Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 November	24 November >

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Pawlak[edit]

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

He's an MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has only 1 top tier fight (a loss). My search turned up no significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Article was created WP:TOOSOON and it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume he'll get the top tier fights necessary to show notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pawel Pawlak was supposed to face Dhiego Lima, the welterweight champion, but had to pull out due to injury. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A second UFC fight still wouldn't allow him to pass WP:NMMA and Dhiego Lima is not even ranked as a welterweight [1], much less the champion. Johny Hendricks is the UFC welterweight champion. Papaursa (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fight with him and Pawlak's replacemnt, Jorge Oliveria, classes Lima as a welterweight. Anyways, I agree that it's not enough to pass WP:MMA --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meribeth Burton[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable as a local-market television journalist, with no strong claim to passing WP:JOURNALIST. She might have the potential to qualify for a properly written and well-sourced article, but nothing that's been written and sourced in this article, as it currently exists, counts as a reason why she warrants coverage in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not have significant work coverage to meet the pints listed at WP:JOURNALIST. A web search of the subjects shows local newspapers articles, contact information and not much else. ///EuroCarGT 21:10, 8 November 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 04:05, 15 November 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 23:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ontology (information science). czar ⨹ 20:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ontology editor[edit]

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

Unsourced. Does not prove its notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 23:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ontology (information science) Artw (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into Ontology (information science) - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/list-ify Include the text in the Ontology (information science) article; turn this article into a list of editors. (I caution that such a dynamic list will soon be out of date if not carefully curated, but if that occurs the list itself can be deleted.) 16:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)LaMona (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 23:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edifecs Inc.[edit]

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

Borderline notability, article mainly devoted to praising thecompany DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage referenced in this article is not significant; it's largely lists. Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost qualifies to be speedied as spam. (It was even worse before someone removed all the external link spam.) In a search I found only press releases and a little hyperlocal coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newborn, Child, and Mother Survival Act[edit]

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

Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability: Just some U.S. congressional bill that "died in committee" in 2009-2010. Closeapple (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like a great idea, but it did not pass last two congresses, and after the 2014 elections, its chance for passage is close to that of a snowball in hell. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct bill introduced three Congresses ago. --MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes paradox[edit]

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

Hoax article confusing Hydrostatic paradox and Archimedes principle

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Parts of the article are legitimate, but they are already covered in the Hydrostatic paradox and Archimedes principle articles. The term "Archimedes paradox" seems to occur only in clones of this article, so the article subject seems to be nonexistent. -- 120.23.122.146 (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously mentioned, this appears to be a combination of two other articles. This exact term doesn't appear to have any significant coverage.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Biblioworm 03:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justina Sharp[edit]

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

I am not convinced of notability . Writing a piece for the Huffington Post and an opo for the NYTimes does not constitute notability. Everything else here is what she has herself written. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to read the page again and explore the subject. She is in an atypical industry for a young person. She has written several pieces for the Huffington Post as a regular blogger for several years. The pieces "she has herself written" are part of a website and its relations that she founded at the age of 13. I would say that she is on the same level of notability as many of the people her age with pages on Wikipedia. This page could perhaps use more detail about her, but I would not suggest deletion. Ploliv (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other articles in wikipedia for people have done no more than that, please nominate them for deletion, or tell me which they are and I will do so. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to explore that chasm on your own, but I would give this page a chance to become more detailed.Ploliv (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note : I am willing to find further references for this article, as I have already located several not included that would shore up her legitimacy.Ploliv 23:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Appeared on ABC News10, interviewed as a teen fashion expert in Today, passing mention Fox40, interviews in GoodDay Sacremento, KCRA News. JTdale ^Talk 11:45, 10 November 2014
Keep - Just featured on BuzzFeed "14 Teens To Look To For Style Inspiration" (talk) 22:48, 11 November 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, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a news search returns a lot of Huffington post hits, and some other things. When BBC News wanted a soundbite about Barbie, they chose her quotation and put it in the sidebar above anyone else's. [2] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , does not meet notability criteria. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (SOFTDELETE) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidhegi[edit]

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

No sources despite being tagged as such for a year. An English language Google search did not yield any reliable source coverage. Article currently fails WP:V and arguably WP:N. Perhaps there is sufficient reliable source coverage in another language? In any event, sources need to be added or it needs to go. We don't keep unsourced articles. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update A source has been added and I have removed the no sources tag. However I am doubtful that the source meets our standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 9 November 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, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, recognizing that this person is not the same as prior AFDs on this topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hywel Morgan[edit]

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

Seems to be a minor bit-part actor, I can't see any evidence of major film/TV roles, or any evidence of substantive news (etc.) coverage about him. This is probably a speedy delete candidate, but the previous AfD was in 2005 and he has had several more bit parts since. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sionk (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 9 November 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 17:28, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note; the other AfDs up there are about a different Hywel Morgan, not this guy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the significant coverage in reliable sources that would put this actor over the bars of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found a bunch of hits for the Welsh fly flisher, but they were brief. Also found a M Hywel on Google Scholar with an h-index of 54 and a few highly cited papers, who would appear to meet the academic guidelines perhaps with some discussion. Anyway, this made it harder to find sources on the actor, but I didn't find anything more than a mention in multiple ProQuest/LexisNexis searches. czar ⨹ 10:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Perlich[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a music critic, with no particularly strong claim of notability or any referencing to any reliable sources. He might certainly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but that's not what this is. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. PK T(alk) 19:51, 13 November 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 03:37, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find plenty of writing by him, but little, if not nothing, about him, so I don't think he passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dylan. In a search I found no independent coverage ABOUT him. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 21:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Daulet[edit]

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

Promo piece for non notable rapper. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Award is not major and the source used to support it does not mention Daulet. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third-party refs in English, or could be saved with the attention of a Spanish-speaking researcher. Looks like he released music for five years before moving to the US, though it may be telling that there isn't much English material even after that. If not Spanish reviews, sources about a major tour could help. Earflaps (talk) 04:20, 13 November 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 17:25, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaela Advani[edit]

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

Despite the misleading intro, the United Nations Pageants are not associated with the UN. The only sources cited in the article are a PR page and a page on what looks like a blog. I have searched for reliable sources to establish notability but have only found blogs and similar sites. The other claims in the article are about the Kelley School of Business at IU, but they do not establish notability for the article subject. Sarah 04:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Advani was recently featured on the front page of the Business section of The Republic, a Tribune owned newspaper. http://www.therepublic.com/view/local_story/Columbus-native-wins-United-Na_1415480586 Additionally, Mischaela Advani has a WhoSay profile http://www.whosay.com/mischaelaadvani (which is a social media profile given only to celebrities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepageantress (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Unfortunately, I don't think either of those items rise to the requirements set down in the notability guideline. The Republic is a small market newspaper in Columbus, Indiana, with a circulation of around 21,500. The subject appeared in that paper because she is a local girl. Her qualifying for a profile on "WhoSay" is also unhelpful because Wikipedia does not abrogate responsibility for determination of notability to other websites. Sarah 16:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting back Sarah. Coverage of her win has been included in the New York Based Times Union, KSL TV's U.S. News Section, The Bellingham Herald, The Stamford Advocate, The Connecticut Post, The Beaumont Enterprise, NewsOk.com, The Washington Times, The Ledger Enquirer and quite a few more. She was crowned 3 weeks ago, her notability will only increase as time goes on. Look at the Wikipedia pages for Nana Meriwether and Erin Brady, should these be deleted as well? They have fewer news source citations than Mischaela Advani's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepageantress (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 November 2014‎

Those all look like they are the same article from the The Republic posted under different banners but with the same byline. As you suggest, she may become more notable in time, however it is Wikipedia practice to not host articles about subjects until they meet the criteria listed at Notability and Bio (for biographies). Regarding the two women you mention, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Secondly, I Googled both of them and there is a huge number of articles available by different journalists writing in newspapers all over the world. Many of those publications are considered reliable sources. The results are vastly different to Mischaela Advani. When I looked up "Mischaela Advani" in Google, apart from personal pages, blogs, and social media sites, all I could find was the Columbus article, and a pr release (not a reliable source). By the way, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking the signature button at the top of the edit box. Sarah 01:31, 14 November 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 17:15, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 01:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Tabú[edit]

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

Overly promotional piece for non notable band (" confirming that the group is with down to earth, confident and constantly evolving"). Lacks coverage about them in independent reliable sources. Sourcing at time of nomination is the band talking about themselves, the abnds own bio, a listing for a show where they were support, a local review where they get a passing mention, the band talking about themselves, a review of a local show where the band supported, the band talking about themselves. A search found nothing better. Releases are not on important label. Radio play falls short of rotation. Much like other promotional and deceptively sourced articles by this editor a source title has been changed to make this band seem more significant. Source 4 is "Noche de música local para todos los gustos" not "Noche de música local para todos los gustos con Santo Tabú". Sources are also seemilngly thrown in at random, not always verifing claims made. (This page appears to be a rough translation of this copyright source.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:49, 9 November 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 ♔ 15:11, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zuda Comics#Titles. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Morté Sisters[edit]

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

Unresolved notability since 2011. No results on Google. Seems to be one of those articles with the subject not released., Mr. Guye (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Authors blog here seems to indicate it was published online free, but the link is now down. JTdale ^Talk 11:56, 10 November 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 ♔ 14:45, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of either authors with an article or delete. For a series that was nominated for a Harvey, you'd think that there would be more sources out there but there aren't. I found a few articles, but not really enough to firmly assert notability. One of the awards is completely non-notable and it didn't win the Harvey, so we can't count that towards notability. Since DC published the series we can't use that award to really show notability either, so all we really have are a few interviews here and there but not enough for notability purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Zuda Comics#Titles as a useful search term? A bit more useful as the "parent" article than one of the co-authors? @Tokyogirl79? czar ⨹ 10:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Rizvi[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion. As far as I can tell, this fails WP:ACADEMIC as awards are regional rather than national and does not present a reason for notability within his subject. Largely promotional (fails WP:NOTRESUME as well) rather than proving any particular notability. Sources are purely biographical. LS1979 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find much in the way of significant independent coverage of this subject. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 14:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all WP:OR and no WP:RS. Agricola44 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3: Blatant hoax Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Only One: The Movie[edit]

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

No sources, and likely a copy/paste creation (violation of WP:COPYRIGHT) from elsewhere. IPadPerson (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax and fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax, nothing about this purported film anywhere. Actor credits also added by article creator in actor articles also can't be verified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Delete Cannot find anything on this, either hoax or WP:CRYSTALBALL so delete.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 18:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete At this point piling on; the same old 'throw everyone appearing on Disney/Nick/Cartoon Network/Smile of a Child/Baby TV on one project and attempt to snow us into thinking it's real' nonsense done for years; I'm literally laughing at Angus T. Jones (retired from acting to be called to God because he doesn't want to be 'a paid hypocrite'), Mitchell Musso (blacklisted from Disney for DUI) and Selena Gomez (yeah, she's doing a Disney movie again...right) being in this hoax. Oh, and Paramount Television doesn't do films, so they can't even get their medium right in this fakeness. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Probably not quite blatant enough for speedy, but this should probably end as a snow delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Delete as hoax under WP:G3 as being completely unverifiable.[3] WP:HOAX seems pretty certain. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3 hoax). Tagged. Not a single source or rumor that suggests that this even might exist. czar ⨹ 23:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this point, there are too many problems with verification. No prejudice to recreation if additional sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D. Dashdondog[edit]

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

I'm really not sure about this one. He seems to have been a higher official in the trade ministry of the Mongolian People's Republic. In this function he was member of an "International Council for Commercial Arbitration" between 1965 and 1986. He seems to have authored at least one publication on international trade topics, although it remains unclear if this was a personal work or a government publication. The classification as a "lawyer" is also somewhat unclear, as all his noted work was related to his position as a government official under a communist regime. I have tried to find his full name. The arbitration council reports list him as "Dawaashabin Dashdondog", which doesn't give a clear indication of the original form in Mongolian ("shabin" is not a common name component).

Do we have enough material to determine notability here? Unless someone takes the effort to dig through the archives in Mongolia, I don't expect to find much more information. Latebird (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Government ministers are notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 11:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He wasn't a minister, but an employee of the ministry. --Latebird (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article asserts he worked in a ministry, says nothing about being a minister. Nothing stated (never mind sourced)in the article supports its subject being notable. Pol098 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm, I am wondering whether he might be notable as an author of books on economy somehow. The book on breeding cattle was reissued rather recently, in 2013. I am also wondering what motivated Blofeld to create an article just on this person. Just as the article looks now, notability clearly isn't demonstrated. I hope, overall, that the deletion process takes at least one week, so that Blofeld might be able to come up with some evidence before it is over. I also want to remind Blofeld of the possibility to have this article moved to his user space, so that he can - after retrieving relevant evidence maybe from Mongolia - establish its notability and reenter it into public space. For important Mongolians, especially of his generation, relevant sources are much more likely to be found in the archieves than on the internet. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Mongolian Wikipedia mentions him in in passing here A Google Books search gives 19 results. Some seem to be the same guy. Do we have any Mongolian language experts? I don't see any names at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are Russian. Without any additional knowledge, identifying our D. Dashdondog with the authors is only easy in the first case, a dictionary on terminology from economics. The Mongolian article just states the same as the English, that he was National Arbiter of Mongolia for 21 years. Just given the current (dangerous and undemocratic, but anyway) developments to create obligatory instances for arbitration before international committees, I'd say that this position is one of exceedingly high influence, en pair with a justice of a national court (who are probably entitled to get an article of their own). The problem is: 1. how was it then? Was he as influential in Soviet times as he in this position would be now? 2. One year book of commercial arbitration doesn't cover the entire period. 3. We have no information on his activities as arbitrator (and about the contracts on arbration Mongolia would have been subject to in the 20 years under question). G Purevdorj (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dug a bit on the web and then gave up. There is an author of a 2012 book on dairy economics[4], just possibly the same person, chairman of a committee in the Bagakhangai district of Ulan Bator [5], maybe also the same person, and so on. I don't see any urgent need to delete the article, but it could certainly use attention from someone with the right language skills. Whatever positions he held, do any sources say anything significant about his life, works or career? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would already be quite happy to just learn his correctly spelled full name. Without that it's really hard to tell if theres only one book author or several. --Latebird (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the complete name won't help you on that, because in the majority of books the full name of the father is simply not given. At any rate, there is also a poet around whose name is Dondogdorjiin Dashdondog. I tried to call the arbiter's office in Mongolia today, as the information about the time we worked as the chief arbiter found on Mongolian Wikipedia was originally retrieved from their website. However, their general secretary stated they have no information about this person. At one presumes that forgetting reflects historical importance (which I doubt), this would be an argument that he was indeed not a very significant person. But even if he had been, how is this significance ever to be established unless some historian does a study first or, of course, we are overlooking the existence of such a study? I guess I am ready to admit defeat. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, I think some information is better than none. We have articles on thousands of minor US sports stars and local officials, why shouldn't we have work on an official who worked for the national trade ministry of the Mongolian People's Republic? The head of the treaty-law section of the MPR Ministry of Foreign Trade implies notability in itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it doesn't imply that. Not even elected politicians are automatically notable, The key to notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, which unfortunately we have been unable to find here. What we do have is the following:

A name, which we are uncertain how to spell correctly.
Some books, which may or may not have been written by the same person.
Participation in an organisation of unclear significance (at the time), with zero evidence of any contributions there.
A statement from his former employer amounting to "we don't really remember him".

I don't see how this sheer lack of information could in any way be useful to our readers. I was really hoping that Purevdorj would manage to learn something more interesting there. Thanks for trying anyway. --Latebird (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody could create an article on Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mongolia) then you could probably mention this person in passing rather than a separate article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 22 November 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 16:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information to assess the significance of this person is unavailable, as is his full name. It doesn't seem that this will change soon, and there is not even any concrete reason to believe that D. Dashdondog might have been significant. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic eating manners[edit]

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

cat=S Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Contested prod. This isn't even an essay but more like a common sense guideline. No references. Original author's talk page shows pattern of articles that have been deleted due to the fact they do not meet Wiki standards. It is my opinion this is another of his articles that are not wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A vague wave towards a how-to guide that's neither encyclopedic, nor has a notable enough subject per WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Islamic hygienical jurisprudence, of which this is a fork. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here worth merging, and the title strikes me as a little offensive so I don't advise a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 For Dummies. Sam Walton (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Success as a Mediator for Dummies[edit]

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

None of the For Dummies series are notable, and this is one of the more marginal in the series. Choor monster (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. As an obvious redirect to For Dummies, this page is not eligible for deletion on grounds of notability as long as that article exists (WP:R). If the series is collectively notable, they will also satisfy LISTN. Since AfD isn't for merger proposals, and the parent article has not been successfully nominated for deletion, I suggest this AfD be procedurally closed and the discussion resumed on the talk page of the article, which is the correct forum for discussing a redirect. James500 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant list article was deleted way back when: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination). I see absolutely no reason to even bother with a redirect to the series page. Nothing in WP:R comes even close to encouraging us to avoid an AFD here. Choor monster (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is nonsense. The outcome of that AfD is irrelevant. It took place in 2006. The notability guidelines were extensively overhauled in 2007. No AfD from that period is relevant today. WP:R clearly mandates a redirect. James500 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, correct on the first point, but the reasons there still seem relevant. As for WP:R, it does not mandate a redirect. It gives a short list of reasons, no "mandates", btw, which is ridiculously strong language. None of the listed reasons are applicable here. Choor monster (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the correct section is not POFRED, the correct section is R#CRD, which says that redirects should only be deleted if they are positively harmful. This page doesn't fit any of the deletion criteria. Bear in mind also BKD which advises including individual books in broader topics: this requires that the title be redirected. James500 (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't a redirect, R#CRD is completely irrelevant. Your "bear in mind" is essentially asking that we recreate List of Dummies, just not as a separate standalone. Choor monster (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        R#CRD applies to any page that is eligible for "blank and redirect" (WP:BLAR). Many of the reasons given by R#HARMFUL explicily envisage this (eg the argument that the page history of a redirect may be useful (because it was formerly a substantive article) and thus deletion will be harmful). We have an extremely strong presumption against deleting any page that might be a plausible redirect. Moreover since embedded lists have different criteria for standalone lists, the deletion of a standalone list does not prejudice the creation of an embedded list. And, of course, if that list was nominated today, it would found to satisfy LISTN anyway, unless For Dummies is itself eligible for deletion, which has yet to be asserted by anyone. It may well be that the standalone list should be recreated. James500 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        James, you're just making up policy. WP:R#CRD says it applies to redirects, not blank-and-redirect candidates. Any page that gets deleted has a page history. We do sacrifice them sometimes. As it is, this page history is not worth keeping, because the most worth keeping is a redirect. We don't refuse to have an AFD on procedural grounds because maybe there might be a suitable list worth redirecting to. We have an AFD because the topic apparently fails WP:GNG. The outcome might be an agreement to redirect. Choor monster (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I cannot subscribe to your interpretation of R because it would produce an absurd result ("delete and then redirect"). Any reference to the deletion of redirects must include a reference to the deletion of a page eligible to be blanked and redirected a fortiori. In any event, anyone could boldly redirect the page right now, which would certainly bring R#CRD into play (which is one of the reasons your interpretation is simply not workable). Criteria C1 and C4 of WP:BEFORE also indicate that pages obviously eligible for redirection (as this one is) are not to be nominated for deletion on grounds of notability, as indeed does WP:ATD. James500 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        My "interpretation" is simply what it says. This article is not obviously eligible for redirection, since it completely fails every last aspect of WP:POFRED. The article was created as part of the Victoria Pynchon spamming, no more, no less. Your suggestions on how to force yourself to be "right" by BLARing the article are purely recommendations to game the system. What next, we go through the redirect deletion procedure, then someone boldly restores the page? Really, you are beyond ridiculous. Choor monster (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:POFRED doesn't profess to be an exhaustive list. The motive for the creation of this article has no relevance to whether it is a plausible redirect. As to "literal" interpretations of guidelines, you might like to read WP:IAR, which is analogous to the golden rule. I would be grateful if you would refrain from calling me ridiculous or anything else. James500 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article does not meet the existing list of reasons to redirect, then it does not "obviously" satisfy the requirements for being a redirect, as you claimed. And if at first you claim the existing rules support your claims of what the guidelines say, and you pull out the trump card of "ignore all rules", along with your suggestions that WP:POINTy behavior has to be taken into account, yes, that's patently ridiculous. Choor monster (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It does satisfy POFRED as a sub topic described by a wider article. The word "described" doesn't imply that it be explicitly named. You can, in ordinary language, describe something without naming it, such as by describing the characteristics it possesses in common with other members of a class of objects to which it belongs (eg the characteristics it shares with the other books). In any event, there isn't anything to stop it from being explicitly named in that article. (The logical consequence of rejecting that argument would be that if someone blanks the page, all redirects would be deleted). Since articles and mainspace redirects are interchangeable, insisting that we only look at the criteria for one or the other would arguably be "pointy". (There is actually a strong case for turning AfD and part of RfD to "mainspace for deletion"). In any event, something doesn't have to be expressly listed in a professedly non-exhaustive guideline, which happens, like most of them, to be poorly drafted and replete with obvious errors, in order to be obvious. The whole point of IAR is that there is such a thing as common sense. It is obvious in the sense that the possibility and utility of redirecting it would immediately occur to any intelligent person who looked at the thing, and such a person would immediately conclude that it ought to be done because it is really, really, really obvious common sense. James500 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more common super-duper common sense that nobody has any reason to look up this book on WP, and if they really really wanted to, finding out that it's a For Dummies book will not be news, and not be of any use to them whatsoever, so it fails POFRED on this subtopic. This reputed utility of making this book a redirect remains completely non-obvious. Also note that the AFD template message explicitly forbids blanking as an option, so in fact no BLARing is allowed as you suggested.

We might want to cite this book in other articles. If we do that, we want a link to explain what the book is: criteria 2 of WP:AOS. Redirects facilitate accidental linking. In any event, the criteria for deletion don't mention POFRED, so it isn't relevant. The template message is neither a policy nor guideline. I don't think that redirecting a page, whilst leaving the template in place, counts as "blanking". If it does, the template needs to be modified, because that would be an absurd and damaging restriction, that does not reflect actual consensus and practice. James500 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are being patently ridiculous. Nobody has cited the book in two years except as part of the now deleted VP spam. We don't call off an AFD on procedural grounds because somebody might someday find a legitimate reason to cite the book and then for some reason actually wikilink it. The template message is part of the consensus of the accepted procedure for an AFD, therefore we follow it. It is not an absurd and damaging restriction to exclude BLARing: perhaps the article should NOT be deleted whatsoever? To make it straightforward for interested editors to evaluate the merits of the article is actual practice, if anything, the template message should be expanded to rule out BLARing. If the consensus is that the AFD-article is not worth keeping, but it's worth turning into a redirect, that will be the outcome of the discussion and it's all good. I mentioned POFRED because you brought up this ridiculous idea that we can't have an AFD if somebody somewhere might make a redirect, which you claimed was an "obvious" fate for this article, so I pointed out your claim that it was "obvious" can't be correct, because it fails POFRED as written. At this rate, you're just being contentious and trollish. Choor monster (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your opinions about redirects or the deletion process. As far as I'm aware template messages do not necessarily reflect consensus as they have not gone through the proposal process. Whilst a functioning redirect would certainly be a faux pas (the AfD template has to stay), in my view it may sometimes be absolutely necessary or expedient to insert the code for a redirect, particularly where there has been a merge during the AfD, especially one done under the "pokemon test". So I would not support changing the template message in the way you propose. James500 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss your concerns on Template talk:Article for deletion. The existing message is consensus. If you can make a convincing case that sometimes making it annoyingly complicated for editors to evaluate an AFD in progress is a good thing, then sure. This page is just a waste of time for such concerns. Choor monster (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look for sources, and I can't find anything that's all three of significant coverage, reliable and independent of the subject. There are a whole bunch of news hits in Forbes and CNN as well as already on the article, but all of them seem to be either written by the book's author, Victoria Pynchon, or are otherwise directly connected to her. A redirect would be a good option, but there's nothing suitable to redirect to, since an article on Pynchon would be difficult to create and survive AfD for the same problems, and the "... for Dummies" list article probably fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there's so many of them now. I think the only option left is to delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INDISCRIMINATE says absolutely nothing about lengthy bibliographies. If you are once again referring to criteria 3, you have been told before that the name of a publication is not a statistic. A statistic is a real valued function of the observations in a random sample (DeGroot and Schervish, Probability and Statistics, Third Edition, Addison Wesley, 2002, pp 370 & 371). The name of a publication simply doesn't qualify as a statistic. In any event, we don't need a list of a set of books to have a redirect to the article about that set of books. A redirect still provides context by identifying what the redirected book is. James500 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly against somebody creating List of ...for Dummies books, but until somebody does and it fits the inclusion policies, we can't redirect to it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created List of ...for Dummies books. It is currently a redirect to a section within the "For Dummies" article (and I also created redirect List of For Dummies books. If/when that section becomes too large, it can be split out. There is nothing wrong with having a list of notable items within a large population. Hence there is now a list that "fits the inclusion policies". --do ncr am 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of ...for Dummies books for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_30#List_of_...for_Dummies_books. Choor monster (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to For Dummies per WP:R, per James500 and because the Dummies series is collectively notable, satisfying WP:LISTN. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AuthorAuthor. There are over 2500 books in the series so a list article is not a good idea, it crosses far into directory territory.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you agreeing to 2500 redirects, one per volume? If not, where do you draw the line? Choor monster (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose any attempt to create 2500 redirects. But since this one exists, I'm fine with redirecting it, I probably would have just done it without doing a PROD or AFD if I had come across it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought of that, but it was put in here as part of the Victoria Pynchon spam, and truly seems to be entirely non-notable. Choor monster (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now "Success as a Mediator for Dummies" can be redirected to List of For Dummies books, if that list is edited to include mention of it. --do ncr am 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a double redirect. You know, doubleplusungood. As I cited above, a previous such List article was deleted in 2006, when standards were looser. The current section you created seems to be not a nascent "list", but "trivia". Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Choor monster, technically a redirect would go to the list where it is now, at For Dummies#List of For Dummies books, and not be a double redirect. Double redirects are not "bad" or "ungood"; they are temporary and are fixed by a bot so no one has to worry about them. --do ncr am 03:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have millions of pages and we have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries. The number of these books is irrelevant because we are WP:NOTPAPER.
- We are also not spam and not resumes and other things. No one is arguing for deletion on the grounds that some tough choices have to made because we're running out of server space. We have notability requirements and the like. If you are explicitly calling for 2500 some redirects for the entire Dummies series, say so. If not, please explain why this one stays. Milowent's argument looks to me like "spam gets grandfathered in". Choor monster (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say so. Since we have already decided to create 300,000+ redirects to one list (and it might eventually be millions), I have no problem with 2500+ redirects which is not a large number. Our notability requirements are irrelevant because they do not apply to redirects.

James500 (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have no idea of what you are talking about. Redirects have their own requirements, and I claim this book fails them. Choor monster (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - On Wikipedia, the word "notability" specifically refers to the criteria of WP:N and the various WP:SNG. The contents of WP:R are not normally called "notability requirements", so I thought you were referring to something else. James500 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no idea of what you are talking about when you mention 300,000+ etc. Choor monster (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notability is not an argument for not having a redirect. The whole point of a redirect is that the redirected topic is not independently notable. James500 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. The point of a redirect is to be helpful in various ways, mostly for things that have some chance of being looked for by editors and are best written up somewhere else. Where, exactly, are the hordes of readers who come to WP to find information about any particular For Dummies book? If someone wants information about Sewing for Dummies the book, he goes to amazon.com, not WP. Choor monster (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am told that, like most websites, the wikimedia community has monopolistic intentions. This seems to mean that we will not refrain from covering a topic just because there is competition from Amazon. James500 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - 100% utterly pointless non sequitur. My statement remains correct. Amazon's rules for listing books and allowing commentary are entirely different from WP's, and because of that, it provides the information most people want regarding any random book. In fact, Wikipedia:Book sources near the top recommends that WP editors doublecheck cited books on Amazon, and provides numerous links to that end. Choor monster (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - What Amazon does is irrelevant. James500 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - And what our readers do is relevant. In the case of seeking information about Sewing for Dummies, they typically go to amazon.com. Choor monster (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Victoria Pynchon and develop. Note this AFD is a follow-on to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination) which ended with the Pynchon article being deleted. There was/is enough for an article on Victoria Pynchon, one of whose credentials is being the "go-to" person on mediation who could be one of the persons to author the Dummies book on the topic. This is a vicious cycle of AFDs that should be stopped. --do ncr am 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot of overlap from this AFD to the 2nd Victoria Pynchon one: I see just Milowent, AuthorAuthor, and myself having participated in both. It seemed like direct follow-on based on timing. But still, it seems wrong to delete one article perhaps partly because of existence of another article, then to delete the other article partly because absence of first article. --do ncr am 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I participated, but only to comment. As it is, this most certainly is a direct followup. I had proposed in the VP AFD that the book should be merged with VP if VP was kept, it seemed obvious to me that it has no notability on its own. Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there really is enough to write a Pynchon, then you need to go to deletion review and request undeletion of that article ... if Pynchon's article can survive in mainspace, I'm okay with redirecting this article there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of VP material is irrelevant, there just isn't enough notability. Being an author of a Dummies book, in my eyes, is grounds right there that the person is not notable. The notable people are too busy doing the things that make them notable, or at least they write books whose titles and book design don't suggest the author is slumming. "Vicious cycle"? The VP promoters way back when apparently just spammed her into WP, and now we're in clean-up mode. Choor monster (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is too much commenting upon others' comments going on. Don't over-argue, please. --do ncr am 03:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Partition Recovery[edit]

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

Subject qualifies deletion for not meeting the standard of inclusion because it lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. The only review is from software.informer.com and as this is a download site, it should not be considered independent. A search turned up a number of download sites, but no significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete nowhere near significance or notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Singhvi[edit]

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

Not notable. The initial article was submitted by a username matching the name of the subject: probably by "Gaurav Singhvi" himself. There are no reliable references provided to establish notability. - Aurorion (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. More to the point, the article lacks any reliable sources whatsoever, Google turned up nothing and the entire article is written as a shamelessly hagiographic autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. Written like a CV for promotion of the individual. Created by user known as "Singhvigaurav" and mainly contributed by an IP originating in India so COI issue and probably explains the promotional tone.Cowlibob (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edison Township Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 04:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Wilson Middle School, Edison, New Jersey[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school should be redirected to Edison Township Public Schools as per longstanding tradition as discussed in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have done so but this has been reverted, need concensus that this is the appropriate disposition of this article. Jacona (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect to Edison Township Public Schools as there is nothing in the article for this school that establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, probably to Edison Township Public Schools, per Alansohn and JaconaFrere and [WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]]. --do ncr am 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Fiegener[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable individual (fails WP:POLITICIAN). Primary reference appears to be a press release. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local TV journalist. The article calls him a "politician" but that is false; he was just a write-in candidate in one race, and was merely interviewed for an appointive position in the other case. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being a candidate does not show notability. Nothing supports notability claims as a journalist, either. There are thousands of local Emmy awards given every year so winning one is not sufficient to show notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The keep arguments are persuasive and policy-based. The only delete argument is from the nominator, who bases it on the state of the article rather than the notability of the subject. (Non-admin closure.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Today[edit]

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

No Refrences and only one sentaence of text SillyPotatoe (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC) The page has no refrences and barely any writing.SillyPotatoe (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Indexing in the Social Sciences Index [6] is sufficient to meet WP:NJOURNALS.~~ This might actually not be true, but I am still voting keep per Randykitty's comments below. Everymorning talk to me 15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a notable journal under the criteria at WP:NJOURNAL, and looking at the info at Project MUSE and SJR. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC*Keep )

Delete No but it is lacking refrences and information so Dylanfromthenorth on Wikipedia files can not be kept if lacking references and information.SillyPotatoe (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Participants at AfD are not allowed to !vote twice. You have already !voted once by nominating the article. Please unbold the word "delete" in your comment above.
WP:NRVE requires that verifiable sources exist somewhere, such as in libraries or on other websites. It does not require them to be cited in the article. Notability doesn't depend on anything that is or isn't in the article. James500 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per Everymorning and Dylanfromthenorth. James500 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep I think that several editors above (starting with @Everymorning:) are confusing the "Social Sciences Index" with the "Social Sciences Citation Index". The latter is selective and inclusion in it is generally considered to confirm notability. The former is rather obscure. The journal is (according to this page included in a number of EBSCO and ProQuest databases, none of which is particularly selective. However, the journal is included in Scopus (even though its own homepage does not list this), which makes it meet WP:NJournals (note to @James500:: that is only an essay, which I know you don't accept -like WP:NOTINHERITED, so you may want to discount this argument and change your !vote to delete, because this most certainly does not meet GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're right, Randykitty, I did confuse them with each other. Thanks for pointing that out. I wish I had access to Scopus! Everymorning talk to me 12:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to have access to Scopus in order to check this. Their journal title list can be accessed online for free here (Excel format). --Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for telling me about that. Everymorning talk to me 00:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inclusion in scopus satisfies NJournals. WP:IAR, which is policy, impliedly allows us to make limited use of essays, so I don't think I am being inconsistent. James500 (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia no title lists can be includedSillyPotatoe (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A bunch of trolling and ill-tempered comments don't help here. But it boils down essentially to the subjective question of whether the sources presented in the article are sufficiently substantial to meet the WP:GNG. Some people say yes, some people say no. It's clear, reading the comments, that there's no clear consensus either way on this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cook[edit]

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

Vanity articles / fails GNG - This article is sourced to one reference - a book review of Cook's one and only book in The Atlantic. The external links section contains a couple more book reviews of the same book, and a bio on the conspiracy radio show Coast to Coast AM. A very thorough search for RS has found only articles bylined by this reporter, and reviews of his one book. We've had an additional citations needed tag up for 3 years without resolution. BlueSalix (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Few secondary sources discuss him as a book author. His "Zero point" book is actually more notable than he is. But he seems to be an oft-quoted defense industry expert [7]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Using the links previously in the article and a bit of Googling I've been able to restore the structure of the article from before the content blanking with decent citations, and I believe that it could be fleshed out further - taking care to properly cite to avoid BLP concerns of course. I believe there is sufficient coverage that WP:N is not a problem and that between the Jane's editorship, the documentaries and current business endeavors there are grounds for bio article rather than an article on the Zero Point book. Artw (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an author, subject does not meet our WP:AUTHOR criteria. Subject does not meet GNG. As a journalist, he is a freelancer for a small trade pub. As a businessman he is CEO of what appears to be a one-man company. Journalists will, inherent to their profession, have wide RS due to bylines. This does not establish notability, otherwise the police beat reporter at the Santa Barbara News-Press would have a BLP. I appreciate you appear to be very interested in paranormal and woo-woo topics, like Jim B. Tucker and the Bosnian Pyramids, however, we have objective standards for notability. BlueSalix (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edit a lot of articles, clearly you are keeping better track of it than I am. I have to say this is sounding a lot less like a WP:N concern now and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Artw (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just randomly chose two from your edit history and they both seemed to deal with paranormal woo-woo topics. A quick perusal seems to indicate that inserting fringe information into WP is an area of special interest for you. BlueSalix (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you to be WP:CIVIL, remind you that this is WP:NOTAFORUM, and also state that no, I do not go around induscriminatly inserting fringe material into articles. Artw (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have said nothing uncivil. I'm not sure what it is with space alien/UFO enthusiasts responding to fact-based observations with WP:CIVIL charges but this seems to be a recent trend as we've seen here and elsewhere. Anyway, thank you for clarifying that you are not "induscriminatly" [sic] inserting fringe material. We should still avoid selective insertion of fringe conspiracy theories. BlueSalix (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the morbidly curious there is a good takedown of the claims against me here. [8] Artw (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm not sure the AfD is the correct place for this or the word "takedown" is likely to advance the dialog occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nick Cook was a real person, was featured in many documentaries, and has authored books of his own. Removing him from Wikipedia is cencorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.246.5 (talk)

Well we definitely don't want to cencor anything. BlueSalix (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both wp:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I can't think of any other criteria to check them by.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Serialjoepsycho. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe he exists. Unfortunately, that's not enough to substantiate notability such that we should have a article about the fellow. The two credible claims to notability (as I see it) would be the awards cited the The Atlantic interview and that interview itself and the 8-line passing mention he got because someone at The Guardian thought a doco he wrote was the least boring thing on local television that week. I don't think the two combined are enough to substantiate a pass against WP:GNG and I don't think his books are enough to substantiate a pass against WP:AUTHOR. The interview is (as most Frank Bures interviews are) about the topic, not the interviewee; in this case the issue and Cook's book. Even if he were to have talked about himself more, I don't know that would have helped. I'm willing to concede that a couple more high-quality sources might get this over the line, but I don't think we're there yet. Once again, the suggestion that a perfectly routine discussion about a subject and whether or not it meets our inclusion criteria is "censorship" is total nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian ref is there for purely WP:V purposes and is not part of an attempt to establish WP:N Artw (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote and advice.

Well you're definitely not going to be happy to learn that Wikipedia has decided to ban Boyd Bushman as part of an Illuminati cover-up then: [9]. (Apologies to any other editors in this thread who may be offended I did not address the Wikipedia-Illuminati-Martian conspiracy with the utmost seriousness and reverence.) BlueSalix (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things, a ban is something that happens to users and not articles. The article for deletion process that was used would be this same process you are using now and it takes a consensus to delete or keep the article. Because of the nature of trying to maintain credibility wikipedia tries to have everything sourced and won't even allow itself as a reference. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) BlueSalix may I gently suggest that you tone down your commentary. It has an acidic taste to it that some might consider as suggesting a lack of AGF or CIVILITY. Speaking as a non-involved observer... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wiling to give it some consideration but if The Guardian reference is to be disregarded in determining WP:N then we have even less on which to build an article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather odd to pick on that one ref to the exclusion of all others. TBH in my own edits to this article my primary concern has been adding WP:RS to support statements so they won't be re-blanked on BLP grounds, but I believe between the pre-existing ones and the ones I've added WP:N is met. Artw (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. The Guardian seemed to have some credibility as a reference per WP:GNG, though not much. I "excluded" the others because they were either about his book or about other subjects where he had provided commentary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disagreeing in a reasonable and constructive manner. Artw (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This deletion request was only initiated because BlueSalix is infuriated that Nick Cook's outstanding reputation as a vetted journalist with decades of expertise on the subject of "black budget" programs, lends support to Boyd Bushman's (RIP) professional credibility and the argument to keep a Wikipedia page about the controversial old scientist. Wikipedia is not a personal toolbox for individual editor's to declare what is and is not a reasonable subject of interest, or, who should or should not be discredited over their work on controversial subjects. This attack on Nick Cook is baseless and malicious. Here are just a few of the sources I ran across to thwart BlueSalix's personal jihad against all controversial subjects and persons that happen to rub him the wrong way:

“Into The Black” https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/interviews/int2002-09-05.html
“Defence firms seek broader agenda” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20385312
“The Hunt for Zero Point” by Nick Cook http://www.salon.com/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/
“UFO's: The Secret Evidence” (2005) documentary film written by Nick Cook http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907285/
"Nick Cook is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster with an in-depth knowledge of defence and intelligence matters. He was Aviation Editor with Jane’s Defence Weekly, is the author of two thrillers, Angel, Archangel and Aggressor, and has collaborated on a number of memoirs, including the Sunday Times bestselling Sabre Squadron and Johnson Beharry VC’s Barefoot Soldier. His ground-breaking The Hunt For Zero Point was No.1 on the Amazon non-fiction chart and he has written and presented two 90-minute documentaries on classified weapons and UFOs for Channel 4 and the Discovery and History channels." http://www.lawagency.co.uk/writer/nick-cook Informedskeptic (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest you strike your silly personal attacks. Whether or not Cook has an article on Wikipedia impacts not at all on his standing as a reliable source for purposes of notability elsewhere. Notability and reliability are not the same thing. If Cook's article is deleted, his work can still be used as citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. His work cannot, however, be used as substantiation of his own notability. Writing about yourself (or even other things) does not contribute to your own notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would do EVERYBODY good to move away from the hostile and confrontational tone set by the original poster. Artw (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the original post was confrontational - it was an entirely ordinary nomination. Other than yours, the keep !votes here have all been non-policy based and have favoured personal attacks and conspiracy theories over rational argument and thoughtful contribution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the OPs attack on me is honestly one of the most unpleasant interactions I've had on Wikipedia, and I've dealt with GamerGaters. But let's move on beyond that. Artw (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GamerGaters who allegedly threaten to rape and kill women just to send a message... and it was suggested you have an interest in the paranormal and the inclusion of fringe information. The horror. I'm an advocate for civility and BlueSalix and I have had our run-ins but seriously... you need a slightly thicker skin than that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't great for me either, I assure you. I've never, ever, ever, seen another editor delete and edit someone's comments in order to advance their position in an AfD. I'm, honestly, shocked you didn't get a 30-day vacation for that. BlueSalix (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above, none of those sources are useful for the purposes of determining notability except the interview in The Atlantic because none are significant coverage of the subject. Even The Atlantic, as a primary source interview, isn't great but there is some additional material at the top which might be of some value. But it's not great and its still not "multiple". St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my tone earlier, gentlemen. I've only recently joined to contribute, and it's been a jarring experience: the concept of freedom of information is very dear to my heart and I frequently depend on Wikipedia as a launch point for research, so it's shocking to see efforts being made to systematically eliminate controversial topics (which I often find to be especially fascinating and valuable). I've continued my efforts to find more RS on Nick Cook. Here are two interesting nuggets that came up:

"Aerospace Consultant Nick Cook" on NPR’s “Fresh Air,” August 14, 2002

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1148308

Publishers Weekly Talks with Nick Cook," June 10, 2002

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20020610/26530-pw-talks-with-nick-cook.html

There's also a small mountain of articles in which Nick Cook is quoted (in major new sources like the BBC and The Guardian etc), generally on advanced military aircraft subjects (but often on international conflict topics as well). I don't know if those sources are are of any significance, but they do seem to paint a picture of a recognized authority on experimental and advanced military aircraft, and particularly on aerospace black budget projects - Cook appears to be the world's leading journalist on those specific subjects, and one of very few journalists to have ever gained access to classified research sites. Informedskeptic (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A journalist requires more than frequent instances of being quoted or bylines, as otherwise virtually any reporter would get an article. see: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."). This recent story [10] in the LA Weekly would be a fine source for journalist Gary Webb. The sources you're citing - unedited interviews during a one-time book promotional tour - really aren't that usable. A BLP is about a person. Interviews about his book (unless it's an autobiography) don't give us information about the person. When we don't even have enough reliable information to attach a date of birth to a BLP, that's usually a cue there's a problem. BlueSalix (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cook: Born on September 2, 1959 https://www.facebook.com/nickcook.dynamixx/info?tab=page_info

Y'know, I just keep thinking to myself: if I had some successful books and television programs under my belt, with decades of experience writing authoritative articles about advanced aircraft and international conflicts, published in the world's top news journals, with a flourishing news and interview career to boot, with my name pasted all over the internet, and The Atlantic knocked on my door and wanted to give me an interview - I'd reckon that I'd achieved some real measure of notoriety in this world. I'd probably call my Mom and say "Mom - I made it!" I mean, is the new gold standard having people write books about you? Because if that's the measuring stick, we're going to have to cut Wikipedia's biographies by, what - 90%? 95% maybe? Perhaps more, since old-style publishing is circling the pooper and most of the once-respected newspapers have gone tabloid. Pretty soon the only people with a multitude of RS's are gonna be psychopaths and politicans, and who wants to read about them anyway? Informedskeptic (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After WP got stricter on BLP there was indeed a significant reduction in article size on bio articles as they are extremely strict on WP:RS and WP:V. Sadly a Facebook profile probably doesn't cut it for information going into the article, though we've no reason to doubt it. Per WP:DOB we should lean towards leaving the date out. Artw (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a book flap or similar would do the job. Artw (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Facebook pages, blogs, YouTube accounts, messenger pigeons, etc., are not RS. BlueSalix (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Facebook a primary source? The WP:BASIC guideline states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." I really don't want to have to buy his damn book to scan the jacket. I've already read all the interesting bits to support my arguments against you on the Boyd Bushman talk page :/ Informedskeptic (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:SELFSOURCE guideline seems to give the green light to using Facebook for a D.O.B.:

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." Informedskeptic (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then it is notable, which I would argue is the case, particularly in the form of the larger interview pieces. Some users have contested that, however WP:BIO also states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" - we certainly have multiple independent WP:RS, varying in depth of coverage, and more could be added. WP:ENT states a subject can be notable if they have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - the article shows that the subject has presented at least two lengthy documentaries. In addition some criteria of WP:AUTHOR may apply - per the Skeptoid article "Through this transcript, Witkowski claimed to have learned about Die Glocke. This account became popular in the West when aviation writer Nick Cook included it in his popular 2002 book The Hunt for Zero Point, a tale of the cranks and colorful characters who have tried to invent anti-gravity machines. Since that time, you've been able to find all you want on the Internet about Nazi flying saucers." - which could possibly qualify for WP:AUTHOR 2 or 3, though I admit it's a scrape. WP:AUTHOR 1 may be a possibility too since he is frequently quoted as an authority on various subjects he's written on. In conclusion I believe the article to be notable on multiple grounds. Artw (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Nick Cook is notable for a sweeping breadth of good reasons, which you've just stated. I think it's fair to dip across a variety of guidelines to make a solid case for notability, when someone's notability spans a range of domains like this - respected journalist, novelist, documentary film writer and director, guest in television programs and radio interviews, consultant for innumerable mainstream news articles on aerospace, and international finance and conflict. It's harder to come up with an area he that doesn't contribute to in the media. Another one I think you may have missed Artw is the WP:ACADEMIC guideline which states: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." He's frequently consulted on and quoted in top news sources about military aircraft, especially new technologies and black budget operations and projects. Informedskeptic (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cook is not an academic, therefore, his notability is not evaluated under the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Because we think someone sounds kinda bright doesn't allow us to invoke ACADEMIC. As per the definition, "an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education." Cook would have to either have published in a peer-reviewed journal (he has not), held a teaching appointment (he did not), or published scientific texts (His book about a conspiracy to suppress Anti-Gravity technology by the Illuminati was a popular book designed for a lay audience and published under an entertainment imprint - Broadway Books - not a technical/scientific publication.) to qualify under ACADEMIC. BlueSalix (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:AUTHOR 1 may be applicable there: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Artw (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the WP:AUTHOR argument in my comment above (that was one of my comments you chose to delete so it should be in your edit history if you scroll back). BlueSalix (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no missing comments. If an argument is not here it is because you have not made it. The ones you have made I am unconvinced by. Artw (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Serialjoepsycho restored my argument after you made the choice to delete it. I'm just noting it was one of my AfD arguments you made the choice to delete so it would be easier for you to find it (rather than scrolling through the whole thread). It was a courtesy only. BlueSalix (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the bit about the Bosnian Pyramid Wars? Per the sources the article meets WP:GNG. Arguably it also meets WP:AUTHOR, something I am leaning more and more towards. In addition through the documentaries he meets WP:ENT. Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "na-na-na" does not count as a counterargument. Artw (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art - I'd really like to focus on the substance of the discussion here. Can I empower you to please refrain from continuing to use invectives like "Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "na-na-na" does not count as a counterargument." It tends to inflame the conversation and juvenelizes the level of dialog. Thank you so much, Art! BlueSalix (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below. As for keeping focused - if Bosnian Pyramid Wizards are not relevant why did you raise them in the first place? Artw (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Artw's arguments. The article is well sourced (at least now). - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back BlueSalix (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's really well sourced now. Thank you Artw! Informedskeptic (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per, Stalwart111's well-reasoned explanation above, I disagree. It still fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR. We should really remove Cook completely from WP. BlueSalix (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the Atlantic: There is no way to know exactly what that money is being spent on, but Nick Cook has some ideas. For fifteen years Cook has been a defense and aerospace reporter for Jane's Defence Weekly, which some consider the bible of the international defense community. During his career Cook has often brushed up against the "black world" and has even delved into it, both in reporting for Jane's on advances like the B-2 bomber, and in working on a documentary, Billion Dollar Secret, that probed the U.S. military's classified (or black) weapons programs. ...it goes on... For his work at Jane's, Nick Cook has received the Royal Aeronautical Society's Aerospace Journalist of the Year Award four times, in the Defence, Business, Technology, and Propulsion categories. He also writes for The Financial Times, The London Times and often comments on defense and security for the BBC and CNN. I spoke to him at his home in London.

From Salon: In the post-X-Files age, this sort of conspiracy theory won’t raise any eyebrows. What makes the allegations interesting is that they appear in “The Hunt for Zero Point,” which is written by Nick Cook, for 10 years the aviation editor at Jane’s Defense Weekly. Jane’s is the bible of the defense establishment, known for its no-nonsense, nuts-and-bolts reporting. A former Jane’s editor tackling this topic is enough to make you take a second look. His research for the book is then described in further detail.

From CNN: "The computers that were secretly developed to go to the moon are now on your desktop," Nick Cook, aerospace consultant for Jane's Defence Weekly told CNN. "It all ends up in the commercial world in some ways, but black world technology is hard to penetrate in terms of figures and types of programs," he said.

From The Bookseller: Nick Cook is aviation editor of Jane's Defence Weekly; he specialises in freelance writing on military and defence and has written two of his own thrillers, Angel, Archangel and Aggressor. He has ghosted two books for Cameron Spence about the wars in the Gulf and Bosnia, Sabre Squadron (Penguin) and All Necessary Measures (Michael Joseph), and is currently ghosting a third book, for Random House. ...there are further quotes.

From the BBC: This week some of those involved in the initiative gathered at a conference in London. One of the instigators, Nick Cook, a former aerospace journalist who now runs a company called Dynamixx, explained how he latched on to the idea. It continues with quotes.

and so on... According to WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - which of those criteria do you believe has not been met? Artw (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've established that he has written about things and provided his opinion about other things. The one or two lines introducing him to the audience before he and the author provide significant coverage of some other topic (dark budgets, black world technology, air force operations, etc) won't generally be considered significant coverage of him or the author (including in cases where he is both). We've read the sources - they are the same sources (for the most part) that have been there all along. I, for one, have no vested interest in seeing this deleted and would happily see it sent to draft space to give someone a chance to work on it until he is notable. These are all, primarily, passing mentions in articles about other things in fact many actually cross-reference the passing mentions he has received elsewhere - "comments for the BBC and CNN". He may very well be an industry expert (even in multiple related industries) but the press have hundreds if not thousands of go-to experts in each field. Being one of them doesn't necessarily make you notable. Even more so, in my view, if you're a journalist yourself and probably count those interviewing you among your own "little black book" of experts. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He may very well be an industry expert (even in multiple related industries) but the press have hundreds if not thousands of go-to experts in each field. what you are describing there is a straight up WP:AUTHOR 1 pass. Artw (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just another of the thousands on the "expert commentary" circuit. That criteria relates to creative professions - he's not considered an important figure to the field of journalism, he's considered an expert commentator by those in the field of journalism. Turn on any 24-hour news channel and you see one every few minutes. Misinterpreting that in a way that makes him sound like some sort of Walter Cronkite or Larry King is silly.St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Artw (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a particularly creative misreading of that policy. Being the go-to-guy for a couple of journalists is not the same thing as having your written work (books, academic papers, etc) cited (in an academic sense) by peers such that you would be considered a notable author. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again from the Atlantic

This last project was something of a prelude to Cook's new book, The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology, which documents his ten-year search for a mythical technology that all the brightest minds in aerospace were gushing about in the early 1950s. Strangely, just a few years later the aerospace world was suddenly silent on the subject. After about 1956, anyone who mentioned antigravity, or the once-imminent "G-engines," was given a wide berth. It was an odd switch that left Cook with questions: Had there been anything to these rumors and reports? If not, why the hype? If so, what had happened? So he set out to look for answers, and what he found was surprising. Cook traced a long succession of both military and civilian scientists and engineers working to develop a branch of applied physics for which we still have no vocabulary, but which seems to involve manipulating the little-understood quantum-level "zero-point field" to achieve peculiar effects, like shielding objects from gravity.

...and...

Against the advice of his colleagues and friends, and against his own better judgment and career interests, Cook felt he couldn't ignore the leads he uncovered, which drew him through the black labyrinth back to an unexpected place: Nazi territory around the end of World War II. That is where, Cook claims, some of these technologies were first developed and then acquired by American and Russian forces

...and...

Since the book's publication in Britain, Cook has uncovered documents detailing Boeing's antigravity research program at the top-secret Phantom Works, where the company is striving to develop "propellantless propulsion" ahead of its competitors. Writing in Jane's Defence Weekly, Cook quoted the documents as saying that along with Boeing's own program, other "classified activities in gravity modification may exist"—suggesting that antigravity may, in fact, have been more than a 1950's fantasy.

So yes, there is a decent amount of text there about him, and while it mentions the Zero Point book it is about the research process that went into the book and discussions that happened afterwards.

I would say the same for the Publishers Weekly interview. I'm not seeing anything that leaps out quote-wise without actually cutting and pasting the whole thing here and even I am not quite that mad.

Back on the WP:AUTHOR 1 side of things there's this from a BBC article[11] that's not currently in the article

Added to this, the large number of still-secret Paperclip documents has led many people, including Nick Cook, Aerospace Consultant at Jane's Defence Weekly, to speculate that the US may have developed even more advanced Nazi technology, including anti-gravity devices, a potential source of vast amounts of free energy.

Cook says that such technology "could be so destructive that it would endanger world peace and the US decided to keep it secret for a long time".

Possibly I should find a space to squeeze that one in.

Moving slightly away from big news sources but still within WP:RS there's this from Skeptoid: Through this transcript, Witkowski claimed to have learned about Die Glocke. This account became popular in the West when aviation writer Nick Cook included it in his popular 2002 book The Hunt for Zero Point, a tale of the cranks and colorful characters who have tried to invent anti-gravity machines. Since that time, you've been able to find all you want on the Internet about Nazi flying saucers.

And more scathingly from Fortean Times: Exceeding even the rich imaginations of Michaels, Rose and Hyland is the much-publicised book The Hunt for Zero Point (Century, 2001) by Nick Cook, a notable freelance aviation journalist who has written for the very respectable Jane’s Defence Weekly. In the course of an investigation lasting, we are told, some 10 years, he appears to have been comprehensively misinformed by a whole series of individuals; or perhaps by individuals acting on behalf of a group with a specific agenda. It seems that for all the informants he gathered along the way, none of them ever warned Cook that people with an investment in making the Nazi regime (and the SS in particular) look good are quite happy to use deception to do so.

Without going through Cook’s oddly directionless book in any detail, it’s worth noting that his primary source about Schauberger was a Polish gentleman named Igor Witkowski. Witkowski, apparently, volunteered to drive Cook around, showing him sites where Schauberger had worked for the Nazis, constructing and testing ‘The Bell’, an experimental device with two cylinders spinning in opposite directions. Cook was told that this glowed blue and destroyed plants, birds, animals, and sometimes humans. Internet searches for Witkowski bring him up in conjunction with the loopy, ‘1930s-crashed-saucer-back-engineered-by-the-SS’ end of Polish ufology, and he has self-published six or more separate items with titles like Hitler’s Supersecret Weapon.

Witkowski told Cook that his extraordinary information came from an unnamable source, which Cook seems to have accepted without question. It seems that a “Polish government official” phoned Witkowski, inviting him to view documents and take notes about the development and concealment of extraordinary Nazi technology as given in a record of “the activities of a special unit of the Soviet secret intelligence service.” Witkowski’s evidence, together with a visit to Schauberger’s grandson, leads Cook to reproduce the material about imprisonment by the US after the war, and the apartment being blown up by the Russians, together with various unlikely claims about Schauberger being offered massive sums of money by (right-wing) Americans in the years before he died. Cook also informs us that Schauberger’s designs had been stolen by Heinkel in the early part of the war; that he had worked on secret projects for the Nazis from 1941-45, sometimes using slave labour; that he had created, specifically for the SS, disc-shaped machines with engines so revolutionary that even Cook, an aviation journalist, fails to explain how they worked.

Finally after doing a book search there's plenty of stuff like this: As noted at various points throughout this book, the "Legend" of a Nazi origin of many wartime and postwar UFO reports received a big "credibility boost" when a researcher and reporter for the prestigious Jane's Defence Weekly, British reporter Nick Cook, wrote a book on anti-gravity and quantum zero point energy research called The Hunt for Zero Point.^[1] which I've avoided adding since we are trying to be very strict on source reliability, though it does back up Skeptoid's point. Artw (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Farrell, Joseph P. Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & the Cold War Allied Legend. Adventures Unlimited Press. p. 276. ISBN 1931882398.

Uh ... you probably don't want to cite books cranked out by Adventures Unlimited Press headquartered in that publishing mecca of Kempton, Illinois. This is not exactly what one would call an (ahem) "reputable" publishing house (though Editor-in-Chief Childress' book on "practical psychic teleportation" was ... interesting to say the least ... [12]) DocumentError (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're going to be, but there are rather a lot of book hits like that, so there may be something to the claim that Nick Cook is the popularizer of the current generation of nutso nazi UFO theories. Artw (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I can't deny that's at least a very novel/unique argument for an AfD. I'll even go so far as to say that if the "keep" argument is changed from "b/c he's an awesome journalist" to "b/c he's a nazi UFO theorist" as you suggested, I might likely change from Delete to Keep. A few weird articles here and there are what keeps WP spicy. DocumentError (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources identified and quoted directly above by Artw are sufficient, in my view, to establish notability for a journalist. In addition to coverage in independent sources, when evaluating the notability of a journalist, we should also consider the reputation of the publications they write for, how often their work is cited by other reliable sources, and the length and breadth of their career. Though these may not yet be enshrined in a notability guideline, those of us who help determine whether articles about journalists should be kept or deleted, should exercise good independent editorial judgment in such matters. The fact that he has written about fringe topics in recent years does not detract from his well-established notability. In my judgment, this journalist is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG - reporter for a trade rag ... references are RS, but mentions are not of sufficient substance to establish notability (as an aside, the company of which he is CEO appears to be headquartered in a residential apartment building - I'm assuming he's commuting from his bedroom to his living room [my delete opinion isn't based on that, but I found it amusing given the rather illustrious description we've published in this article of his little consulting shop]) DocumentError (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In my opinion, DocumentError, when you use a POV pejorative like "trade rag" to describe a respected publication like Jane's Defence Weekly, then you detract from your own argument. There really ought to be nothing amusing about a self-employed person working out of a home office. In my view, he is a notable journalist who went off the rails and is now a notable crank. Bottom line: he's notable, and this encyclopedia should have an article about him. Improve the article if it gives a false impression that his home based business is highly "illustrious". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trade rag isn't a pejorative. It's a common phrase used in journalism to difference between a consumer magazine and a non-consumer magazine. Here are a few examples of it being used: by the UPI [13], by the Daily Telegraph [14], by Business Insider [15], etc. Trade rags often even refer to themselves as such. It's a very, very common term in English-language journalism and has neither positive nor negative connotations. Since this is an AfD about a journalist, I assumed those choosing to participate might be familiar with some of the basic terminology used in the media and publishing industries. If I should not have assumed that I, of course, apologize. DocumentError (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote for a trade publication for over 20 years and never once heard that term used straight, as opposed to in a mocking fashion. The piece from The Telegraph is packed full of mocking terminology. You chose to pipe instead of linking directly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the right person, and this (a Wikipedia AfD) is not the correct forum, to analyze your personal experiences.

Straits Times - Trade rag The Hollywood Reporter raved about the "beautiful" performances - calling Zhao the Chinese Juliette Binoche - but had issues with the plot. [16]
Register - Technology Review, the tech trade rag affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reports that the Institute of Computing Technology ... [17]
San Francisco Chronicle - The farm trade rag, Western Farm Press, reports there are more than a million acres of alfalfa... [18]

If you want to continue to fire-off accusations against me, kindly move it to my Talk page and off the AfD. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am making no accusations about you at all and of course assume that you are acting in good faith. My perception is that the phrase carries negative connotations and you clearly disagree. That's OK and I see no reason for you to get upset about me expressing my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to use the AfD to defend your accusation that I was using a "POV pejorative." [19] If you want to continue impugning my NPOV, move it to my Talk page or ANI. This isn't the place for it. Second request. DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if it helps here's another bit about the company in the NY Times[20]. It's pretty similar to the others so I haven't included if for now. Artw (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been much improved and has improved sourcing since it was called a - "Vanity article / fails GNG - This article is sourced to one reference" - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The High Fantasy of Lyra[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. I could not identify any third party coverage of the subject, except for store catalogues and library listings. There are WP:COI issues, but that's not my reason for proposing deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-published novel. That's not determinative in itself, as some self-published works do obtain success and notability. But it rings alarm bells. In all, there's no indication that either the book or the author is yet notable. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just can't find anything to show that this book or its author is ultimately notable enough for an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A self-published novel with little coverage. It reads like self-promotion to me. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There's a high bar you need to surmount to get a self-published book on WP and this doesn't make it. DocumentError (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and could not find third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexander Dennis Enviro200 Dart. czar ⨹ 06:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enviro 200 mmc[edit]

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

This new model of a midibus has been launched just a few days ago and I've not found any notable mention of it on the web, including the news. All the hints make me think that it's improbable that this product has already become notable in just a few days. If it has happened, I haven't found any evidence of it. I'm nominating the article for deletion so that a consensus can be reached. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 00:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge with Alexander Dennis Enviro200 Dart. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 10:20, 9 November 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 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Enviro200 - I personally don't see why we need a new article if they're continuing to use the "Enviro200" name. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:22, 18 November 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 07:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge per Davey2010. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexander Dennis Enviro300. czar ⨹ 06:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enviro300 virtual electric[edit]

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

This new model of a midibus has been launched just a few days ago and I've not found any notable mention of it on the web, including the news. All the hints make me think that it's improbable that this product has already become notable in just a few days. If it has happened, I haven't found any evidence of it. I'm nominating the article for deletion so that a consensus can be reached. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 00:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge with Alexander Dennis Enviro300. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 10:21, 9 November 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 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Enviro300 - I personally don't see why we need a new article if they're continuing to use the "Enviro300" name. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:21, 18 November 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 07:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge per Davey2010. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced fancruft, nothing to merge... Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Civilization[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic, not notable, and an in-universe perspective Tom (LT) (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lexx. Could also be merged, but there really isn't anything to be merged. The insect civilization was an integral part of the plot, but it has not received the critical and academic analysis that, say, the Galactic Empire from Star Wars has. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 9 November 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 03:17, 16 November 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 07:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly, but not opposing redirect. No notability from out of universe. Also possible bundling Gigashadow, one character of this civilisation. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Abraham Van Helsing#Films. More precisely, there was a consensus to not keep the content, and a plausible and unrebutted argument for a redirect which would be preferred to outright deletion by ATD j⚛e decker ^talk 15:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Young Van Helsing: The Quest for the Lost Scepter[edit]

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

Low budget movie with no sources provided, does not meet WP:MOVIE. Alizaa2 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: even bad films get some sort of coverage, and I did find some non-RS reviews listed here. Now to see if it was panned in the regular places. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NF. The thing exists and can be watched, but has no coverage in reliable sources. While it might be mentioned in places as a Van Helsing-related film, it lacks notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:19, 10 November 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 03:16, 16 November 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 07:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abraham Van Helsing#Films. Hold up—if we can confirm it exists (voilà), then its single mention at Abraham Van Helsing#Films would make a good redirect target, no? (@Alizaa2, MichaelQSchmidt, and Eluchil404) czar ⨹ 03:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it exists, the title is searchable, has received some very few non-rs reviews, and can even be watched if someone wishes to do so.... A redirect after deletion is fine with me. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alternity. After more input to the discussion, a clear merge consensus has emerged. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Adventures[edit]

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

Back in 2008, I made contributions to this page in order to save it from the chopping blocks. Unfortunately, after becoming more experienced with Wikipedia and its policies, I have to throw in the towel and nominate this page for deletion. There just aren't sources per WP:GNG to establish notability. As much as I'd love reliable and independent sources to exist to establish notability with this article, they're just not there. Hence, I am here to try and do the right thing for Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge per discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise a merge to Alternity seems reasonable. I don't know much about them, but RPGGeek and RPGnet do mention that there have been reviews in magazines. BOZ (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alternity (or, alternatively, the StarCraft franchise page). No meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. No reliable, secondary coverage from my searches, but please ping me if there is an RPG custom search I should be using—not sure which RPG sites are reliable without digging individually. Please ping if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above RPGGeek source cites reviews of Tsunami Quarterly Review (p. 13) and Action Check (p. 4). The latter was a PDF mag published by the New Jersey RPG club and appears to have no reputation for accuracy. Similar for the former, but that review appears to be about the computer game and not the RPG. The RPGnet reviews could count, but that still puts us under the general notability guideline requirements. czar ♔ 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, no consensus to merge? czar ♔ 07:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Czar: Note that the nomination is also considered as an !vote. As such, a clear consensus for a merge is not present at this time, although the discussion is leaning toward one. Also, two potential merge targets have been presented. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but since they're not votes, we're not counting. We all agree that there isn't enough sourcing and there's been no objection to the redirect proposal as being a useful search term, so that would be the most frictionless close. @Oshwah, does a redirect sound good? czar ♔ 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Czar. That works for me! Thanks to everyone for the input on this discussion :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alternity per Czar's reasons presented on 16 November 2014. - tucoxn\^talk 05:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite lots of discussion, there are preciously few !votes. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be a consensus to delete at this point. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Helen Clark[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:AUTHOR. No depth of coverage in independent sources. Article indicates this was a non-notable academic, missionary and author. References cited cannot be corroborated. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Both the speedy deletion and PROD tags were removed without much explanation. ""A7. No indication of importance." (non-notable missionary) and "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion." (advertisement for a private library collection, possibly to attract more donors)." The page was created during an edit-a-thon, by a graduate student who got paid for creating it, thus there is a clear conflict of interest. The article fails to explain how or why this missionary would be notable at all. Google results don't help either, as the name shows results about a journalist on Twitter and a professional from Canada on LinkedIn. Nothing on Google Books either. Only one mention on Google Scholar, which is just her name with two other missionaries, but nothing else. She sounds like an insignificant private person, in other words.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. WP:BLP applies to this namespace, not just to article space. So, regardless of the merits of the case, can we avoid pejorative language like "a nobody", please? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment. I've changed it to "insignificant private person." Do you like this better? I wasn't trying to be pejorative with "nobody" (it sounds descriptive/neutral to me); just trying to make my point.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much better, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator, you claim that the "References cited cannot be corroborated", but I would like to see some specification of what attempts you have made to corroborate them. --Hegvald (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the biographical facts found in the first paragraph and marked as "citation needed" can be found in the finding aid of the papers in the VAnderbilt special collections. However, the Kennedy book cited does not appear in the WorldCat database, meaning that it isn't listed in any of the 70,000 libraries that contribute to that database. Nor could I find it listed in the catalog of the National Library of Brazil nor the National Library of Portugal. (There is a chance that the citation is somehow in error, but I did try variations and keywords.) For the first book listed, there are two copies in WorldCat -- one in Texas and one in the Netherlands. So finding a copy in order to corroborate the data is going to be fairly difficult. It would be great to have one or two citations that are easier to find. LaMona (talk) 01:15, 13 November 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 07:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would not a person whose letters are stored in the Vanderbilt University Special Collections be notable? Bearian (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would. I want to look at this one a little more thoroughly, missionaries are often notable, but lack a "constituency" among Wikipedia editors.ShulMaven (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the papers being stored at Vanderbilt are a good indication of notability. It is expensive to house and manage personal archives, so libraries only take on those that they think have some historic significance -- unless, of course, the papers come with a hefty donation of $$$, which isn't known in this case. The problem here is that we can't see the papers, can't find the books, and can't find other resources. I consider this a weak keep based on "circumstantial evidence" but wish that there were more visible resources. LaMona (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and that's why I think this article may look an advertisement to attract further donations for this private library. That wouldn't be a real problem if she had achieved something substantial...but I don't see that at all here. There are other resources in that special collection about more prominent people though. Thank you for giving me another opportunity to explain one of my objections.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s I suspect that you don't have much experience with libraries and archives, because they definitely do not use Wikipedia to try to attract new donations of papers. In fact, they turn away more offers of papers than they accept, choosing only those that fulfill a research function. The Vanderbilt archive gathers material on Latin America, and the Clark archives are one of the few that have full finding aids. This means that the archive considers this collection important enough to have put considerable work into it. I'm afraid that your arguments aren't fact-based. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a page from the Society of American Archivists about donating to archives. [21]. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you have failed to demonstrate if she achieved anything significant at all in her career/life. Being in a private library collection is not an argument for notability, as far as I know.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed that above when I said that we do not have resources that are verifiable online, which creates a dilemma. One can assume good faith and accept the offline resources, or not. The answer lies in an archive of documents and a couple of books that I definitely do not have access to. I am willing to give the author of the article the benefit of the doubt. YMMV. LaMona (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even about the references. It's just that she does not appear to have achieved anything substantial in her life. She was a mere teacher/missionary. That does not make her notable IMO. This is turning into a pointless conversation and I hope other editors vote for 'keep' or 'delete.' But those who'd like to keep it ought to explain why they believe she is notable...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is referenced and the subject's papers have been accepted by a reputable institution. The case for deletion seems insufficient; I would like to see an argument for deletion that actually discusses the content of the references. --Hegvald (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She appears to have achieved nothing significant in her life/career. I don't see how having her papers kept in a private library, perhaps thanks to a donation, would make her notable. The references look very obscure to me btw--most of them are not even in English...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the references is completely irrelevant. --Hegvald (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes them even more obscure...But really, what has she achieved? I find it curious as nobody has been able to say...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the finding aid which unfortunately does not allow copying (argh!), but "...she was principle at the Colegio Americano in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul... where she took the lead in community service at the time of the disastrous flood of 1964 when the school took in, fed, and clothed over 100 disaster victims. She received the highest honor from the City Council of Porto Alegre...The letters provide first-hand accounts of Latin-American foods, behaviors, language and customs of the people and the politics of the times." That's all I've got, since I don't have access to the books or other materials. LaMona (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The finding aid was written by the private library university, wasn't it? If so, it reinforces my point about advertising, as it is not an independent source (both in terms of the subject, but also the editor(s) who have created the page). To be honest, I don't think helping 100 people during a flood is notable. My grandmother did that too, and I don't think she should have a page. You suggest she received one minor award, but that does not convince me either. She still seems utterly irrelevant to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: references. I think we need an expert who speaks Portuguese (but not the person who created the article or their friends! a neutral editor please), as most references are unintelligible to the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia users. I am also not convinced that references on websites such as Webpoa.com and freewebs.com are reliable--are they not essentially non-reliable blogs? Moreover, I am concerned that one reference with a potential POV issue ("vanguard of education in the region"), comes from a PhD thesis which was not published as a book apparently; the fact that this is such a gloating statement, from a graduate student, makes it hard to take it seriously.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: As the article's creator, am I allowed to participate in this discussion? Nikilada (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I don't think it would be necessary. I think a neutral Portuguese speaker and a few other neutral reviewers would be good however. I regret that this has turned into a long discussion; I don't understand why more editors are not voting. It was nominated three weeks ago...I've never seen anything like it. It is usually a fairly quick process with lots of votes. Is there a long backlog of proposed deletions at the moment?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article has been improved since nomination. (Non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Berman (fashion designer)[edit]

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

essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were a number of valid references badly formatted/entered by someone who doesn't know how to cite articles, but after checking and quick-fixing them so I could scan the URLS better, she does seem to safely pass GNG with ongoing coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The article needs tidying up though so I'll take a look at it and see what I can do to tone down the advertising, although I've seen far worse. Mabalu (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes carried out, article cut down, citations sorted. Mabalu (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been improved to update it and the references added by Mabalu and by me would suggest the designer more than meets WP:GNG. I don't think deletion for advertising applies now – especially as the company has not been operating since 2012 so is of historical rather than current relevance. Further refs and improvements will help, along with an Infobox, but the NewGen and export awards and the reach of the brand at its height strongly suggest notability for the fashion project. If you still think there are WP:NOTADVERT issues could you flag them here so they can be addressed. Libby norman (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Libby norman seems to have fixed the biggest issues. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Rodriguez, Jr.[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a mayor of a town with a population of 19K, thus not large enough to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL, and not referenced nearly well enough to claim a WP:GNG pass instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 06:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 06:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while Alice, Texas, is notable for its connection to, amongst other persons, Lyndon Baines Johnson, notability is not inherited by its mayor. I don't see how this person comes close to passing WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 18 November 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 06:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the GNG and being a small town Texas mayor doesn't make him a notable politician.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 06:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ercy Mirage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable producer and manager. At least two articles about this person, written by the same user, have been deleted in the past three years. This version presents no new evidence to support a WP:MUSICBIO claim, nor does it demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable source. This is classic WP:PROMOTION. Pburka (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 November 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 01:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No substantial coverage found to indicate that the subject meets the notability criteria; no reason to overturn the March 2013 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 10:36, 15 November 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 06:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoStuff Network[edit]

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

Was deleted on CSD A7 grounds after being tagged as such, editor claims that the article's issue were already resolved, so I restored for an afd. If it gets deleted this time then the community sided with my deletion; if not then the editor was right to ride my ass about its deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion this is still an article about a real company which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP, basically spam. "helping people do awesome stuff across North America"? Please. If this is the improved version I'd hate to have seen the original version. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Arkady Browne[edit]

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

The editor has taken numerous opportunities to attempt to supply references, but he has not provided any beyond one link formatted different ways. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 05:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure why the BLP was removed from the article - IMDB is not a reliable source. I suggest the nominator acquaint themselves with WP:RS. Regardless notability is not established. reddogsix (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unrefernced. Even if all claims were referenced, there is nothing especially notable about working for finance firms associated with film production.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 06:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No1 Model of the World[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be notability concerning this pageant, as the editor has not provided any context to contradict this. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 05:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied this as tagged for lack of basic importance when it was first created. Ignoring for a second the mess that is the article in both language and structure, as far as I can see this is a relatively new event that has not received sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Perhaps later, but not yet. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Claims of worldwide notability should be reflected in appropriately extensive worldwide coverage. (Edited to add: I do see some coverage, but it seems as trivial and arbitrary as the subject itself, and probably exclusively PR-seeded.) Mabalu (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Milford Township Public Schools. czar ⨹ 06:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Road School[edit]

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

Unremarkable educational establishment. In the absence of further information, it is not clear in which country the school is located. Bikeroo (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now identified that the school is in West Milford, New Jersey and have added a link to the school website. Bikeroo (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Milford Township Public Schools In the absence of any meaningful content or claim of notability, redirect to the article for the school district. Alansohn (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Milford Township Public Schools per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, You should've been WP:BOLD and redirected yourself as nominations like these are seen as a waste of the communities time. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per User:Davy2010. However be nice to the article creator, who is a new contributor to Wikipedia...don't wp:BITE the newbies. To the closer, please provide some explanation at the article creator's Talk page, if this is deleted or redirected (or follow up with me and I will). --do ncr am 05:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (SOFTDELETE) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tima Shomali[edit]

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

Prod removed, there are some references now, but it is extremely thin (only for 3 cover photo's, whereas works, apparently, include way more than that). If those references are all there is, this person is not notable. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 9 November 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 03:45, 16 November 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 ♔ 03:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coreo[edit]

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

I have not found a noticeable amount of notable secondary sources talking about this company. A company representative sometimes provides insights to editors of news websites, like here and here but the tone of such articles is sometimes promotional and, anyway, the fact that they publish statements by a representative of the company makes them primary sources. My research didn't find a good amount of them, the articles are rare and distributed over several years. I have not found any coverage in news, also (see here. From what I'm observing the company fails WP:COMPANY and I'm proposing the article for deletion so that a consensus can be reached. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 23:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I might agree that Qatar Booming as unreliable source, I might however disagree with you on The Peninsula which is a Qatarian newspaper and Gulf News.--Mishae (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae: Just to clarify, I was not assessing the reliability of the sources but stating that any exact quote of a statement of the company's CEO, like "since Coreo’s website is Qatar’s highest visited online real estate portal...", should be considered in my opinion a statement coming from a primary source (the company's CEO), not from a secondary source (the newspaper). ► LowLevel ^(talk) 05:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LowLevel73: Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but primary sources is what we use for external links, not references.--Mishae (talk) 06:18, 12 November 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 03:14, 16 November 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 ♔ 03:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 06:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Jordan[edit]

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

A few minor roles here and there, yet to meet WP:NACTOR Alizaa2 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Passing mentions in sources except this interview. Still doesn't look notable to me. Could be a TOO SOON case.~~ --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 9 November 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 03:17, 16 November 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 ♔ 03:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator that the subject of this BLP's career accomplishments do not meet the criteria of NACTOR and there is insufficient coverage to meet GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wacasey Equation[edit]

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

Promotional article by publicity firm [22] on gimmick "equation" apparently mentioned nowhere except by its creator. EEng (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable equation as per the guidelines at WP:GNG; no significant coverage in reliable sources. In essence it, along with the Kevin Wacasey article also up for deletion are here to try and do the promo work for them; not how it works I'm afraid. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As nominator. EEng (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate nominator !vote above. The nomination itself is your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability found. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wacasey[edit]

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

Promotional article by publicist [23] about non-notable physician with a radio show. EEng (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as per the guidelines at WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. A Wikipedia article comes after notability, it's not part of the process of becoming notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. EEng (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator. The nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Dylanfromthenorth fails WP:GNG and is currently notable maybe in the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Not notable by any other means. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bataar Enkhjargal[edit]

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

Could not find any references to this person that aren't derived from the WP article, no references on mongolian language pages either. Not sure if dying in a minor military incident grants him sufficient notability. The misspelled "baatar" means "hero", which may be a name or also just a description. The only link to this page used to be in Battle of Khalkhyn Temple for a while, and has since been removed. I propose to delete for lack of reliable sources. Kind of a pity looking at the rather specific biographic details given, but I see no way to verify his significance. Latebird (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 20 November 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 01:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILPEOPLE as a proven extension to WP:GNG on top of the usual standard search evaluations. #5 of MILPEOPLE does discuss "significant military events", but the sole source on the "event" mentioned can be found here[24] and does not even link back to the person in this article. Not talking very high in the historical record, one could say. Moreover, the biography currently has zero citations whatsoever which can be grounds for deletion on its own if requested. Lastly, this is also an orphan article, furthering the argument for general lack of notability (though not itself an automatic flag for deletion). ♪ Tstorm (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 06:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Winston[edit]

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

Lack of notability. I can't find any coverage meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO and her listed accomplishments don't meet WP:ATHLETE. None of the references supplied is independent of the subject. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails to meet WP:NGYMNASTICS. The most notable thing on her resume was making the U.S. national junior team and that alone doesn't meet any notability standards.Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 12 November 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 04:17, 15 November 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 01:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines on WP:NGYMNASTICS, as Mdtemp said. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 22:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong Venue - See WP:FFD (I've removed all the info below as images wouldn't disappear - See [25] –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Finger.png[edit]

A Vector image format file is available for the same image at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_middle_finger.svg RAT -.- Poke it 00:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue WP:FFD please. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. keep rationales are not based in policy Secret ^account 18:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players[edit]

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

Page about a bunch of non notable minor leaguers who are no longer with the Brewers. No real practical reason for this page to exist as the players listed were barely even with the Brewers and spent more of their careers with other teams. There has never been any consensus among the baseball project to maintain pages for former players. Spanneraol (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nom completely. We don't need these pages. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM a player who was significant when he was a member of a team, doesn't immediately become insignificant when he leaves the team. I understand the desire to maintain a current roster page, but WP:NOT a sports directory, we cover the history of sport, up to the present day. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

He was significant as a prospect for the team. As a former minor league player he has no significance. Spanneraol (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In keeping with Wikipedia's goal of being the 'sum of human knowledge,' I'll go with keep. I see no harm in having this, and similar pages - should they crop up - around. Alex (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I understand that it could create a new precedent for MLB articles as these don't seem to exist for many other teams. Subsequently I would not oppose the idea of them being created. So long as the players listed on these articles are themselves notable I see no problem with inclusion. For example, 2 of the players in this discussed article have MLB.com profiles linked which is pretty much an automatic notability flag in that project. We might not necessarily be a collection of rosters but just because someone gets a team demotion doesn't change their notability. The WP:FOOTY project runs into this plenty, I'm sure. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys dont seem to understand just how difficult the logistics of a page like this would be. Like I said above, the guys on this page spent more time with other teams than with the Brewers and are currently not even playing. Spanneraol (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - We have a list article for current minor league players who are major league prospects, but whose notability is marginal. We may also have stand-alone articles for any current or former minor league player who satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Can anyone please explain what the purpose of this list is? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - The purpose of the list is simply to list (potentially all) former Brewers players. There is no overwhelming reason that there need be mini-bios and infoboxes, this is simply the information that was removed from the article Milwaukee Brewers minor league players. I imagine that people are interested in the history of the club. More relevant perhaps, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY one might conclude (as indeed I did) that if they are significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia today, they will also be significant enough tomorrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Responce. All former Brewers players are currently listed on Milwaukee Brewers all-time roster. We are talking about minor league players here and to list ALL former players who played in the Brewers farm systems throughout history would be thousands upon thousands of players. I assume you don't know much about how the farm systems work or you wouldnt be proposing this. To follow this to its final state you'd have multiple pages for each team and the players would be listed on several different pages.Spanneraol (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are listed on several pages, this isn't a problem. As for the farm systems, I am quite happy to have that explained to me. I'm not sure why you think there would need to be multiple pages for each team. A simple scheme could be devised, as mentioned below there is already Nashville Sounds all-time roster, a featured list. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC).

The Sounds list focuses on just that one minor league team and I have no problem with lists of that sort done for separate teams. This current list on Former Brewers minor leaguers dont work conceptually though. Spanneraol (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My next question is, why are none of these three players listed there? All the best: Rich Farmbrough,&nbsp19:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC).

Cause none of them actually played for the Sounds, they played for Huntsville. Spanneraol (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purpose of the pages of current minor leaguers is to incubate bios on people who are borderline GNG cases at present, but have hope of reaching GNG through future work. Not all become notable, but many (I think most) do. Given the increased importance of prospecting in baseball, I believe this is beneficial for our project. However, if you want to move from current to former players, it becomes a logistical nightmare. How many thousands of players are former minor leaguers of each franchise? If their careers are over, then they aren't moving towards notability. WP:NOTDIR should be a sufficient reason for this not to exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Incubate bios"? Either the material is significant to the article or it isn't. The number of players isn't important, these are lists. It may well be that a more sophisticated system is needed that simply one list per "farm", thtt's fine, lets do it that way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
Delete Per Spanneraol and Muboshgu.--Yankees10 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although if we kept it to only former first round picks who didn't make the majors or pass GNG and are no longer active, I think I would support it being kept. But if it's just random players who played for numerous other orgs. than no it makes no sense.--Yankees10 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a need for former first round picks to be on this page as all the MLB teams already have first round pick articles that could easily be expanded to include more detail about the players who didnt make the majors... or that information could be included in draft sections of the season pages. Spanneraol (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rich Farmbrough and Alexsautographs. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spanneraol and Muboshgu. Sandoval may have enough coverage to merit his own entry after being shot/blinded and attempting a comeback. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 23:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the topic of all players who played within the minor league system for a given team is generally not one much discussed, as it covers too broad an area: most people are interested in a narrower scope, such as the players who played in a given system before playing in Major League Baseball. Given how often minor league team affiliations change, this type of information is better suited for a database query. Short of this, using categories would be logistically preferable than having a list article. isaacl (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a list of people who fail GNG individually. What next? A list of everyone who's ever lived in Los Angeles? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have many lists including people who who fail GNG individually, for example: Nashville_Sounds_all-time_roster. When the membership of the list is clearly defined this is not a problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
Delete per Muboshgu and Bbny-wiki-editor. InTheAM 00:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu's explanation above. We have lists of current minor league players within each major league baseball team's minor league system who are genuine prospects, but whose current notability is marginal. Any minor leaguer, past or present, who clearly satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG may already have a stand-alone article -- this list serves no purpose but for the listing of past minor leaguers who do not satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NBASEBALL. A list of non-notable retired minor leaguers is redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu's explanation. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just not a viable list for an article. As mentioned above, there could be thousands of players here, most of whom would not be close to qualifying for a Wikipedia article. I am not sure which guideline this violates off the top of my head, possibly WP:NOTDIR, but even if per IAR this list should go. I could see lists of minor leaguers being viable, such as players who played for a particular minor league team, especially a high level team and even better a team that had been independent, but this list would just be too large to be useful, or too incomplete to be useful, or both. Rlendog (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for a split, which is fine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
Delete - for some background on this, have a look over at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 17#Shane Justis - the page we're talking about here was created during the RfD. I respect Rich's desire to WP:PRESERVE information about this former player, but as I said there and Muboshgu said above, he is non-notable, and for the vast majority of players who formerly played in the minor leagues, that is the apex of their career, and they are not destined for notability per WP:NSPORTS. Those who do are the few who get promoted to the major leagues, are notable for their major league careers, and are so categorized, but a list of former minor league players is very likely to always fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Ivanvector (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for the reasons mentioned above. It's quite literally a list of people who fail GNG, so how would the list pass such? Not viable in the slightest. Wizardman 01:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wizardman: It's usually a good idea to at least look at a page before voting to delete it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
Note Pursuant to discussions above the page has been fundamentally changed. One of the reasons I prefer discussion to XfD... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC).

I think what you've done there is create a dab page listing possible targets (only one exists) all of which would fail based on exactly the same argument - former minor league players are not inherently notable. I randomly clicked on a few listed at Nashville Sounds all-time roster, and found: Jeff Bianchi - played briefly for the Brewers; Rod Boxberger - never played in the majors but won a major college baseball award; Andrew Lorraine - played for the Angels and off-and-on in the majors from 94-02; I also found Jesús Sánchez whose article was recently deleted whose only claim to notability is as a minor league player, which fails the criteria. When the inclusion criteria for a list is non-notable, the list itself is non-notable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion here. Simply because a list such as Nashville Sounds all-time roster contains non-notable names, that does not make the list itself non-notable - we have dozens, probably hundreds, of such lists. The phrase "When the inclusion criteria for a list is non-notable" is too vague to admit debate, but it seems to me that MLB teams are notable, indeed we have articles on all the affiliated teams and on the US independent teams, at least. I am not arguing for an article for every minor league player. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC).

I still think the dab page that you have turned this into is still not worth keeping. Nashville was only a Brewers affiliate from 2005-2014, so many of the players on that roster were in other farm systems. And to be complete it would have to include lists for all these teams. There is probably a better way to do what you are trying to do but this page, under this name, is not worth keeping. Spanneraol (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Disambiguation page?" This is a list with a single linked article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Farrell, Joseph P. Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & the Cold War Allied Legend. Adventures Unlimited Press. p. 276. ISBN 1931882398.

[1]