keeping an article p b p 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even a fervent inclusionsist such as I must say that "being in the interest of Wikipedia readers" has not been a legitimate argument since at least 2004. AfD participation ever spiraling down puts these essentially unsourced BLPs at risk (of being kept via suspect "no consensus" closes).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all due respect, unless sources reaching our general notability guideline are evidenced. There are extremely good reasons to hold biographies in particular to WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:16, 26 May 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Seifert[edit]

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

Apparently run-of-the-mill university teacher, no assertion of notability. Emeraude (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as you say is just a run of the mill university lecturer. Article creator appears to be a fan of his, possibly an ex student? Seasider91 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Noted author and professor. His work has been cited and discussed in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Emeraude (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking up the name on google brings up very few relevant results, most of the sources that are relevant to the man are via his institution and several I suspect are created by the man himself such as his linked in profile, defiantly not notable, do not see these independent sources that Candleabracadabra speaks of. In fact most of the google hits relates to a street of the same name. Seasider91 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really wondering how you come to the conclusion that a (full) professor at an Ivy League uni is a "run-of-the-mill university teacher". His books are held by several hundred libraries around the world: Works by or about Lewis Carl Seifert in libraries (WorldCat catalog). A quick google search also turns up several reviews of his works in refereed journals (Modern Philology, Eighteenth-Century Fiction, Modern Language Notes, The English Historical Review, and probably a lot more). Don't know what you've been searching for. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with User:Axolotl Nr.733. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I simply put in Lewis Seifert into google and found very few results Seasider91 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article says he is "a professor" not "the Professor" so suggesting he is just a university teacher in the American use of the word "professor". That does not make him notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Emeraude (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he holds the department chair, if that matters to you. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment So you're saying we should make all department heads at all universities of notability a Wikipedia page? What absolute nonsense as you know full well that the head of say the head of the faculty of biochemistry at Oxford Professor Mark Sansom would not merit an article just like this guy doesn't. Seasider91 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not nonsense at all. It would be a definite advance to be able to use a fixed criterion, such as possession of a professorial chair, as it would save a great deal of this sort of borderline discussion.Eustachiusz (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you're referring to this Mark Sansom, there's no doubt he would easily be considered notable based on his citation numbers alone. And no, that's not what I'm saying, all I did was making a factual comment concerning the article subject's academic position. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews:[21] (Eighteenth-Century Studies), [22] (Journal of the History of Sexuality, a part of the review visible in the scan at the bottom), [23], (The English Historical Review), [24] (French Studies), [25] (Modern Language Notes), [26] (Renaissance Quarterly), [27] (Men and Masculinities) etc etc. I'm sure that editors with access to JSTOR can find out far more. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Doesn't seem to be a straight GNG pass. I'm personally good with auto-keeping full professors who are department chairs, as the subject is, but this is not the way the SNG for academics is currently written, I don't think. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources presented by Vejvančický, views of the authors works, constitute more than adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I'm a bit confused by Carrite's view, but perhaps I'm missing some problem with those sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:48, 29 May 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!} 13:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Naef[edit]

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

My original prod rationale was "This person doesn't seem to pass WP:N, failing WP:BIO including Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals) requirements." and I stand by it. The article states "He is best known for being the supervisor for the Eurovision Song Contest from 1978 up until 1992"; as far as I can tell it means he was just doing his mundane job. Nothing in the article suggests that in doing so he attracted any significant coverage, or achieved anything out of ordinary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I object to the article being deleted, Mr. Naef played an important role in the Eurovision Contest, as it's mentioned in his article, he was the man who decided Sweden were the winners of the 1991 Contest, he achieved fame by supervising the votes. Mrluke485 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2014

Delete unfortunatley deciding who wins doesnt appear to make him notable. If this did we would have pages for everybody who had ever judged an Olympic final Amortias (T)(C) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May I remind you that Frank Naef was the supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest, the supervisor plays the most important role in the contest, not only was he the man who over saw the voting, he was the longest serving supervisor of 15 years. Mrluke485 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2014 (CET)

Please don't double vote. You should also add a disclaimer you are the article's author. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well why should it be deleted, I created this article and before you came along, it wasn't up for deletion at all. Seeing as your just attempting to delete my articles, as I' am the one who created this article I have more right than you to double vote. Mrluke485 (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2014 (CET)

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) 01:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Sawon[edit]

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

My original prod stated: "This individual seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." I have seen the one ref added since, and read arguments in edit summaries and on talk page by User:Sarasays andUser:Gobonobo and I am still not convinced. Coverage of her person is mostly in passing, or in niche/local sources. I do not believe this satisfies the cited policy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Village Voice reference is strong, the others are passable. Pburka (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pburka: It's a best source, but it is not about her. It dedicates one paragraph to introducing her, and that's it. I don't believe that having one paragraph about oneself in a reliable source satisfies WP:BIO requirement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Village Voice source starts with an introductory paragraph on her but goes for four paragraphs, quoting her extensively and at one point calling her the "founder of what many consider to be one of the leading experimental galleries in Manhattan." gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I selected Magda Sawon from WikiProject Women artists/Requested Articles. A Factiva news search for her name today returns 10 hits from 6 different notable publications. sarahobender (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Village Voice source and coverage of Sawon in various books and newspapers make this pass WP:GNG. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person founded, owns, and runs an influential art gallery that is notable it it's own right, the Postmasters Gallery. And New York-based sources may be niche/local in one sense, but when the subject is art world-related, such coverage is not trivial. Sarasays (talk) 02:21, 19 May 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'm discounting Orlady's opinion as withdrawn, Candleabracadabra's as that of a now-blocked sockpuppet, and the unreadable wall of text at the bottom of the discussion because it is unbelievably lengthy and utterly confused. What remains is one "keep" opinion that, unlike the several "delete" opinions, does not address the argument about the quality of the sources on which the argument for deletion hinges. Sandstein 18:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Meeting House Law Building & Gallery[edit]

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

Non-notable building. While old, and with some local interest as indicated by local coverage, the building does not seem architecturally or historically significant. The article appears to have been created as part of a larger PR campaign for the law firm that presently occupies the building. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building appears to be historically significant as a building and a Mennonite church (not too many of those), and it is a guess but i suspect it would be eligible for listing on a local or national historic register. Many owners opt not to support listing, to avoid perceived disadvantages of potential restrictions being imposed. It apparently was renovated with attention to historic preservation. Also, there is assertion that it hosts a museum; a museum by definition should be open to the public on some terms. Isn't any museum Wikipedia-notable? I believe so. The article doesn't seem overly promotional about the law firm that resides there, to me; YMMV. --doncram 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, not all museums are notable. They must meet the burden of WP:ORG just like any other organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, noted, thanks, that makes sense. This building is actually rare as a historic Mennonite church building I believe, however. I just added mention of it into the short list of Mennonite churches in Wikipedia, within List of Anabaptist churches article. I would rather see this kept and call for more sources at the article. But if the decision of this AFD is against keeping it, it could possibly be redirected to [[List of Anabaptist churches#United States, and I would want for some of the material in the current article to be merged into a longer item there. --do ncr am 19:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sources are low quality and there are a lot of article topics here unrelated to the building. The history section, for example, talks about the site's history. All content in the article which is not tied to a cited source ought to be deleted, then the next step would be to check the sources for reliability. Could someone who supports this article choose the two best sources from the references so that it would be easy to check if any source has directly provided journalistic coverage of this building? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another alternative might be to move this to Vincent Mennonite Church (currently a redirect to this article) and revise to could cover the church before and after this building. It is an active, ongoing church today, probably individually notable, in a new building. See this history page at the church webpage. A Mennonite History Center has historic records of the church, inventoried here. There is probably a lot more available, those are just two hits. There simply must be a lot of coverage of the church over more than 2 centuries, though much would not be online available. The historic building could be covered in a section there. There are many church articles where there are sections covering old buildings; there are also many pairs of article about modern church article + article about old history building. --do ncr am 19:19, 18 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the congregation nor the building is notable, and there is nothing to show otherwise. The references ae either mere notices of the sort of local description that includes everything in the area. If an article could be written about the earliest church on the site, that would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think there may be a notable topic here, but I'm not sure what it is. The church congregation does not appear to be notable. This building is old and possibly was of historical interest before the lawyer modified it. The building apparently has been too severely altered to interest preservationists, but it might still be a local landmark. (Many National Register properties are less prominent than this building.) The article cites some sources (no longer available online, and ref details are incomplete) that suggest that there may have been substantial attention from reliable sources. The topic with the strongest claim to notability appears to be the lawyer, Hy Mayerson. His activities as an arts/entertainment patron/promoter/fan (as well as alterer of historic property) and his ambitious plans to make this building an "ImaginAIrium" may cross the notability threshold. See [28][29][30][31]. The combination of the church history, the building, and the lawyer may add up to one notable article topic. The content would, of course, need to be trimmed and repurposed to match whatever is identified as a notable topic. --Orlady (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There has already been an attempt to create an article about Mayerson Law which was deleted by AFD (here). The citations found by Orlady regarding Hy Mayerson amount to little more than mentions in passing. I don't know that the church history will prove to be that significant. (If it were, the locals probably wouldn't have allowed Mayerson to alter the structure.) While there's a little bit of a lot of stories here, I don't think any one of them merit inclusion, and I don't think the sum of the parts adds up to anything coherent enough to build an article on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re WikiDan61's "(here). I will restrict otherwise commenting on the inaccurate facts & opinions offered by WikiDan61 leading to the deletion of my 40+ year law practiceWIKI page. I do offer insight to WikiDan61's mis statements regarding the deletion Of The Mayerson Law Offices P.C. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redkruzer Hy aka Redkruzer Redkruzer (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)redkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 4 May 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete, userfy. Sources are very poor, and not a single one seems to concern the building, giving this a light of WP:OR. It's a shame Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) didn't pass (perhaps it's time to try to make this one again?). In light of no specific guidelines, and this failing GNG, I am afraid delete is the only valid way. However, this is a nice article, and we could userfy it. It could also be merged into Spring City, Pennsylvania, itself a mess, it's history section seems to be a total OR, see inline comment visible in edit mode at the bottom of that section... If the people from "Spring-Ford Historical Society" or such could publish this on their website, if they have one, we could use it as a source. But it seems to me that some local history affectionados are trying to use Wikipedia as a web host :( Is there a local wikia it could be moved to? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Piotrus, did you really just suggest that someone take this unreliable, poorly sourced text and publish it on their own website so we could then use that website as a reliable source? I really hope things don't really work that way! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic site, church, cemetery, museum and exhibition space. Covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - definitely not historic for this area, sources are not reliable, "museum" was intended to be opened, but no evidence that it did. Basically just a promotional piece for a local personal injury law firm, who only give the building about three words on their website.

Calling an 1889 building in Chester County "historic" is just laughable - there are 314 NRHP sites in ChesCo with perhaps a majority having been built before 1800. There are many non-NRHP sites that are historically notable, but there are perhaps 1,000 in ChesCo more notable than this. Just being a Mennonite church doesn't cut it - there are at least 100 in eastern Pennsylvania, as well as Moravian, Brethren and other German groups, many of which go back to the time of Wm. Penn (as congregations) with surviving buildings typically before 1820. Chester County actually predates Penn's arrival (1682) and was the heart of a rural Quaker boom that started in the 1680s and continued up to the Revolution. Each of the old townships (disregard the East/West splits) likely had a documented Quaker congregation active before the Revolution, whereas this congregation is documented back to only 1798.

But just delve into the sources - they all look made up. "Some of the first music videos" look like homemade Super 8's shot in a bar and reposted to Youtube. I'm very familiar with many sources for ChesCo history and the article does not use them. (I'll ping @Orlady: on this) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given Smallbones' superior knowledge of Chester County, his strong support for deletion clearly trumps my weak support for keeping this. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The site's history seems to go back to 1750. Indeed there are MORE historic sites, but that does not negate the historical significance of this site. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hello, I am Hy Mayerson, Colleen & I have owned The Meeting House for some decades now. I wish to correct some inaccuracies infacts/opinions above stated. I will comment on only 1 now, but will have much more within a week: "..:But just delve into the sources - they all look made up. ..." Yes look at the first reference. It includes a nice photo of The Meeting House Law Offices & Gallery. Below that it states :

"Vincent Mennonite Cemetery, which was in earlier times known as Rhoad's Burying Ground, is certainly one of the oldest, if not the oldest, burying ground in the area of Chester County along the west side of the Schuylkill. John C. Wenger in his 1937 'History of the Mennonites of the Franconia Conference' states, "The present building has a stone in it with the date 1735 inscribed upon it. This has been regarded as the date of the founding of the congregation. It seems to be based on the date of an old grave marker." Some deny that a meeting house or congregation could have existed at that early date, however records show that Johannes Roth (Rhoads) settled on this land in 1719. He died in 1738, his first wife having predeceased him. It is reasonable to think they would have been buried at this burying ground on the land where they lived.

Frederick Sheeder, in his 1845 sketch of Vincent Township [PMHB, Vol. XXXIV (1910), January, April & July editions] said, "the meeting house that has allways whent by the name of Rohd's this meeting house was built 1750 the old Germans nearly all in the neighborhood church and meeting folks buried on this graveyard Adam Miller that died on John Shuler's place was buried here before the revolution Henry Heffilfinger, the father of Jacob, was buried here 1790 . . . and old John Wagner, Loranz Hippel in the year 1785 (sic), old John and Henry Rohds, Nicholas Miller and other old members rest here". To be continued. Thank you, Hy aka Redkruzer Redkruzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redkruzer (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not sign above correctly. In recently returning to reference 2: Sketch of Vincent Township (PMHB, Vol. XXXIV (1910), January, April & July editions), Frederick Sheeder, 1845, It is clear from the notable source : The 1910 Pennsylvania Magazine Of History & Biography , Volume 34 aka Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol.34, issue 2, 1910 , http://journals.psu.edu/index.php/pmhb/article/view/26448/26205 at page 196 of this 1910 publication that it advises that The Meeting House was originally constructed in 1750. To be continued … Redkruzer (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Hy,aka RedkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Redkruzer (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Hy aka RedkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Redkruzer for commenting! To others, he may have been prompted to find his way here by my phoning and leaving a message at the law office. I did not invite anyone to come here and vote, although in my message i felt I had to refer to the Wikipedia article and the AFD to explain my call. I wanted to ask for a current status on the museum and gallery, as a matter of fact, to address assertion above that there is no evidence that the museum ever opened. See User talk:Redkruzer#Meeting House Law Building & Gallery.

Redkruzer, your providing documentation that the building was built in 1735 or 1750 helps! That seems to address some concerns here, and is useful info for this AFD and/or could be added to the article (though maybe adding here, until a decision is settled here, might be best). Sources can be used even if they are not available online. With Redkruzer's interest now, I am hopeful that more sources and content can be added to the article eventually. This AFD is about the notability of the topic, and the article can be improved later.

And, per several editors' comments above, there already seemed to be near-threshold notability in several ways. I notice this recent AFD on Frank A. DeMarco (an unrelated topic), where near-threshold notability in several ways was an issue and where some argued that sufficed, and the article was Kept. I think that is a good argument. --do ncr am 18:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Meeting House Law Building is and remains a museum. It is a museum of the imagination : The ImaginAIRium. : A museum is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.[1] … Museums have varying aims, ranging from serving researchers and specialists to serving the general public. The continuing acceleration in the digitization of information, combined with the increasing capacity of digital information storage, is causing the traditional model of museums (i.e. as static “collections of collections” of three-dimensional specimens and artifacts) to expand to include virtual exhibits and high-resolution images of their collections for perusal, study, and exploration from any place with Internet.[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum It has been a live, actual & virtual museum of the arts. For the past three years it has been open to the public 9 to 5, 5 days a week to Dec 2013. It is now open physically by appointment and for special events.

It exists today,physically and virtually, in The Meeting House’s museum, The imaginAIRium in a world of resplendent color honoring & housing a lifetime of Melvin Goldfield’s Art. Mel Goldfield Installation For June 16,2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqVyN3eCN3E

Artist Goldfield’s scuptures, paintings,etchings, readings, silkscreens, woodcuts have been on perpetual public display. All of the art in the videos have been or remain on display. That is both physically & virtually: Melvin Goldfield's Illustrations for Louis Armstrong's It's A Wonderful World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5XjHY3G-A0 Eva Cassidy - Chanteuse : Mel Goldfield - Oil Painting : "A Message To The Children" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lOpjuKVHm8 Illustrations on A Theme, Wild Thing: Sendak, Goldfield,Troggs -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcLLlb41Ea0

Physically:The Great Room of The Meeting House.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcLLlb41Ea0 a one of a kind hand crafted desk by one of Chester County's premier craftsmen, Jasper Brinton. See the first 3 images: http://www.jasperbrinton.com/desks.html On exhibit are Knoll Furniture from mid 20th century represented in MOMA. Visitors may sit in them and live with them.This table is for sit down at, talk, discuss, create...: Saarinen Dining Table - 78" Oval see http://www.knoll.com/product/saarinen-oval-dining-table-78 4 Platner Arm Chair (WARREN PLATNER 1966) to sit at this table, all as a unit dwarfed in The Great Room ... http://www.knoll.com/product/platner-arm-chair or Platner Easy Chair WARREN PLATNER 1966 see http://www.knoll.com/product/platner-easy-chair with the table & footstools displayed on the Knoll site ... A 1950 HI Fi console with world's of 1950 to 80 33 1/3 RPM records to hear analogue sound in the acoustic chamber that is The Great Room, a listening house (hear : http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=lazarus%2C+listening+house) ... imagine that ...

4 or 5 of the world class musicians that have performed live here: Arvel Bird - here is an excerpt : Lord Of The Strings-Arvel Bird: Aug 15, 2012 Live - At The i In The Meeting House 19421 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5mKYuIbqK0 Sean Tyrrell : Here is a film edited at The imaginAIRium from a Sean Tyrrell album : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6zA8d_jVjA, or

from A an imaginAIRium produced performance in Spring City : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MxPOhRx0I- Wild Mountain Thyme .

Sean did play at The imaginAIRium in late 2013, but we have not uploaded any of that yet.

MO - Steve Montague - “Alone Together” : “Great MH Performances: 1. Steve Montague Gibson Guitar” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxyMtHHyuyg Steve Montague Tears Up Wes Montgomery's Tear It Down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex2MxW_nnrc

Joseph Salviuolo - A rather complicated brilliant talent. Joe had the only double degree from the U. Of PA, in folklore & communications. Here Master Salviuolo is celebrated by another musician. http://www.jimcrocefans.com/groundless.htm

Here Joseph Salviuolo is saluted by the French youtube artist:Violetparme in her : Thursday. Alone in the crowd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysha62K3w4Q . In this piece Artist Violetparme uses the soundtrack from Joe’s mid 1970s performance of his, perhaps, million seller :Thursday. The original video contained within WIKI’s The Meeting House, herein debated, was soundly ridiculed by a WIKI editor heckler.

And here is Joe’s final performance, captured by imaginAIRium Films : Google JOSEPH SALVIUOLO,MAC,AM aka SAL JOSEPH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQoipy87Hok Joe’s Great performance at The Meeting House, late 1970,early 80ish, on 2 pianos, of his original song:

At The ImaginAIRium: Perrier & Peaches, Jim Croce 's closest friend : Sal Joseph : piano & voice     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STlJiCKob2s

Poetry readings in The imaginAIRium: Here is one: Poets : Kathryn Keegan : At The i , in The Meeting House - Poets : Kathryn Keegan : At The i , in The Meeting House

We were open 9-5 and more, but now by appointment or special events ...

HyRedkruzer (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)RedkruzerRedkruzer (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) edit of 2014May25 6:07 AM Hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A museum, whether open to the public or not, that houses the art of a single, non-notable artist, is more of a private gallery than a museum. And the fact that the building is used to house various public performances is of little value in this discussion; that just indicates the building is a convenient location for such events. This discussion must focus on the significance of the building itself -- on whether this building is a significant historic artifact. Redkruzer owns the building, so his opinions must be taken with a grain of salt. Opinions of reliable third parties must be given more weight. The fact that there was a congregation on this site in 1750 seems irrelevant, as this building is stated as having been completed in 1889, so it is clearly not the same building that housed the 1750 congregation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum

A museum is an institution that cares for (conserves) a collection of artifacts and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance and makes them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary.[1] … Museums have varying aims, ranging from serving researchers and specialists to serving the general public. The continuing acceleration in the digitization of information, combined with the increasing capacity of digital information storage, is causing the traditional model of museums (i.e. as static “collections of collections” of three-dimensional specimens and artifacts) to expand to include virtual exhibits and high-resolution images of their collections for perusal, study, and exploration from any place with Internet.[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum The Meeting House is a small private museum that houses well beyond The Melvin Goldfield Collection. WikiDan61 appears to overlook the references to Jasper Brinton’s desk, Knoll’s Platner’s chairs , Knoll’s Saarinen Table which are on display among other Artist’s works . Again, it is a museum of imagination. The imaginAIRium is a museum for the creative arts. It is a physical & virtual museum to display talent & for talent to have a stage. I explained why it was a museum in response to editors requests.

It is not merely a building, nor this building. It is the historical location too on which the building is built and, perhaps, rebuilt. The cemetery is a significant part of the building, the location & the property.

Significant notable publications detail the historical significance of the building, it’s cemetery & it’s history. Volume 34 (1910 of the The Pennsylvania Historical Commission’s collections of its own Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography significantly describe the pre - revolutionary history of the property.

The Wast Vincent News (Refrence 8 in this WIKI article) : East Vincent News, Volume 6 Issue 2, May 2009 devotes a full page to the property & building, with 2 photos of the building , inside & out. The exterior photo includes the cemetery on the foreground and The Meeting House standing behind the cemetery. The article is authored by Dr. Robert W. Price of The East Vincent Historical Society. The reference provided in the article, apparently has been removed or submerged by East Vincent Township, but they were happy to provide me with a copy Friday. I will republish it shortly & provide the editors with the URL. To be continued …. Hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzzerRedkruzer (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Redkruzer (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this just looks way too promotional to me. Almost all of the sources are not independent of the law firm, thus are not considered reliable. The best source is the 1845 text which was reprinted (as a primary source) in 1910. - It only mentions the church in passing, and it is not about the present building, and only distantly related to the present congregation which is now located elsewhere. The important date here is 1889 when the current building was built.

Further I think the author misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to write an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. Quoting him from above "leading to the deletion of my 40+ year law practiceWIKI page." It was not HIS page which smacks of WP:Ownership. Also please see WP:COI which very strongly discourages him from editing the article, and WP:Notpromotion.

Finally, in the context of Chester County, the building is simply not notable. Somebody should promptly remove the word "landmark" from the article, it just screams "advertisement." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Redkruzer: Fine, your building is a museum, according to the definition of the term. But it is not a notable museum unless anyone actually cares about its collection. If any reliable, independent source has written about this building as a museum (and by independent, we would need to see coverage beyond the local listing of events happening there, but someone actually writing about this museum and its collection of art and artifacts). The fact that you happen to own some nice antiques does not make for a notable museum unless some reliable source has written about your fine collection of antiques. In short, lacking any reliable sources covering this building as a museum, its existence as a museum is not notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. ( directed to smallbones, initially).That is perhaps as arrogant piece of blasphemy ( as in Sir Francis Bacon’s usage) that a Wiki editor would make and not expect to be challenged or arrested. I will explain in more detail, with more supportive facts and less mere opinion than the preceding paragraph in the next few days.hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the research promised above but serves to correct a offhand gratuitous inaccurate comment. re goldfield and WikiDan61's earlier comment: " ...A museum, whether open to the public or not, that houses the art of a single, non-notable artist …."

Melvin Goldfield, M.A. is surely not a non-notable artist.

His art was displayed, inter alia, in: the 1973 July -August issue of Art In America, the 1984 issue and on the Cover of Common Ground Magazine, inside full page in another Common Ground, a biography in Common Ground … Five Of Artist Goldfield's silk screens portraits of famous Chester County People hung for years in the main first floor corridor of the Chester County Courthouse.

Artist Goldfield is notable ALONE for Artist Goldfield’s life size cartoon sculpture of a hanging Gorilla, Rosie, with a life-size Owl, Al etched a top Rosie’s head. Rosie & Al are both together and at once, carved from a single local English Walnut Tree,( Mainly the crotch of the tree). They today are on exhibit at The imaginAIRium Physical Museum, hanging from the ceiling, suspended there, by her grip on high school rings attached to chains dropping from the 18 foot high imaginAIRium ceiling in The Meeting House. Rosie & Al were likewise on display for months at Peoples Light & Theater Company and given a 2 page color display in their performance Brochure. Hundreds of Mr. Goldfield’s works are hung in private collections, many as a result of a significant commission. I have photographed one such notable collection in a private residence in Hilton Head, South Carolina. A CD was recently released wherein Mr. Goldfield's large oil painting : Octopus Releasing in The Midnight Sky, was the album cover.

Mr. Goldfield is often discussed in Ingrid Croce’s book on Jim Croce. Ingrid, an artist herself, bought several waterfall pastels from Melvin Goldfield, M.A. Jim did likewise.

Noah Torno a former head of the Royal Ontario Museum’s Board of Director’s, and while holding that position, bought, after purchasing one of Artist Melvin Goldfield’s Frog Mandala(s) silk screens, 6 more in varying colors. hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC) added sentence about Artist Goldfield's large Octopus oil painting. hy akaRedkruzer (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Added another sentence to the above, & also within the above, relative to dismissal of the offered concept that Melvin Goldfield M.A. was a "...non-notable artist …." Not. hy aka Redkruzer (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzerRedkruzer (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "Calling an 1889 building in Chester County "historic" is just laughable..." not only is sarcasm and not, therefore, meeting WIKI standards. It is inaccurate & wrong. The present Meeting House Building is one & one quarter century old. It is a significant architectural achievement. A 30 by 50 foot space, with 18 foot high original tin ceiling and NO BEAMS is a rare and unique building, especially given the tools the mennonite farming community had in 1889.I am told the building hangs by it's roof. It rises, almost or, as high as the 18 foor first floor below it. I think some of the terminology is gables, girders, post & beam construction. "The typical Quaker meetinghouse is a two-story wood-frame ..." http://www.sacredplaces.org/PSP-InfoClearingHouse/articles/Quaker%20Meetinghouse%20Architecture.htm The Vincent Mennonite Church aka The Meeting House Law Building & Gallery is consructed of 2 foot thick stone walls.

It is: A Landmark Building. It sits on top of a long hill above Spring City, above the School River Valley, south of it. It sits on land higher than all land within at a hundred yards of it's 360 degree radius. It is a landmark building. One need only to look at any decent map of the area to understand that The Meeting House is indeed a landmark building.�

It is The Mennonite Church for which the street that leads to it from it's original farmer community was and is called, and remains called, "Mennonite Church Road. The articles reference to the 1845 writing :Sketch of Vincent Township (PMHB, Vol. XXXIV (1910), January, April & July editions), Frederick Sheeder, 1845 repeatedly uses the Vincent Mennonite Church as a landmark to describe and illustrate the area then under discussion. I will publish photos from the next texts, of the relevent publications named below. There are many more, but here is a start: 30,000 acres: Vincent and Pikeland Townships, 1686 to 1850, Author: Estelle Cremers,1989. At p. 40, Ms Cremers records that " 1735 - Vincent Mennonite Meeting". After listing 16 churchs, Author Cremers (of 4 local history books: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Estelle+Cremers&search-alias=books&text=Estelle+Cremers&sort=relevancerank) , which list records that " 1735 - Vincent Mennonite Meeting" was & is the second oldest church in an area broader than E & W Vincent Township & Pikeland Township. Ms Cremers notes in bold print, surrounded by >> & << marks:"More than any legal reference, these first eight churches proves the extent and earl date of sttlement in the area." At page 41, the text devotes the top paragraph to the important history of The Vincent Meeting of The Vincent Mennonite Church. Also at page 41, lower, there is an aditional, longer paragraph about "Vincent or Rhodes Meetinghouse. After noting the replacement on the same land ( at the high land corner of Skookill Rd & Mennonite Church Road) from house to the present building in 1889, (125 years ago before today & 154 years after the founding of the Meeting and nearly 3 centuries before today the text notes :"It is now(1989) the office of Mayerson, Gerasimowicz & Munsing, attorneys." Refrence 8 of the this article, being considered for deletion, cites to East Vincent News, Volume 6 Issue 2, May 2009. I will publish a JPG of East Vincent News, Volume 6 Issue 2, May 2009. In closing it advises, "the meetinghouse office is a perfect example of historic preservation and adoptive reuse. His stately building remains intact for all to see and recall the glorious achievements of yesteryear while it continues to perform a useful service for the modern generation. Preservation of grand old buildings like this is vital for our community, for once they are gone Dr. Robert W Price East Vincent Historical Commission"

The "Spring City Centennial" 1967 is a historical look back by Spring City, the borough adjoining East Vincent Township. This 1967 publication devotes a page and 1/2 to The Vincent Mennonite Church, with a vintage photo of The Meeting House. It details the history of the congregation & of The meeting House. I wish to thank Orlady for the compilation "See [32][33][34][35]. " I believe it more relevant than the backhand comment dismissing them by WikiDan61. Additionaly I filmed Michael Bacon, 1/2 of the "Bacon Brother's Band" in The Meeting House in the late 70s. A short time later I filmed Michael at The Main Point" where his brother, Kevin Bacon & John Ostroff worked as my gaffers in filming Michael. Richard Fagan whose 1975ish video (http://vimeo.com/5485921) is referred to as reference 14 which is a film I had shot (1975ish) in the imaginAIRium for a party celebrating life. Several of Richie's songs became # 1 country hits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fagan. I will publish the pages from Phila Magazine, (Article Refrence 15 : Philadelphia Magazine, March 1977) supporting it's cover story on new video uses. That article in 1977 not only discusses The Meeting House in some detail, it uses a photo of the inside of The Meeting House to illustrate in part what the article was describing about The Meeting House. Interestingly the man photographed playing the banjo was Bill Reid aka Leroy Brown of he song Leroy Brown. The name Leroy Brown was a name of a friend Jim Croce met while in the Army reserves, but the antics (as described in detail In Ingrid's book about Jim's antics, mostly with Bill) were all Bill. i.e the diamond pinkies he always wore under evrybody's nose was Billies ring (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3neqZN_ss5k and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEc-KMhPiU). The line All the ladies call him tree top lover, all the men just call him SIR" was all Billy. Someday, ask me to tell a specific story about that line & Bill. Channels 3, 6. & 10 (ABC,NBC & CBS Phila affiliates were regulary filming Sgt Chas. E Hartz, in the Meeting House's imaginAIRium while the litigation raged. I shot video of them being there & them videoing me and Charlie. Charlie was the lead plaintiff in the class action ( the brief supporting the complaint's class actions & the complaint were written in The imaginAIRium in Spring City, where I signed them before filing in the Phila USDC , before it's removal to NYC). I believe that Sgt Hartz was the only witness to testify in the Agent Orange Class Action, as he knew he would die, from the dioxin Viet Nam poisoning causing his brain tumor & labotomy. Sgt Hartz was one of the first persons to be videoed for trial prior to trial. As the case settled on the first day of the scheduled trial but after his death, he was the only witness who testified as I recall. OMNI magazine did a major story, including color photographs, on Agent Orange, the class action,what it was about. I am proud of how the article handled my participation in the litigation, specifically detailing how I located & worked with Ronald Codario,M.D. who then became the veteran's main expert witness. I will produce in a URL the entire article. I cited to The Declaration of Independence in large letters across the top of the black monolithic file cabinets at the far end of The Meeting House, because I BELIEVE IN IT & WHAT IT STANDS FOR. I wanted my clients not to have any doubt about what I would fight for. It was not for promotional use . My clients were already in my office in The Great Room where the Declaration rang out. I believe that the large photograph of our version of The Declaration depicting me on a ladder (at the journalists request) at the height of the Words was on the front page( as opposed to inside- ir could have been inside, but i think it was front page) of the Phila daily legal journal: The Legal Intelligencer. Again, I can find the photo to be sure it was on the front page. The article was published because I had received The National Sojourners (hhttp://www.freemasonry101.com/others/national-sojourners) Award for my Agent Orange work.

I'm tired & going to sleep now, but will continue this detailing of the importance of the Meeting House as a historically important building and property in American History, especially to The Mennonites, and continued as an important Meeting House for lawyers & injured people fighting for critical safety rights of Americans, nationwide & worldwide, unless WikiDan61 apologizes and withdraws this attempt to delete this article AND the corrects his prior deletion of The Mayerson Law Office,P.C. using as a basis, inter alia, claiming that I was a journey man lawyer. I would except the apologies. I submit that WIKI standards suggest the apologies in light of the material supplied above since WikiDan61's move for deletion.

hy aka 68.83.240.47 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)RedKruzer68.83.240.47 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 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) 01:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Lazar[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator without explanation. As written, this seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (artists). I am not seeing any significant coverage in Google Books or on the net in reliable, mainstream sources. Ping User:Ad Orientem _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The record of exhibitions suggests the subject does pass ARTIST. That said, this article is a highly promotional train wreck and needs a major rewrite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was included in the National Museum's exhibition of artists from the 80s and 90s. That's enough for me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the National Museum exhibit mentioned above, he has been shown at the Cobra Museum in the Netherlands in "the first major survey show of Georgian contemporary art to take place outside the country's borders" [36]. I think this meets the "substantial part of a significant exhibition" clause of WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 21 May 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!} 13:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U'Luvka (vodka)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/U'Luvka (vodka)

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

Product (vodka) that as an unreferenced substub clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reliable sources cover this vodka brand, but the depth of coverage from what I have found is not significant. Source examples: [37], [38], [39], [40]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of susbstantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a website that does have some background information that covers it a bit in depth. It goes into the history and how it originated [41], [42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt918 (talk • contribs)

The company's website and subpages of its website are not reliable independent sources as required per wp:notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 May 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!} 13:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.R.D.I.[edit]

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

Prod declined by the creator with no comment. This biography seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Biography of a musician/DJ with no reliable sources at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 18:40, 22 May 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 fantasy prone personality ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 03:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overactive Imagination[edit]

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

The article Fantasy Prone personality also exists - may be better to link to this as disambiguation perhaps? BustOut (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fantasy prone personality. That's where overactive imagination redirects, and the current stub is unreferenced, thus failing WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing synonymous article Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, fails GNG. While this is a common English phrase, and is certainly used informally to describe people's personalities, I could not find any sources that suggested this is a formal term for a personality trait. I disagree with redirecting it to Fantasy prone personality, which is an accepted formal term in academic journals, unless some good scholarly sources suggest this is an accepted synonym in the scientific/psychiatric community; I didn't find any. Agyle (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fantasy prone personality. In reference to the concerns mentioned above, I have found a reference which equates “overactive imagination” with fantasy proneness [43] and another which states that it can be used to refer to fantasy or magical thinking as well as differences in creativity with negative connotations (The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 1: Body and Mind, page 792), so they are used synonymously. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By synonymy, I'm looking for an explicit statement, along the lines of "Fantasy proneness, also referred to as having an overactive imagination...", not just a reference that uses both terms near one another.

The first example uses "overactive imagination" independently, to support the correlation between fantasy proneness and reports of past life experiences. "Some researchers (e.g., Alcock, 1981) even go as far as to say that parapsychological occurrences, such as past-life experiences, may just be a 'product of an overactive imagination' (Irwin, 1990, p. 656)."

The second example uses "overactive imagination" on page 792, and "fantasy proneness" on page 804; the sentence on 792 is "Imagination is also used to refer to individual differences in creativity, sometimes with negative connotations (e.g., an "overactive" imagination)." --Agyle (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second example actually says "Imagination is often narrowly equated with fantasy, daydreaming, or magical thinking-contrasting with reality in reference to what has never or could never exist. Imagination is also used to refer to individual differences in creativity, sometimes with negative connotations (e.g., an "overactive imagination")". I thinks that's enough of a connection to allow a redirect. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A connection to what? It doesn't say anything about "fantasy prone personality" or "fantasy proneness". Agyle (talk) 07:38, 20 May 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 Declined - Userpage is fine. (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrDuck 101[edit]

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

Apparent test page; bordering on WP:CSD/Blatant hoax peterl (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy decline. It's a userpage, and they can be used for test pages, hoaxes or such, as long as they follow the guidelines at WP:USERPAGE, which this one seems to do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you'll notice I reverted my tag within 2 minutes; I applied it to the wrong page (meant for one of the article pages created that have been subsequently deleted). peterl (talk) 12:29, 15 May 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!} 13:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florendo Visitacion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 07:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG with current references (obituary and a homepage of some kind?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG since it lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources and also doesn't appear to meet WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 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 06:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tam Chai Yunnan rice noodles[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant chain. Crowd sourced references with no other reliable sources found. Borderline promotion page Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As present, unreferenced, and thus clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be transliterated more commonly as Tam jai (see here for example). Given the number of locations and the writeups I was able to find I think it's notable. If it were in NYC I don't think there would be any question and I think there are adequate sources even in English to support notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRice (your example) is not a reliable source, neither are other crowd sourced restaurant review websites. Hong Kong is not NYC, the former has maybe a thousand noodle shops just like these, and the vast majority are not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a lack of verifiability and no notability is established; there needs to be significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources, but it is not. --Cold Season (talk) 12:58, 16 May 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. Consensus shows the article fails WP:CORP and has potential WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues. TLSuda (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coupay[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. just a small new company, supplied blog sources like this http://e27.co/coupay-raises-us500k-rewards-you-for-successful-sales-referrals/ do not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seen worse, but I agree with nom: not enough coverage, fails WP:CORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Our company is notable and has reliable references available online, you can google it. One must have improved the article before deciding to delete it. I hired User:BiH here to create our Wiki entry. I was expecting him to respond on this discussion as we paid him over $80 so it was his duty to look after our page, but he did not respond and cleared my message on his talk page, that was really rude of him. This page is really necessary for our business. I am ready to pay any client here to improve our page. I am not asking anyone to breach Wikipedia guidelines but asking to improve our company's Wiki entry while respecting Wikipedia guidelines.

Lucas McEntee (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Lucas McEntee (talk · contribs) has been blocked. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you need to provide reliable sources not tell us to find it through Google. If it is not notable you should not be using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising your business. Refer WP:SPAM and WP:COI. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No readily available RS online, google showing its WP page, Facebook, and LinkedIn in its top results. If the page was constructed by someone paid to do so by the company this puts it high in the risks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV Amortias (T)(C) 16:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But when I was hiring User:BiH, he ensured me the page will be up without any issues and he told me that the references provided are reliable and qualifies our company to have a WP page. Emir is an experienced commercial Wikipedian that is why I trusted him and hired him. Please User:BiH respond here to get our page out of issues. Lucas McEntee (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:BiH is not connected to our business, we just hired him because we didn't know WP coding and we wanted someone to consult us about does our company qualifies to have a WP and to draft a content which is acceptable on Wikipedia. He showed us a list of WP pages he has created for different companies and there CEO so just for this task purpose I paid him for our Wikipedia page otherwise else he is not connected with our business by any means. Lucas McEntee (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you can provide me some additional information that will help prove your companies notability on my talk page I'll see what I can do to improve it - success depends on the quality of the information given. Useful things would be articles from news organisations and other sources not directly rated to your company. No payment required as no promises but if it stays up a charitable donation would seem suitable. Amortias (T)(C) 17:50, 19 May 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. Userification on request j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption in vietnam war[edit]

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

Reads like a student essay (e.g., "They argue that narratives of U.S. benevolence, White families as saving Asian children from poverty, ignorance, and disease, and color-blind assimilation can overwhelm adoptee accounts (Choy & Choy, 2003)"). Article is mostly WP:OR and personal opinion. Completely US focused as well. Topic could deserve its own article, but current thing is a mess. Recommend WP:NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ouch, what a mess. At best, userfy if the author wants to keep working on it, but while the topic may be notable, the current tone, lack of context, and numerous manual of style errors make it not ready for article namespace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, not much more to add. Userfying is also ok if author wishes so.--Staberinde (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - doesn't seem to be a translation of any vi.wp article. Operation Babylift covers same but narrower area. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Userfy if the original author responds. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy not close to an acceptable article as it is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy. This MIGHT be an encyclopedic topic that will meet notability guidelines. This is currently an original essay and a bit of a mess. I think the general idea of getting it out of mainspace until it can stand on its own is a good one... Carrite (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moe! Staiano[edit]

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

NN musician. Prod declined. Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, not enough sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability (musicians). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very reluctant delete. I searched for his name, Moe!chestra, and Mute Socialite. I was hoping for WP:BAND#6, since Sleepytime Gorilla Museum is clearly notable, but I couldn't pull up much beyond YouTube, Bandcamp/Soundcloud, and blog posts regarding his other projects. Google results suggested that there may be some info on AllMusic, but the links were 404s (that said, something seems to be wrong with that site right now, since site searches for John Coltrane and The Beatles also came up empty!). There are occasional name drops, but so far I haven't been able to find anything substantial. I'll keep searching but it doesn't look good. — Gwalla | Talk 18:48, 16 May 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 Sandra McCracken. (non-admin closure) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 07:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Love[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with the artist. Wgolf (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unreferenced thus clearly failing everything from WP:V to WP:N. One music spammy article down, 100,000 to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --King userz (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --King editorz (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --King wiki editorz (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striked as all one person. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The three stricken !votes above are from accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable ~~artist~~ Album. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable artist? The artist is notable. This album isn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I put "Artist" but thanks for spotting! :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist. If someone wants to merge something that's fine too. No independent notability. Artist herself seems borderline. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:25, 15 May 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. Consensus herein is for article retention. The article remains as needing improvements in the forms of copy editing for clarification, the addition of internal links and the addition of sources. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manik Prabhu[edit]

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

Religious cruft, entirely unsourced, praising tone. If this figure is notable, WP:TNT applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is hailed as a saint by the Datta Sampradaya. [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49].--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bet. My objection is against the article, not the topic. It would need a thorough rewrite. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now are you withdrawing the nomination? It has been cut short and above that it isn't locked thereby you can edit it too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfDs is not a venue for clean-ups. As per notability; "In the course of hiswanderings Sai Baba is said tohave visited Shri Manik Prabhu of Humanabad (18171865 AD.), whois consideredto be a Dattaavatar inthe Datta Sampradaya.", "The village has the samadhis with shrines of the renowned and highly venerated saint Manik Prabhu", etc,etc., --Soman (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up would in this case mean a rewrite. The writing is so dense that, IMO, it borders on WP:CSD#A1. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is a number of Google Hits. Soman is probably right the article is on a notable topic, and should be considered an unreferenced stub, but not deleted. Comments from Indian Wikipedians would be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard Women Poets Prize[edit]

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

article claims this is a major prize but don't see any mainstream coverage. The fact that it was downgraded to bi annual awards and awards a mere $1500 does not make it major. LibStar (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it does draw major poets as judges. Should try to source and expand.... DontWantAnAccount (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Mentioned on Pen American page. [50]. No other significant web coverage I can see, but a number of Google Book mentions suggest notability. I don't have time to investigate whether they are in passing or not, but at least they seem numerous (100+). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Smallish prize. Notable judges is not enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to Weak Keep per some evidence of significance even though there is essentially no coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poetry prizes are not an easy category to fit into notability standards because the world of poetry is so insular and nonremunerative (I would suggest that $1500 is actually not such a bad amount given the world in which poets operate) and there are a lot of awards; and yet I don't think it benefits our encyclopedia—or the broader cause of literacy—to impose particularly tough standards on legitimate awards. Operating under that philosophy, I find it relevant that (1) this prize is often noted as a significant credential in biographical sketches of poets who've won it (see e.g. [51][52][53][54]); (2) the creation of the second version of this award was covered (albeit concisely) in The New York Times [55]; and (3) a 2000 Chicago Review essay criticizing the perceived plethora of poetry awards says this: "There are first-book awards of notable integrity, derived mostly from a judicious selection of judges. Though its winners occasionally leave me cold, the Yale Series of Younger Poets competition has an impressive track record. More recently, the Barnard New Women Poets Prize has proved exciting: in 1997 Brenda Hillman chose Larissa Szporluk's Dark Sky Question, in 1998 Lyn Hejinian chose Jena Osman's The Character, and last year Heather McHugh selected Christine Hume's Musca Domestica. In such cases, first-book competitions can function as a barometer of interesting new writing." --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"this prize is often noted as a significant credential in biographical sketches of poets who've won it". they are all one line mentions, and biographical sketches are not sources which cover this prize as the subject. I don't see this really adding to notability. if there is significant coverage where this prize is the actual subject of sources then that would establish notability. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the prize now every other year? Also, it notes a second prize for a poet's seond book intiated in 2003. As that a different prize or what this one became? Where are those winners? I find the article confusing. I also don't understand the responsible for 16 debut books part. What does that part mean? I may have mucked it up so perhaps view the original way it was written in the history, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits and I hope it's clearer now. This was originally the Barnard New Women Poets Prize, a prize for a first book. The winner had their book published under the auspices of the award; there were 16 of those from 1986 to 2001. As the 2003 New York Times article reported, in that year they decided to drop the "New" from the award name and make it a prize for a second book.[56] Since 2007 the prize has been awarded every other year; the "Women Poets" page at barnard.edu lists the winners up to 2009 [57]; there are separate pages for the two most recent winners. [58][59]. The judges make up a pretty impressive group: Louise Glück, Carolyn Forché, Joy Harjo, Joyce Carol Oates, Adrienne Rich, etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Getting clearer. Can the table be sectioned with titles of the original and more recent prize titles? One table seems to suggest a continuity that is not accurate since the name and scope of the prize changed significantly (if I understand correctly). Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (ec) (ec) especially per LibStar above. $1500 is indeed actually significant relatively for dollar values associated with poetry prizes methinks, and there are smaller dollar amount awards that are really quite prestigious, where the importance is not measured in dollars, by gove. And if it is now biannual, then it must be even harder now to receive this award, it is ever rarer and must be going up in overall value, yes, love. :) --do ncr am 01:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"And if it is now biannual, then it must be even harder now to receive this award, it is ever rarer and must be going up in overall value" maybe it's biannual because of a lack of funding and resourcing to coordinate the awards, something isn't necessarily more notable because it's less frequent. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note the article contains a list of numerous winners of the Barnard Women Poets Prize, about 20 of them individually notable (having Wikipedia articles), and would be valid as a list-article alone. It would not help to delete this article only to have a valid, separate list-article created as a valid complement (per wp:CLT) to the sensible category of same. I !voted Keep already. --do ncr am 14:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, the potential for a merge can be discussed on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm 'N' Moves[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. I found articles on AllMusic, and other sites, but they do not have professional reviews. I could not find charting information for the album either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It references Jesus Freak Hideout as a professional review and I found another one on indievisionmusic.com and newreleasetuesday.com. Guess I am confused as to what makes it not meet WP:NALBUMS? Frenzy5579 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably merge to Capital Lights for now. Not much independent notability and there's room in the main article to cover this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:32, 15 May 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 Diary of Dreams. While participation here is very low, both the nomination suggests redirection as an option and the sole !vote also does so. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PaniK Manifesto[edit]

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

May not meet wp:Albums, either delete or redirect Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diary of Dreams, where this EP is mentioned. Gongshow talk 17:18, 15 May 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) czar ♔ 12:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survata[edit]

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

Nonnnotable market research company Staszek Lem (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company passes WP:CORPDEPTH per the following coverage:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per North America. The sources provided by the continent seem more than adequate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:33, 15 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Boy on Poison[edit]

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

Notability concerns. This should actually have been deleted in 2008 per this discussion. Laun chba ller 09:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage at Allmusic [60][61], The Guardian [62], The Georgia Straight [63], and AOL [64] looks to be enough to pass WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 03:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Gongshow's references appears sufficient to establish notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sucha Awesome Deal[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY presented. Appears to be a puff piece and possible advertising Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks reliable resources. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No reliable sources and is not notable. — Abhishek ^Talk 15:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd model[edit]

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

This is pure nonsense. There is no such model. Btyner (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsensical from a mathematical point of view. No evidence of notability. I deleted some of the more ridiculous content from the article, but the whole thing seems to be a pile of bullshit firmly fitting under WP:ONEDAY. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Utter nonsense. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty close to a G3 speedy deletion. I know what goes up must come down, but what does the gravitational constant have to do with a financial model? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Null and Boyd, or as a Brooklyner would say, "It's strictly for da Boyds." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a hoax. Two of the cited sources are not freely available online, so I have not checked them. Agyle (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, though I wouldn't be as harsh as some of the comments here. The article seems to have been originally written by User:Mathspostgrad and may be part of his research. The nonsense may have come in later. There are also several references to the Boyd Model in Google Scholar in unrelated fields. So this might perhaps be a case of applying a somewhat obscure model from another discipline to financial theory. But still non-notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be at least a couple dozen Boyd models mentioned in scientific literature (the Harris-Boyd model in chemistry, Sartor and Boyd model for water treatment, Henrich and Boyd model in evolutionary psychology, Prescott and Boyd model in economics, Keider-Boyd model of plasma surface radiation, etc.) It's a very fair point that it might be legit, even if it's not verifiable. But to me the article, from its inception, looks like buzzword-laden bullshit, the sort of near-gibberish generated by programs like SCIgen that's gets published in academic literature. One detail that increases my skepticism is the author's use of the "Dalweska-Boyd constant"; "Dalweska-Boyd" occurs in google only in two copies of this web page; not in any books, scholar.google.com, or any other web pages, and even searching for pages with both "Dalweska" and "Boyd" separately only returns one more search result. Another detail that makes my left eyelid twitch is that a formula dealing with valuation of illiquid securities would incorporate the universal gravitational constant 6.674*10^-11 m³/kg-s²...I mean a lot of the rest of the formula is hard to swallow, but this seems almost like a taunt, "how ridiculous can I make this and still not be questioned?" Agyle (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I may have been a little too gullible, but we're both agreed on delete whichever version of the article we look at. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete including G kind of gives it away. James^x12345 13:25, 23 May 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) 07:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iron temple[edit]

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

No evidence of notability CTAГЛИT (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band of schoolkids with no press, no hits, no awards. Article amply demonstrates their non-notability. Come back when you've released some records. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A7 candidate; no evidence found to establish that this subject meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the impressive 65 likes on Facebook notwithstanding. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this can uncontroversially be snow closed due to the obvious lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ninja Lixxx235 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 May 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) 01:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanban (development)[edit]

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

In its present form, this appears to be a cross between a promotional article and a software manual. this is perhaps due to b=my lack of knowledge of the subject, because I do not understand clearly the distinction between this article and Kanban. I notice also the various linked articles ,most of which appear to me as promotional for the various programs. All I can really do with this is call it to attention. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep or perhaps a procedural close is called for. There is not a deletion reason expressed. This should not be at AFD. No offense intended, but it is not appropriate to call AFD attention to an article on a topic that one person doesn't understand. It is obscure, sure, and why think AFD frequenters will particularly know much about it or be willing to jump into developing it. What is the hoped for outcome? Shall we all repeatedly nominate General relativity up for discussion in an AFD process? I have not previously heard of any Kanban-type analogy for the software development area, but I understand enough about Kanban for manufacturing (which is very tangible, visible way for organizing work in a pull system) to see that it could apply here. And there are some references, and there is some discussion in 2011 and 2013 at Talk page. There is no question raised at Talk in 2014. Really, please close this. To the nominator, please withdraw. --do ncr am 03:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I don't have a clue as to the reason for the AfD nomination. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be an excessive number of articles about Kanban, some of which are rather short, but this should be fixed by merging, not deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep The other article is the manufacturing Kanban. This one is the software development Kanban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.86.90 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've trimmed back still more of the advertising from the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanban. The nom's reasoning is sound. It's the same subject recreated in a highly promotional advertorial that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because, as User:doncram wrote, kanban in a software development context looks very different than kanban in an assembly context. I agree that the article can use some work. Perhaps a section on how it relates to kanban as defined by Taiichi Ohno would help to resolve the confusion. Mike Duskis (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list some of the sources that cover this subject and/ or distinctions between it and Kanban more generally? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources in the article (besides the external links):

-Anderson, David (September 2003). Agile Management for Software Engineering: Applying the Theory of Constraints for Business Results. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-142460-2.

-Anderson, David (April 2010). Kanban - Successful Evolutionary Change for your Technology Business. Blue Hole Press. ISBN 0-9845214-0-2.

-Jasper Boeg (2012-02). "Priming Kanban" (in English). InfoQ. Retrieved 2014-02-17.

Again i am not familiar with Kanban in a software development context, but those look like 3 sources that would explain it. --do ncr am 03:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There do seem to be sufficient sources for this in addition to the manufacturing kanban. I do see, as DGG mentioned, several kanban-related articles of dubious notability, but this and kanban seem like the basis for all the others. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this page to be both useful and accurate (based on my own experience of using Kanban in software development). It explains the application of the higher level concepts presented in the Kanban page, applied to the software development process. User:andrewebling — Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 21 May 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.