Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 February	15 February >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ég var einu sinni nörd[edit]

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

Extremely short. It's not article Morrfeux (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course, this stub should be expanded. However, this article is about a very notable autobiographical comedy routine in Iceland. The comedian went on to be elected mayor of Rejkavik, Iceland's largest city. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was created in 2008 and since then no one showed any interest to that. It's not even a stub, it's a film title and name of the Director. What is the sense to keep this information, if nobody needs it ? If someone wants to write an article about this film, he will do it. Morrfeux (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because we simply don't delete stub articles about notable topics. We either expand them or leave them alone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Cullen. we do not delete notable stubs just because they are stubs. But the article needs expansion and sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Moore[edit]

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

In the three years since this last was nominated for deletion, the article creator, an SPA who is probably the article subject, has failed to rectify the article's glaring problems. It still doesn't come anywhere near meeting the requirements of WP:BAND, and the "sources" that aren't dead links are either non-notable webzines or advertising outlets or Barnes & Noble and Best Buy. The article was kept with the proviso that the article creator fix the article's glaring problems. He's had three years, and he can't because this musician is not notable.Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. The notability of this musician is tenuous, at best, and since the original author has had three years to fix the issues but (for whatever reason) hasn't, I believe this article is a good candidate for deletion this time around. Tapped-out (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not pass notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health insurance in India[edit]

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

There is potential for this to be an article. There is an article for Health insurance in the United States, and there are redirects to healthcare in X (country) for other countries. This article however appears to be a marketing piece designed to encourage people in India to get health insurance rather than an article about health insurance in India. The original author of the article also created the deleted article HDFC RED which was deleted as advertising, and has in their userspace the draft of User:Gaurav.jhala88/sandbox-hdfclife. The company in that article is the source of some of the dubious claims in this article. This article should be deleted or redirected to Health in India until a real article is written. SchreiberBike talk 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though the article has some WP:NPOV issues and contain some dubious/non-referenced information, nevertheless it has some encyclopedic value. The article should be retained only after removing or providing appropriate citations to such information. The article may be marked with the tag {{ad}} at the best for further improvement of tone. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have restructured the article and removed chunks of promotional material and some dubious stats. Significant work is obviously still needed, particularly with regard to the sourcing, but I think it is now a valid stub on a clearly encyclopaedic topic. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has encyclopedic information and merits retention. Advertisement like information needs to be harshly deleted. It may/can be developed on the lines of Health insurance in the United States. - Rayabhari (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purple squirrel[edit]

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

This article is confused about what it wants to be. The first half is about "purple squirrel" as an employment term, without a reliable source in sight, and the second is about a slapdash number of sightings of actual purple squirrels, none of which are relevant beyond momentary curiosity. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, now that i removed the slapdash number of sightings of actual purple squirrels, and we added reliable sources, can you change your !vote and close this AFD? Zeddocument (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was originally about the employment term. An anon IP editor added the content about the animal in 2012. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's really not a bad article, just has some problems. If there was more information, I think we could split this into two different articles, but there's a lot of improvement needed before that can happen. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernerd11: Improve it with what? The sources that don't exist? That's a major issue with me: people who say "keep, it just needs fixing up" but provide no proof that any sources exist to improve it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Please don't take this the wrong way, but did you even check the sources? With the exception of UrbanDictionary (which is blocked on the computer I'm currently at), they all seem to check out. By improve, I meant expand it, maybe with some information other than sightings. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This article can easily be fixed. The concept is widely known, and quoted normally by career coaches. i am here because as a job seeker in the DC area, I have heard this term over and over and over again independently. I am closing this AFD keep. Thank you. Zeddocument (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeddocument: Fix it up with what? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeddocument: What field are you in that this term is so common?Septagram (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources were rather easy to find for both topics, and both topics pass WP:GNG. Examples include, but are not limited to:

Animal

Employment term

– After this AfD has concluded, perhaps a split should occur, with separate articles for each term. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a rare but useful term and for that reason should be kept for average people who occasionally hear this term used in employment circles. Now if I were an employer or HR, who coined the term, I would want this article buried because it shows a depressing current trend in employment practices in field like engineering or other STEM fields and how they view interviewees. If I were a job seeker I would want to know if that term was connected to an employment field I was entering and requires a Purple Squirrel as the minimum qualification for entry level positions. Either as a separate article or not.Septagram (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term's notability seems to be adequately demonstrated by the sources given. However, I think the article was more interesting when it included the content about actual purple squirrels, and it's a shame that was removed. I think the article could perhaps cover both of these topics, since they are somewhat related, or, better still, a separate article could be created for the animal sightings. Everyking (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page seems like it would be more suitable as an entry on Wiktionary than here. The fact that Urban Dictionary is one of the major sources only underscores my point. Msdec24 (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dagna O. Constenla[edit]

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

This researcher seems to be an impressive person, but I don't see any evidence that she meets the notability requirements in general or for academics. SchreiberBike talk 21:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of well-cited articles on GS. That is all. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This person works in several sub-specialties in medicine that are associated with very high reference/citation rates. She is early-in-career, but has nevertheless published quite a few papers. Her h-index is 13 (WoS). I agree with Xxan that this is not sufficient for a medical researcher to be counted as "notable", otherwise a large fraction of this enormous workforce would likewise be notable at this threshold. It's WP:TOSOON. If she continues on her current trajectory, she will certainly have a WP article in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep She has made significant contributions to the field. What is wrong with having articles on a large portion of medical researchers. We do it for football players and actors, we should do it for medical researchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong? What is wrong is that she doesn't yet pass any category of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This is a false comparison because the academic world does not work the same. Much of her higher citation work appears to have been published while she was a graduate student (see WoS) – you'll notice that she is neither the 1st author nor the "senior author" (typically the head of the lab) on those. Though still not a correct "sports" metaphor, it would be more accurate to say that such a person was still in the minor leagues and is not recognized as "pro" until they make their own contributions to the research literature (as head of a lab, publish single-author papers, etc). You'll also notice that, while she does have first/single author papers, they are all more recent (mostly last half-dozen years) and don't have many citations. This is why I, and I believe Xxan too, argued that according to WP:PROF her record does not indicate notability at the present time, but likely will in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Kochendorfer[edit]

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

I am unable to find independent reliable sources on this person. Most of the cited sources are either not independent or not reliable; for example, the 2013 Best Actress poll entry was clearly added by a fan. The interview at Bodybuilderfemales.com, which is listed as a source and used as a footnote, gives a different last name from the article (perhaps explainable) but also gives a different birth year, which makes me suspicious it's about the same person. I am unable to access the best source cited, the Fayetteville Observer article, or to find anything else to demonstrate notability, including documentation of the titles won. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is little in the article that is verifiable or about her that is notable, as nominator notes. Ground Zero | t 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nominator's concerns about notability and quality of sources. The BodybuilderFemales.com "interview", if it is the same person, in any case appears to be self-published. Note the "Add Your Profile!" link. – Wdchk (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I'm not implying it's a reliable source to demonstrate notability, but a (possibly self-published) interview in which both the person's last name and their date of birth are different from the article makes me wonder what in the article is accurate. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad quality of sources. Not notable. Note: article WP:OWNer has been blocked for 24 hours for vandalizing this AfD entry. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 06:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Randolph[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:So, a lawyer and author who "mediated in a variety of disputes". Not exactly WP:NOTABLE. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run of the mill lawyer, nothing notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dattatreya Laxman Patwardhan[edit]

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

1) notability. 2 refs exceedingly in passing (granting and revocation of an honorary commission) however, article claims that the person may be of historical significance as one of the first indian pilots 2) But no sources are provided as to that end 3) possible hoax? Almost all sources end up being circular refs back to wikipedia. pre-internet, non-english purported sources makes anything difficult to pass WP:V Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax if any pilot had bombed the kaisers palce during WWI we would have plenty of references for it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Raids on Berlin in WW 1 (let alone strikes against the palace) were uncommon enough that they generally receive good coverage in the literature. That there is nothing reliable on this one points in one direction. Intothat darkness 20:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. The road supposedly named after him does not exist.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The key issue here seems to be that WP:FPL does not list the league Mejía played in. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Omar Mejía[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the basis that the Salvadoran top flight is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only does there seem to be no consensus at WP:FPL about whether the Primera División of the El Salvador Professional Football League is fully professional - there doesn't even seem to be any discussion. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to have such a discussion before trying to delete generally well-formed articles about players who have played for years for at the top level of football in El Salvador - on teams that have had resonable success in the Champions League. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many years playing for top league in El Salvador, including numerous Champions League appearances. Selected for national team in 2004, but no evidence of playing. But has generated much media coverage over the last decade. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Nfitz (talk)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. A discussion on whether the top El Salvadorean League is FPL is perhaps merited, but current consensus as per WP:FPL is that it is not. We do not keep articles that are of players that might play in FPLs. Of the sources provided above, only number four is of length even approaching that needed for substantial coverage. The remainder are each only a few lines long and look very WP:ROUTINE. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the statement by Fenix down that there is consensus at WP:FPL about El Salvador is false. Not only is there no consensus there. It's never once come up for discussion. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seriously? Do you understand the complete illogicality of what you just wrote? What you have said is that if a country is not on the FPL list it is therefore an FPL by definition because no discussion has been had. This is obviously nonsensical. The FPL list, as should be abundantly clear to you operates by definition on an inclusive basis, i.e. when a source is provided to indicate FPL status and consensus is reached that this is reliable, it is added to the list. The fact that the league is not on the list means there is not consensus that it is an FPL. This does not mean that a league not on it is not fully pro, nor that there is not scope for discussion, but this is irrelevant when considering players per NFOOTY. If the league is not on FPL then it is not currently verifiably fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seriously? I'm simply pointing out that the claim that there a consensus that it not a fully professional league is false. There is no consensus, one way or another. Not only is there no consensus one way or another, there hasn't ever been a discussion. Why do you claim that there is conensus that it is not a FPL, when this is clearly not the case. Why are you twisting my very simple words? Nfitz (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPL is a consensus based opinion on what is a fully professional league or not. The fact that there may or may not have been a discussion about any given league is not relevant. If it is not on the list it is not deemed to be an FPL, simple as that, the discussion has to be held to achieve consensus before any league can be added, this has not happened. Where there has not been a discussion or where consensus has been reached that it is not the default view is that it is not an FPL. The salvadorean league is not on the list, there for the default opinion is that it is not an FPL. This is not a concrete view and leagues can move on and off the list. If you believe that the Salvadorean league is FP, then please start a discussion in the relevant place to achieve consensus. If you do not, I don't understand the purpose of your comments. Fenix down (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There is no evidence that the El Salvadorian League is Fully Pro. JMHamo (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Duarte[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not fought three top-tier fights, fails WP:NMMA. --JamesMoose (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and lacks the coverage needed for WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No activity since 2000 and does not meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 07:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If this is felt to be something that can be restarted per WP:TNT, no prejudice against that. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning-making[edit]

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

As with Inverted Synergy, this is part of a group of low quality personal essay-type articles that likely fail WP:NOT as primarily the work of a single author. Likely self-promotion and possibly fails WP:GNG as well. Of the articles in this group, this one has the greatest number of outside sources which may establish notability, but it is difficult to tell whether these sources establish notability or simply are citations for various claims within the article. See discussion at the help desk for discussion on this and a related group of articles. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This concept, which is related to Meaning (psychology) and Posttraumatic growth, seems to be motivated by a concern that its contents are promoting a single author. Amazon.com has more than 5,000 books for sale that contain the words "meaning making" (quoted phrase)—including more than 150 in which that quoted phrase is in the title. Google Books claims 895K ghits on "meaning making" -kusan; I've verified that it gives more than twenty pages of results. There is actually the possibility of two articles here: one on making meaning out of emotional/psychosocial experiences, and another on the process of learning in an educational setting. There is a pretty wide scope here. The dozen or so books on applying this psychological concept to marketing and business management goals (e.g., ISBN 978-0321552341 and ISBN 978-0142004098) happen to interest me more than self-help books, but any of them might be useful in building the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is called "meaning-making" but many of the sources cited are not using this term. For this article to be kept, I expect the following:

Someone should present multiple sources using the term "meaning-making" and defining it. These sources should be about the concept. Note some of the best sources here before doing anything else!
Cut out all parts of this article which are personal essay arguments, which is most of the article. If there is one salvageable good paragraph here, start with that, use it to pass AfD, then add everything back and sort it out. Right now there is so much essay content here that this article is a net problem and if I have to search for a passable paragraph and initially find several non-passing ones, I have to suggest deletion.

I cannot look at this and establish that it meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. I appreciate the time taken to develop this article but Wikipedia has minimal standards and I cannot recognize this as meeting those at this time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block from re-creation from the first five words "People are inveterate meaning-makers" it is an essay (I'd say pseudo-essay) arguing a point, an obscure and probably absurd point, using jargon that would choke a hippo. When you get a sentence like "Meaning-making occurs, then, at the interface of intra-subject processes and the culturally coded object world [51][52][53][54][55][56]" with six "sources" you are running into hoax territory.

Editors should look at this site, which generates such pseudo articles based on a random algorithm. Every time you refresh that address you get new versions. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - As per WhatamIdoing, meaning-making is a notable concept, but the article is void of content. Blow it up and start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This makes my top 10 list of articles most deserving deletion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narrative identity#Components of identity narratives. "meaning-making" has different interpretations depending on the context of study, but the one here has to do with the field of personality psychology and is connected with the idea of a narrative identity. As WhatamIdoing notes, this is a highly notable field--there are 102,000 hits on GScholar for "meaning making" and plenty of articles where this is the primary subject. In response to Bluerasberry's call, 3 secondary sources with a lot of citations about this topic are [6], a intro article to an entire issue on the topic, [7] which is about mental health aspects of the topic, and a book [8]. So a solid article could be written on this topic based on independent RS. The article itself has serious problems. It is dense with unexplained jargon, it synthesizes many primary sources, it is non-neutral and somewhat promotional, and gives undue weight to ideas of Kusan, a non-notable researcher in the field. There are also likely COI problems and the prose needs to be better wikified and split into sections. In theory, the article problems are surmountable, but in practice, it may be easier to rewrite from scratch from just a few high quality secondary references. Thus I am tending toward redirect until a better article can be written, but will happily keep this article if stubified/rewritten in a neutral, verifiable manner. Narrative identity has 12 occurrences of the term and seems the best target for now. --Mark viking (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nothing worth salvaging - although no bias against a recreation from start. perhaps a DAB with Epistemology as one of the targets. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect - term is broad enough in its broadest sense to be a dictionary definition, and I don't think that there is consensus on any narrower definition than that. We have pages on understanding and narrative identity for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While User:WhatamIdoing makes a valid point that the topic may be notable, the article is a jargon-filled mess, and starts like an essay.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I can't speak to the notability myself, not being particularly familiar with the subject matter, but I think that given the low quality of the article, we can delete the article and start over again. If notable, I think the ideal solution would be to ask WhatamIdoing or some other subject matter expert to find a few sources indicating that the concept is notable and determine whether Meaning-making is the most appropriate term for this concept. If it's notable, we can move it to the most appropriate place and strip it down to a stub. If no one is available to do this, though, I don't think it hurts to delete the article and leave it to a future editor to create it from scratch, as I think there's a clear consensus so far that the content of the article is beyond repair. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a subject-matter expert, either, but this appears to be the right title.

I agree that the article needs a good copyedit for tone. But WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and there is some suitable matter in there. For example, "Research on language and mind, learning and teaching, mindfulness, metacognition, place and social space, mental health literacy, resilience, the social construction of health and various constructs associated with positive psychology has reconfigured the constellation of key mental health variables, placing meaning-making at its center" is a pretty flowery way of saying "Meaning-making is a central concept in positive psychology and other fields", but the fact is both correct and encyclopedic.

I strongly disagree that the current content is beyond repair, because I'm pretty sure that I could repair at least a good deal of it, and probably anyone willing to spend an hour with it could do quite a bit of good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you or anyone else does a rewrite, please ping me and I can try to review it again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted synergy[edit]

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

Low quality personal essay that likely fails WP:NOT as primarily the work of a single author. Likely self-promotion and possibly fails WP:GNG as well. See discussion at the help desk for discussion on this and a related group of articles. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt given the now-blocked creator's modus operandi. Self-referential nonsense ("Each meaning made borrows from and confirms or revises one’s global meaning (the aggregation of meanings previously assigned), consolidating or recalibrating the global cognitive-emotional frame from which new meanings are made") in impenetrable jargon that if anything looks like a hoax from http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ which generates a new "article" every time it is refreshed. No evidence this could be written from any reliable secondary source. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I entirely agree. This is awful. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not to jump on a bandwagon or anything, but this page is nothing but jargon and uncheckable references. A quick check online showed up negative that this even exists outside of imaginative names for pictures and class projects. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete term not gained any notability nor traction - has not appeared in any secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two hits on google books; few cites in reliable journals, overall does not suggest any significant notability for the term and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Self-referential nonsesnse seems harsh, but we won't loose much if we delete this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultured resonance[edit]

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

This appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term "cultured resonance", contrary to WP:NOTNEO and/or to promote one author's view/usage of the term, contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION. This article is part of a set of articles discussed at the Help Desk. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications that this term is notable. Only two sources cited, both the work of one author. The current article text says that the term was first used in 2010. Google searches return only the works of this author, and completely unrelated hits, largely describing a tone of voice. This is a non-notable neologism at best, and as per WP:NOT does not belong here, at worst it is attempted promotion. I agree with Jreferee above.

Although I am in favor of Delete per Jreferee's reasoning, I would suggest that Kuzan's credentials matter far less than the credentials of the publishers of the materials. I'm not familiar with the reputation of the journals or publishers, though. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that the author is a 'session lecturer' at Laurentian University.[9]. I 'think' he is still a PhD candidate. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The phrase gives a few Google Book hits, but nothing major. From the article it doesn't appear that the term has gained any significant usage; thus a failure of WP:GNG seems the case here. Ping me if better sources are presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Jreferee's comments above. Tapped-out (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete term not gained any notability nor traction - has not appeared in any secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carnebone[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, only reference is Google maps... Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since I nominated this page Dr. Blofeld has made substantial well referenced improvements to the article. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw it, an admin can then close it. No worries. But note most Cornish places on here need a lot of work and can probably mostly be expanded. If in doubt look in google books or request me to expand one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayani Bridge[edit]

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

No references, questionable notability Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, so no way to verify claims. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "No references" is not a reason for deletion, and WP:V explicitly states that references do not need to be in the article for verification, only that they need exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources to establish notability easily found with a simple search. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Additional offline sources do not require any leap to exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per The Bushranger. --do ncr am 20:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per The Bushranger. Contrary to the nom's statement, references do in fact exist.--Oakshade (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such large engineered structures are inherently notable and sure to have good stable sources.--Charles (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Steve Clark (Wall Street) has been suppressed as a BLP violation. Steve Clark (Wall-Street) was a redirect deleted per G8. —DoRD (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Clark (Wall-Street)[edit]

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

I had originally come across this article after a user had pointed me towards some legal documents that had some uncensored personal information in them. After looking at the article I was concerned over the tone, which had some potentially libelous information in it. I'd tagged it as an attack page and the speedy tag was removed by the article's creator, but also the information that was libelous. The remaining article is still a mess and there are concerns of this being a hoax. I have found some information such as a Linkedin account to where this may not be a hoax per se, but there is a pretty distinct lack of coverage in the article despite the claims of notability. I'm tempted to let this revert back to the speedy tag, but I would prefer this to run through AfD to solidify any claims of notability (or the lack thereof) or confirm that this is a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are some false positives coming up for other Steve Clarks such as an anti-OWS lobbyist, but there is a "SA Clark" on the NPI website, so again, maybe not a hoax but just a non-notable persona per our guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notabiltiy. If not exactly an hoax, certainly a stretching of the truth: "7,782 patents", "9,522 industrial publications", "over 425 acquisition mergers" and "wealth calculated at US $17.3 billion dollars". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT.--Laun chba ller 10:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Large parts of it are nonsense. Knighthood? Wealth? Much more... --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Hungarianism[edit]

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

No support in secondary sources for this article. TFD (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are multiple secondary sources for "Austro-Hungarianism", [15], the three leading sources there clearly describe it as a political phenomenon.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note 184.145.64.67 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of R-41 [16]. --TFD (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced speculative essay, short though it is. I took a look for "Austro-Hungarian monarchism" and saw nothing. We've got Austrian nationalism and Hungarian nationalism, but there are no "Austro-Hungarian people" as the article seems to indicate there are, and there is no such thing as "Austro-Hungarianism." Carrite (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One sentence that, if it were a real topic, would be more for Wiktionary. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Krupnyk[edit]

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

Subject of article appears to fail WP:GNG. Was unable to locate significant coverage of subject in reliable sources. The article has been tagged as requiring the addition of reliable sources but none appear to have been added. Hack (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no significant independent coverage to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can find many videos online of Krupnyk participating in tournaments and interviews. He is very well-known in the StarCraft community, and if he fails WP:GNG then so do most of the articles in Category:Professional_StarCraft_II_players. —Entropy ^(talk) 00:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other stuff exists is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Hack (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines. This argument actually applies to lots of articles we have on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm not convinced this really meets notability guidelines, but the article is well written, and well referenced, and I certainly don't see any solid consensus to delete, so calling this a keep -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hornyak[edit]

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

Local references only; does not meet the WOP:CREATIVE standard of having works in the permanent collections of major museums.

Accepted at AfC nonetheless DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage seems decidedly local and that which I could find myself constituted only one-line passing mentions. Nom is right about the lack of significant exhibitions and one of the significant claims to notability included in the article is that the subject's works have been hung nearby/next to the works of notable others. Doesn't work that way. Stalwart111 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears from list of exhibitions to meet ~~WP:Notability#Creative professionals~~WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals #4(b) (and possibly 4(c), although not enough info there to tell for sure). Is there some defined WP standard I've missed for "significant exhibition"?Paavo273 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant critical attention" would generally be enough to warrant a pass against WP:GNG because such attention would likely constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I think that is there to account for instances of critical attention that are not "multiple" but are still attention from a single significant critical source. The "critical attention" in this case includes an article in the subject's local newspaper about an exhibition at a local gallery featuring, "over 25 local and international artists" with a passing mention of the subject. Hardly "significant" anything. The locations for her solo exhibitions are mainly local neighbourhood galleries or private establishments, not major national (or even regional) art galleries. The coverage mainly consists of articles about those exhibitions in local galleries. I think we need a lot more than that for an artist to meet either WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Stalwart111 06:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of 4(c) seems sound. What I was referring mainly to was Notability for creative professionals 4(b) which states, "[Person's work] has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition," my focus being on the substantial part and significant exhibition. Her particip. in group exhibitions is listed as including @ at least two notable Montreal venues. Whether these were substantial parts of significant exhibitions, I can't say for sure. If it's not in sourced coverage in the article text, it s/b.

I see so many truly trivial WP articles that nobody ever looks at, it just seems a shame if people want to read about her and the article is gone. According to page view statistics, the article's been hit approximately 90 times just the first 1.5 month this year. I'd think something like at least half of those are from people wanting to learn about her as opposed to editors logging in to edit or check on changes. Paavo273 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unfair and it's worth further consideration (and analysis of sources in particular). But there seems to be a couple of these articles, all the work of a single editor whose focus seems to be promoting local Canadian art in general rather than carefully selecting only those subjects that meet our guidelines before creating articles. In some instances, a more careful approach with regard to our guidelines would result in articles that are unlikely to be challenged. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging otherwise by accepting these articles at AFC before they are ready. It just creates an environment where new editors are bitten because they don't know better and aren't told better. I'm not seeing notability with what has been provided thus far but I'm always willing to be turned around. Stalwart111 08:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on Jennifer Hornyak because she is one of about twenty contemporary artists who are household names across Canada. She has exhibited in Canada’s premier contemporary art gallery (our MOMA), the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal (collected artists are not listed), as Montreal is Canada’s capital for the Arts, much like NYC in the US. Also her work and career are followed in St John’s, Halifax, Montreal, Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver through the top commercial contemporary galleries. I also agree with wikipedia’s preference for federal collections, but the National Art Gallery doesn’t list those included (in the collections section, of the 381 artists whose name begins with H, they name 26 of which only 5 are living), and you need to apply to the Canada Council for the Arts to be part of their collection. Finding critical reviews are also problematic because it’s primarily French in Montreal and English in Toronto with very little overlap. Also the prime English-language daily of Jennifer’s heyday, the mid-eighties, the Montreal Star has since folded, the online archives of the Toronto Globe and Mail (with English Canada’s sole full-time art reviewer) start in 2004, and I need subscriptions to research the cross-Canada (Canada.com) newspapers. She is however listed in the international auction house search engines which is a rarity for a Canadian. I did find yesterday an online critique from the 80s which I will upload. So while I also agree that the research leaves much to be desired, Jennifer Hornyak still remains a popular Canadian artist. Unfortunately this was one of my first attempts and I now understand notability and writing style better through the help of the Teahouse. Re Canadian content, as a columnist and reviewer I have also covered Jim Dine and Hunt Slonen, but as these artists have adequate to over-the-top coverage, I believe I add more value to add to or improve the many Canadian artist stubs. Thank you for your feedback. HeatherBlack (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HeatherBlack, 'Glad you appeared here! Based on what you're saying, there s/b IMO no problem rel this artist's notability. Stalwart I believe is saying that the subject appeared from his reading of the article and sources to be only a "LOCAL" (my cap) rather than nationally notable Canadian artist. If there's rich source material in French, I highly recommend any good translate program such as googletranslate (http://translate.google.com) Just paste the entire text of the French article into the box for English trans., and you can usually understand the result well enough to make good clear "English sense" of it. (There's no rule against the use of foreign-language sources on English WP, only a preference for English (If as good or better English ones exist, AND the requirement that if challenged you provide a translation of the challenged info. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Also 'cuz it's a BLP, you should technically have a live translator according to the rule. I guess just run it by a French-speaking friend. Actually, IME what WP is worried about is libel or upsetting live subjects who will scream at WP, neither of which seems likely in this case.) The translate programs are hugely improved over even a few years ago, and might do wonders for sourcing in this case if the best sources are in French. Rel citing the publication info of the French source, it's common practice and perfectly fine to cite that in the original tongue.

Also maybe a little elaboration as to substantiality and signficance (and if not already existing in the text, then TYING to a source) of those exhibitions in prominent venues already listed in the article. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable; and worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the artist has a long track record of involvement in the visual arts. This is from the article: "Since 2003 Hornyak has held over ten solo exhibitions. A participant in many group shows,[9] her paintings are exhibited alongside work by Jim Dine, Chuck Close, and Tom Hopkins in Montreal,[10] and at Miami Art Basel, the Chicago Contemporary and Classic, and Toronto International Art Fair. In 2013, Hornyak exhibited across Canada at Wallace Galleries (Calgary), Trias Gallery (Toronto), Oeno Gallery (Kingston), Galerie St-Laurent + Hill (Ottawa), Galerie de Bellefeuille (Montreal), Studio 21 (Halifax) and Trinity Gallery (Saint John)." Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of my point. Having a "long track record of involvement" is not an inclusion criteria. Being exhibited alongside others is not an inclusion criteria - she doesn't inherit notability from others. And that list of galleries mostly includes small, privately-owned galleries. That's great, but it doesn't establish notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond the reviews in small local papers we have now. The article author's suggestion that there might be some coverage from the 80s would be a great start. Likewise, anything that verifies that she has been exhibited at a venue larger than someone's tiny private gallery. Please understand, I'm not supporting deletion for the sake of it and I've created articles about art and artists myself. I'd love if this were kept. But we need more than what is in the article because on the basis of what it there, the subject wouldn't seem to meet our inclusion criteria. Stalwart111 22:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming - What I need to do then is add a "critical review" paragraph and quote the art magazines already mentioned: Vie des Arts, Le collectionneur, and Magazin'Art. If I recall correctly, there were several others, but it might take a week or so, because I work. I translate French regularly, but I'll put the original text in the Talk Page, so it can be verified. Thanks for the suggestions. HeatherBlack (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great start. Coverage in national/international art magazines would go a long way toward meeting WP:GNG. Stalwart111 23:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Stalwart's point about need for better sources is well taken, and the article author has already started to address that with one or more sources added since this AfD started. In any case, IMO this AfD was at best precipitant to start with. There is IMO enough prima facie notability in this article to raise the questions how substantial were her works' roles at how significant of exhibitions at Canada's largest and one of its most prominent art galleries. The appropriate course IMO would have been to discuss it on the talk page stating what the sourcing deficiencies were and what needed to be done to establish notability. * And add a banner cite tag as well as some inline ones, and wait a few months and see where it goes. Instead, after about six months with no complaints (no cite tags on the article page and no remarks on the talk page) the article was suddenly just nominated for deletion. IMO the former is still the appropriate action now, all the more so due to the author's weighing in and already adding one or more cites of wider ranging source(s). I agree that most of the local gallery exhibitions s/h probably been left off because a not entirely unworthy (but also by no means necessary) inference is that there isn't much significance or why else would the author include several strictly local ones. When in reality, it's just as reasonable to infer that the author didn't know local exhibitions aren't important and just needs to clarify and add to existing sources that do matter. I think the existing quality of the article deserves at least that. There are probably hundreds or thousands of WP articles that cite no sources whatsoever and whose subjects have no self-evident indicia of notability at all. It sounds to me like additional sources that may qualify the subject by a broader standard of notability than the narrow creative professionals one may also be forthcoming. Paavo273 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article author probably (unknowingly) exacerbated the issue by creating a user page that strongly suggested she was a single-purpose editor. So another editor comes along, sees an article that lists mostly local galleries and exhibitions and almost entirely local news coverage, checks the history and sees it was created by an author whose purpose here is to raise the profile of local Canadian artists. To be honest, I'd probably have done the same. It's not nice but it is the way it is and the nominator isn't really to blame. That said, there'd be nothing wrong with re-listing this for a week (which seems like where this would be going anyway) to enable the author to add more references. A good faith commitment to do that has been made and I don't think anyone is in a hurry. Take the week, add the sources in question and we can re-visit the issue in a few days. But the fact that other articles should probably be deleted is never a strong argument that this one should be kept. Stalwart111 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Cooper (New Zealand politician)[edit]

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

Minor local politician. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Minor local politician" is far from the facts. Let's see. In New Zealand, we have 63 general electorates plus 7 Maori electorates to represent some 4.5m people. That's some 64,000 population per electorate. The enlarged Auckland has just over 1.5m people, and they are represented by 20 councillors. That's some 75,000 population per councillor. Ok, MPs have somewhat higher responsibilities, but as far as locals are concerned, the actions of local councillors are probably much more instant and often much more relevant than the actions of MPs. To be one of twenty councillors running the show for a third of the country's population makes you much more than a minor local politician. I would argue that by getting elected as a councillor for the Supercity, notability is inherent. Schwede 66 04:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [editconflict] As one of the 20 Councillors for the largest city in New Zealand I would dispute that she is not notable. She represents more people than the MP's in the country. Also relevant is this previous AfD. Clearly the article needs some work and more sources but that doesn't mean she is not notable. Mattlore (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we really need a separate article for the whole civic roster in every little country on the planet? I have to believe the entire Auckland council could share a single article and that would be sufficient. BlueSalix (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Minor local politician is correct, fails WP:POLITICIAN. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, below threshold - SimonLyall (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auckland_local_elections,_2013#Waitakere_.282.29. I do believe that city councillors, especially for a city as large and important as Auckland can be notable, but it seems that Cooper is yet to have built herself much of a profile (which is fair enough, given she was only elected for the first time last year) that has resulted in substantial independent coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep WP:POLOUTCOMES says "City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas." Auckland isn't on the level of the cited examples of Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London, but I think it comes close, so I'm fine with keeping this. As Schwede66 explains, "local" is a relative term when it comes to New Zealand. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think a comparison to Cameron Brewer is valid, he has a very high profile. Linda Cooper on the other hand only got elected a few months ago and hasn't done much of note. Search results in local paper for Linda and Cameron- SimonLyall (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all the other Auckland Councillors are in Wiki, unless they should be culled as well. She is being regularly reported within NZ's national media (primarily in conjunction with the Len Brown affair, but on other issues as well). NealeFamily (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand. This is an elected politician sitting on the governing body of that city (+ environs), overseeing a $3 billion NZ budget. This is status that does, in fact, meet the WP:POLITICIAN special guideline. Carrite (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Brady[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator didn't mention that the original PROD was removed with comment "subject played in last 16 of both European Cup and CupWinners Cup". Not a preliminary or qualifying round: the last 16. This isn't a man with a small number of games in a semi-pro league. Mr Brady played for 13 seasons in the Irish top tier with 3 different clubs, and a further 3 in the second tier, winning it twice. He was an amateur international, and their manager was pretty disappointed when he turned professional with Bohemians in the middle of Ireland's 1978 UEFA Amateur Cup run. And in 1987, the Irish Times described him as "one of the League of Ireland's most popular players". There's decent coverage of his career, much of it trivial like that of most footballers' careers, available in that paper, and doubtless plenty more in other newspapers, and I can't demonstrate it here because there are so few free-access online links available. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen far less notable subjects on WP never be challenged and if true User:Struway's facts bolster this subject substantially. Paavo273 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG basied on Irish Times quote. I'm disturbed by this desire of some to delete articles related to players who have played for years and years at the top of Irish football. Surely a player who gets a testimonial match a big team is without question notable. Nfitz (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with User:Struway2's analysis. Finnegas (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved. I've boldly moved the content from Major Earthquakes in 1900 to Earthquakes in 1900 as suggested by the nominator here. Seems sensible and there's no need to delete the previous content to perform the move. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 05:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes in 1900[edit]

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

Duplicate article. Two articles with identical coverage were created by the same new editor in the last few weeks. This less complete article (3 KB) should be deleted and the other item (which is substantially more thorough (15 KB) – Major Earthquakes in 1900) should be moved to this (Earthquakes in 1900) title to match our existing format (see Category:Lists of earthquakes for examples). Dawnseeker2000 02:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. Abdullah[edit]

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

Doesn't seem particularly notable, as the only apparent assertions of notability in the article are who he's related to, and what degrees he has. Also, what is this person's first name? There are a dozen Abdullah's starting with an "A", this title should redirect to Abdullah (name). bd2412 T 00:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources, all blogs. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Another BLP sourced only with web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Being a lecturer at a university does not generally make one notable. The same is true for being the founder of some apparently non-notable federation of alumni associations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Lake (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

I worked to try and improve this article many years ago but, as a recently sandblasting proved, I was doing so on a fairly thin premise. The more I have considered it, the more I believe that she meets neither WP:PORNBIO nor the level of coverage required to satisfy the general notability guidelines' requirement of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Having done everything I can to try and make this article satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines, I have come to this conclusion that this article should probably be deleted. Canadian Paul 00:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG only has IDM and AMD type sources which are unreliable.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO. Role in Debbie Does Dallas does not rise to the level of starring in a blockbuster feature. AFAA award nomination not sufficient. No reliable source coverage found to pass GNG. The sources in the article are unreliable. They were even worse before Hullaballoo Wolfowitz cleaned the article up. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for actresses of this type.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An actress who appears in 40 films, even 3rd rate films deserves inclusion. I checked after seeing the deletion notice on the article that Google returns a lot of hits for her and the movie databases have more information about her than Wikipedia. Maybe part of the question is, should the movie databases should be a users first search choice not Wikipedia? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmcdonell (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a lot of films does not make someone notable, especially when they are not notable films, and the person does not have leading roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. You'd expect (or at least I'd expect) a porn performer from this period, with credits in a significant number of prominent-in-genre films, to have generated some reliable commentary. It's just not to be found. The choice of a well-known resort name for her pseudonym makes searching rather difficult, but even a targeted GBooks search like --"Arcadia Lake" Dallas-- turns up only a small number of cast lists, nothing substantive. After my "sandblasting" of the article a few months ago, I expected somebody to add useful, reliably sourced content, but there just doesn't seem to be any out there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jeffrd10 --BiH (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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