Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 May	15 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agryd.com[edit]

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

No reliable sources demonstrating WP:CORP or WP:WEB whatsoever, just press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search turns up exclusively promotional material in the first 100 results. I saw no evidence that this site was ever mentioned in an independent reliable source. This might even fall under speedy deletion for advertising. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to promotional tone. Alexius08 (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Given references are start-up coverage, mostly written by the firm and their PR reps. Nothing better found and I note that its Alexa rating in its home market is 36,605, which doesn't contradict my view that this is at best WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, did not find any independent reliable sources about the subject, so does not meet notability standards.

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Club Alpbach Croatia[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization. A Google search result brings up this page and a couple PDFs that look to have been put out by this club. The page is mostly club rules with very few good sources or useful information. I was going to clean this up as it was tagged for grammar editing but I think deletion is a better choice. From the talk page it looks like there have been multiple proposed deletions for this article in the past that were ultimately overruled by the main editor of the page. Hustlecat (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my above deletion reason for spelling/grammar Hustlecat (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NONPROFIT. I was going to suggest a merge to European Forum Alpbach (the parent organization), but that group's notability seems questionable also. Miniapolis 17:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, no valid reason for deletion was provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puliyavu[edit]

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

[WP:NOTE] Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: exactly what do you wanna say? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no rationale for deletion presented. Definatly no notability issue. --Soman (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a10, see Social audit. Implausible redirect. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOCIAL AUDIT DEFINITION[edit]

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

WIKIMARKUP is not correct, Page does not make much sense. Akifumii^Talk 19:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Altaqi[edit]

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

~~A very marginal claim of notability, with no third party reliable sources.~~ Rob (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His name appears to be Samir al-Taqi and there appear to be a number of sources indicating clear notability WP:GNG [1], [2], [3]. I think the problem is simply getting the name wrong, so the article should be moved to "Samir al-Taqi."

Thanks for the info. His name gets spelled both ways. However multiple in-depth sources are required and there are not enough here. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There are multiple in-depth sources. I have no idea how many. Besides articles in English, there are probably dozens in Arabic. This BBC article asserts his notability as do others: "Dr Samir al-Taqi is a prominent Syrian intellectual." The Washington Post article is entirely about him. That and other articles are sufficient for WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now You've convinced me to take back my request for deletion. I think it's fair to give the article some time to improve. When I first saw it, it seemed like a run-of-the-mill vanity article. But, now, it seems that he may be a notable opinion maker. But, to keep the article in the long term, somebody needs to invest the time to add sources to the article, and improve it substantially. --Rob (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Allowing a bit more discussion of the sources raised. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above fails PROF. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF #1 and #7 as an academic who's frequently hailed as an expert and widely quoted in the media. As well as above sources[4][5][6] This book has 2 pages on his role as an envoy for the Syrian government.[7]. So he seems to meet WP:GNG as well. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Gohel[edit]

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

Non-notable person per WP:BIO; article is WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and was already A7 speedy deleted once before. External links are to WP:SPS. Drm310 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: The article had info copied from Partho Gupte, crediting all his works and awards to this Mr. Gohel. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7-speediable after the false info is stripped out. --Finngall ^talk 14:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take away the false claims and there's no credible assertion of notability. The author just changed the subject's occupation from actor to software engineer. References are all self-published. Searching for RS coverage yields more self-published sites. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Ford[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, has been playing in the independent leagues for the last several seasons so has very little chance to ever make the Majors. Spanneraol (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Astudent0 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William 12:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The baseball Special Notability Guideline is one of the easiest to meet in all of Wikipedia: the moment this "top prospect" gets called up by the pro team and faces one big league pitch, the subject becomes automatically notable. Until then: this fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN. I apologize, I did not see it had just gotten through AFD. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Guiliano[edit]

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

Been deleted a couple of times due to socks, but all I see in the sources are passing singular mentions and boilerplate bio. I'm sure he's a swell guy, but I don't see anything that passes WP:GNG at this time. The award he received isn't trivial, but I don't think that the award alone is sufficient to push him past the bar, as even in our article on the award, we only list "notable" recipients, not all recipients. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the original creator has again been blocked for socking, so it could be deleted as an article created by a blocked user, but I think that the case for deletion is strong enough due to a lack of general notability. As such, this is the third time it has been created by a sock, so if deleted, I would request salting the article as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Dennis, the previous AfD was closed 05:47 14 May 2014, not quite 12 hours ago. Might want to give this some space and see how it develops. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as long as the article is not created by a sockpuppet) per WP:NACADEMICS. As a university president, the subject meets "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Bahooka (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem of the People's Republic of Donetsk[edit]

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

Lyrics by a non WP:N band in entirety purporting to be the anthem of an unrecognized state. Zero sources as well. Львівське (говорити) 16:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I was able to find after an extensive search were a few YouTube videos, so this strikes me as just another non-notable Donetsk topic. And to stave off some expected keep votes, the fact that Wikipedia has other articles about national anthems of states with limited international recognition does not mean that this anthem deserves an article.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, and WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:GNG. You can't just post a random song, recently penned, and call it an article. This may also violate WP:COPYVIO, but I'm not certain that it's not a free use exception. If this were a pop song, it would also violate WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is article is a joke. § DDima 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and per Bearian. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Utter joke!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dectype Info World[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Current version is substantially the same as version that was speedied per CSD A7 & G11. Taking to AfD because speedy tag was removed by a brand-new editor shortly I had reverted and warned the original author for removing the tag himself. --Finngall ^talk 15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - I had earlier speedied it under multiple criteria, A7 & G11. Subject has "no significant coverage" in the reliable sources, therefore does not meet the Wikipedia notability standard for companies and organizations for inclusion. It additionally reads like an advertisement. extensive database, offers content, You can find, Dectype Info World offers their Users, etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just opened a SPI for single-purpose account repeatedly creating this non-notable promo spam. See, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/S798072 Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete And salt. I also A7'ed it at least once. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:HOWTO. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage, necessary to establish notability. Agyle (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I have blocked the article creator and one other account as sock puppets of one another. Both accounts were lobbying to keep the article. Further information is at the relevant SPI archive. AGK [•] 18:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John Gruber. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daring Fireball[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. Though the blog has some coverage, little seems to be in the form of reliable secondary sources. The article reads like a promotion for the blog and it's advertising opportunities, and is not based on any third-party source. Non-self-promoting information might be appropriate for the John Gruber article. Knight of Truth (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "[reply]

Weak keep. I found two reliable sources with what I'd call significant coverage: The Atlantic has an article with significant coverage about the topic, and Businessweek has an article about Gruber and Daring Fireball. The New Zealand Herald has an article about Gruber and the blog that's largely an interview. Also, this book from SAGE Publications and this book from Apress each provide at least a couple paragraphs about Daring Fireball. Boingboing has a short article on Daring Fireball's practice of not accepting user comments, though it's more of an editorial, with little usable factual information I'd factor in for GNG coverage.

Two two detailed Atlantic and Businessweek sources are the weakest possible amount of significant coverage I'd consider meeting WP:GNG, and usually I'd deem that insufficient, but I'm being lenient in this case due to the very large number of minor mentions in a wide variety of well known reliable sources, as well as many citations referencing the blog in books and scholarly articles. Often it will just be for a single quote from a post by Gruber on the blog, but it happens a lot. Just searching for "daring fireball" on news.google.com, which shows recent "news" sites that use the term, returns 90 results; not all are reliable, and all seem to be fairly minor (e.g. using a quote from the blog), but the frequency of citation in well known sources around the world, taken as a whole, do indicate a certain level of importance. So that influenced why I'd take the small number of detailed sources as adequate for meeting notability criteria.

Note that the current article relies way too much on primary sources, and does not cite independent sources, but that's not grounds for deletion, it's just an indication that the article needs serious work. Agyle (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about merging John Gruber with Daring Fireball, or vice versa? It is in many blogs' nature to be an extension of their author's person; it seems to me that they are hardly separate topics, which may be part of this article's problem. If we consider them jointly, the case for notability becomes more clear, but as separate articles one cannot lend notability to the other. Knight of Truth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John Gruber. DF has always been synonymous with JG. I looked through the sourcing I could find and his Internet personality is always the subject of the content, meaning that the website/blog does not have independent notability. In all honesty, it's perfectly fine as a section on his short article and if need be, it can always spin out summary style. czar ♔ 17:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very weakly oppose merging; merging seems like a more sensible and better way to cover the topic, but I tend to view the question for an AFD as whether an article can be justified, rather than what would be best. I gather you looked at the same sources I did, and disagreed on notability, and I can understand the disagreement; Gruber is undeniably an inseparable part of any meaningful coverage about Daring Fireball. Agyle (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'm not sure which way the merge should go, but as Czar says above, John Gruber and Daring Fireball are essentially synonymous. They are certainly notable, but a single article is sufficient to cover them both. No preference on which title the article should have. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY, and WP:POLOUTCOMES. There has been long-established consensus that all sub-national legislators are notable. Issues with the article can be addressed through the normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talmadge L. Heflin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, specifically #3, despite assertion to the contrary [8], not every Texas legislator is inherently notable, nor inherently a subject for a Wikipedia biography of a living person. Perhaps this is list fodder but, in the absence of any response to the 2009 tag requesting citations to reliable sources, enough is enough. None of the "refs" added to the page since the PROD notice came down solve the problem of "No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article's subject. David in DC (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All state legislators are notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. It's clear that the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. There is a long precedent (see WP:POLOUTCOMES) that state legislators are notable; WP:POLITICIAN #3 refers to local officials (mayors, city councilmen, etc.) not elected state legislators. And this particular legislator is unquestionably notable: 22 years in the Texas legislature, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and described by The New York Times and others as one of the most powerful members of the Legislature [9][10][11]. The Google search <"Talmadge Heflin"> yields 79 news stories at site:news.google.com, and 158 matches at HighBeam Research [12]. And there are additional hits at Google Books as well. This isn't even a close call. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Heflin was in the Texas Legislature for 22 years. All state legislators are notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per the above and namesake of an elementary school [13] .Dru of Id (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POLITICIAN is being misrepresented. Here it is, in its entirety:

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed,
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". [Emphasis added]
For the purposes of this guideline, ambassadorships are not considered international offices.

In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate."

Also, so far, and since 2009, all of the "refs" inserted are to primary sources or sources with which the subject is affiliated. This WP:BLP may be rescueable, but the efforts so for serve to underscore the subject's lack of notability as we mean that word on Wikipedia: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". David in DC (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, yes all Texas state legislators are notable per default, as are all other U.S. state-level legislators. WP:POLITICIAN gives some room for interpretation in regards to municipal representatives (city councils, etc.), but state-level legislators are well within the limits. --Soman (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Albeit this wouldn't be part of the key argument as such (which is WP:POLITICIAN) and we shouldn't rely on google hit counts for notability, it's worth noting that "Talmadge L. Heflin" get over 62,000 hits and "Talmadge Heflin" gets another 9,000+. But then again, "Talmadge L. Heflin" is an extremly common name. --Soman (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request that AfD nomination be closed by an Admin I'm not persuaded by much of what's been written above, but in a matter of a couple days, the glaring flaws in this article, tagged in 2009(!), have been fixed with the addition of refs evidencing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The timing is probably a coincidence, but it's a fortuitous one - for the article, for Wikipedia and for our readers. David in DC (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nothing Natural[edit]

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

Non-notable book per WP:NBOOK. Reads like a review. Only offered reference is a blog entry. Mikeblas (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly it is a poor article but that is not grounds for deletion. Book is notable: dates from before the time when every review is available online, but reviewed in the NY Times & also in the Guardian of 27 June 1986.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add references to the reviews you have found? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm cleaning it and I'm finding where it's even been mentioned in a scholarly article. I'll cite this all, of course. So far it looks like it'll be a keep on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding quite a bit, although I do have to dig for it. It looks like it's quoted in quite a few academic texts, including this doctoral thesis. On a side note, the reception it received is a bit fascinating when you compare it to the reception for Fifty Shades. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has sufficient coverage to establish notability. And given that it's reviewed in some of the most prestigious newspapers, there's probably even more offline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly good amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discounting !votes from obvious single-purpose accounts and socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banc De Binary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Banc de Binary

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

~~I don't think this article meets Wikipedia standards. Article not relevant or notable. Page only exists to disparage the subject. Constant vandalism. NLZ06 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet. MER-C 23:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the sources don't have anything to do with the company, are just about binary options. There is no general notability on broad media, just very specific and (i'm not so sure if realible) investment pages. There is also no notability on the subject, it's just another trader which can't keep record of his own figures. (How can it be founded on Seychelles and then New York?) And then they use a virtual office direction. Article Fails at notability and verifiability. I propose deletion per WP:NOTE Lakratani (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Lakratani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep Page has been up for deletion before, and the result was delete; but since then (notwithstanding WP:ILLCON) the company has managed to get itself rather more prominence by virtue of its regulatory woes. As a note, it's not subject to "constant vandalism"; the page has been blanked once by, er, the nominator of this AFD, and that's the only remotely vandalism-like activity. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This subject under the title Banc de Binary was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc de Binary. Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in it's current form should actually be titled "History of SEC and CFTC Lawsuit against Banc De Binary". There is very little material about the company and it's operations other than those relevant to the law-suite. Since the company is a private company, other than coverage of the case, it has very little non-pr / non-affiliates / reputable sources of factual information which can be verified, thus the company is not significant enough to warrant an article. BDBJack (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. User:BDBJack has a declared conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article have many wrong information, also its look like some website added as a reference for link building propose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj7505 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Mj7505 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The article reads more like a "puff" article than anything else. It's more of an advertisement than editing from a neutral point of view not representing fairly, proportionately, filled with bias and there are very few significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Everything in article listed resources are not from high-quality sources or poorly sourced. Like one of the user mentioned its more of a list of the names rather its history. I strongly recommend for speedy deletionKiran A.N (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran A.N, have you actually read the article under discussion? Far from being a "puff piece", three-quarters of it is negative. If anything, it's biased against the company. The History section is not a list of names at all, and no user has mentioned that "its more of a list of the names rather its history"—either here or on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is nothing but pure legal jargon. Arguments of whether the company is liable for a criminal or civil case. The only recognized sources are the CFTC and SEC. If we provided a page for every single CFTC and SEC case, we wouldn't hear the end of it. If we wrote about every single CFTC or SEC charge Goldman Sachs, a notable financial conglomerate, received in the past 5 years - the page would be endless. Delete the banc de binary page and don't provide a spotlight for random regulators. AllMy65 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — AllMy65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No Notability. Move content to binary options.69.94.25.24 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — 69.94.25.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note In this edit the above sock alters my recommendation as to the outcome of this AFD. Please be alert for more dirty tricks on this AFD. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article serves as an advertorial to the pros and cons of this company that runs a binary options trading operation. It receives top ranks on SERPs and on the surface appears as an auspicious write up. There's no investigative nor informative value to the article and it doesn't prove nor refute the claims and conjectures raised therein. There's much gossip and hearsay in the article that ultimately fail to provide any objective conclusions. I would like to see it deleted and not evolve into an editable infomercial page. Ishais (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is accurate and well sourced having been mentioned in the Daily Mail, CTFC, SEC because of it's legal problems. This company is known for some of the wrong reasons, but while that's it's own fault, it is still a notable company and of great public interest. It is also the subject of intense current media and news interest as the first 'Binary Options' company to be taken to court by US regulators. This is ironic as the company built up a huge online presence with numerous puff pieces and claims of the CEO's past in NY Hedge Funds. I note that since Banc de Binary's own editors failed to whitewash the page to suit their needs, they have simply hit on another ruse which is to delete it. The very conception of deletion was raised by a sockpuppet and some of the contributors above also appear to be from Banc de Binary. This is an article about a company, which is currently making the news and the sources comes from excellent places.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The article looks fine to me, with notability well-established. Note also this discussion at ANI. GoldenRing (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page has bad content and the preference links are seems to be like manually created so they can refer to Wiki for better preference for their reviews. And some of the reference links are also deleted from the websites so anyone can imagine that the article is totally "spurious". Also in article there is mention UK virtual office with reference link which is http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1382112367&#result and its shown as a not found The provided information is totally wrong so deletion of the article need to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The4887 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — The4887 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The4887. The message you got earlier was a "timed out" not a 404. I just clicked on the link and it works fine. What other references to do you object to? What is the "bad content" you are objecting to? In any case, the existence of broken links is not a valid reason to delete an article. It's a valid reason to fix them. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, if not for anything good, minor firm with a hinky history. Ignore obvious COI edits and s.p.a./sockpuppet accounts only here to cover up what they don't want to see known. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's marginally notable, and we have a few good references. It's a brand or affiliate or subsidiary of Spot Option, which hosts about 200 or so online storefronts doing what Banc de Binary does. (See, for example, Banc de Swiss.[14]) There's what appears to be a sizable link farm promoting Banc de Binary. (See, for example, My Banc de Binary Review [15]) Most of the first hundred or so Google results seem to be mostly link farm junk. An article on Spot Option with sections on their affiliates would be more appropriate, but there's not enough hard info yet on Spot Option online for a decent article. Despite the problems of sorting the wheat of reliable sources from the chaff of SEO spamming, the COI issues, and the sockpuppets, I'm inclined towards "keep". I could see converting this to a Spot Option article and making Banc de Binary a redirect, but that may be premature. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article is a bit of a mess with a lot of POV statements, the company is notable even in the negative and so justifies having an article. Better to clean this up and remove the POV content rather than delete it. Sargdub (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The references are not even in valid form, because every reference link quotes differently, there is nothing similar between those references all contents are invalid in reference to the website.If some votes are for keep and edit the content, I strictly recommend not to update but delete, because you can see that how much wrong data is noted in this article. So intentionally the content is created to be wrong to misguide the people regarding Banc De Binary. Found nothing for US Regulatory Issues in any manner as presented here in wikipedia on Banc De binary. Deletion of this content is necesarry because some of the points like SEC and CTFC are totally in wrong manner.If some votes are for keep and edit the content, I strictly recommend not to update but delete, because you can see that how much wrong data is noted in this article. So intentionally the content is created to be wrong to misguide the people regarding Banc De Binary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The4887 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — The4887 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You've just !voted twice. GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the second !vote. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs work, but the sources do seem to indicate notability. I wouldn't expect this to be the last time we see this article up here, though. HOT WUK (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Notability established. Having read this page before I read the article, I was expecting a stub with a half-dozen dodgy cites. Looking at the article with my lowered expectations, it's really not that bad. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A7 and CSD A11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Hash Oil[edit]

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

No reliable sources for this fringe medical treatment. Also WP:NOTHOWTO TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might be a hoax. In any event, completely fails to meet basic Wikipedia standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. IMHO it's close to speedy deletion under A11 or A7 - Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simone_Frintrop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Simone Frintrop

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

I feel that the article can be deleted for reasons within the "Deletion of biographies and BLPs" section in Wikipedia's deletion policy. It covers a seemingly random German researcher affiliated with the German University of Bonn. The University also happens to own the most IP addresses that edited the article (starting with 131). Furthermore, the article is orphaned. Accountneccessary (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominmation. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BLP and possibly WP:CONFLICT Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With an h-index of 17 in a highly cited field this BLP of a junior academic is too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. As Xxanthippe says, this is a high-citation area, so an h-index of 17 is not enough to be convincing of WP:PROF#C1. And what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford Bank Street[edit]

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

Despite the article's claim that this is "a major bus interchange", it is in fact simply one of many bus stops around the town, which just happens to be near (not even adjacent) to a shopping centre. I can't think how you could spin something of encyclopaedic importance out of this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, non-notable street. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Buscruft. Never seen one survive afd. Szzuk (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition of the picture has almost persuaded me to change my vote! Szzuk (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Deb per CSD G11 (unambiguous adverting or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicommerce Uniware[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:ORG, also unreferenced. CSDs removed numerous times. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 10:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a genuine article with relative content. Instead of deletation,I would request suggestions to improve it's content.☏(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A7, "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short Stories (Band)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:Band. The Notability is not proven. There are no references at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I've tagged it with CSD#A7 for the above reasons, and also because no real significance has been established. Anyone can form a non-notable band, and release a non-notable EP. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raavi vari street[edit]

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

I don't see why would a street in a village be notable enough to have separate article. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources, and Google turns up nothing. Doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance. Grayfell (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly nothing notable about this street. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 05:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it states no claim of notability, nor does it seem to have coverage. Of course in looking for sources, it should not be confused with "Raavi Vari Street" in the town of Tenali, in Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh, which has slightly more going for it, but probably not enough for notability either. See the opinion of editor Grutness at Wikipedia:STREET. --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note, in passing, that the village of Yanamalakuduru is part of the greater urban area of Vijayawada city. --Bejnar (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Branson[edit]

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

Unsourced PORN BLP. No non-scene awards of any note, no reliable sourcing. Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only minor or scene-related award wins. Fails GNG. No reliable source coverage cited. Search for sources yielded cast lists and passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - few winners, meets the requirements of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's accurate assessment, reflecting consensus in parallel deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)`
Delete per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:WilyD per CSD A7, "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Gohel[edit]

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

Unnotable person. Fails WP:GNG. Skr15081997 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flood (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Almost WP:G4, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (animator). The only improvement to this latest recreation is the addition of a single source from a site (VoiceOverTimes), which doesn't, to my eyes, have enough editorial oversight to make it an WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pulling up some false positives for an artist by the same name that looks to have come from Houston and is not the same person, so a bit of a warning there. Although on a side note, he could probably get an article himself if anyone was interested in writing it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I can't find anything to show that he passes notability guidelines now. The VOT source could be seen as a RS in some aspects, but even if the decision for that was unanimous it still wouldn't be usable as a RS to show that Flood now passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just can't find anything establishing notability. I am One of Many (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 7-Eleven. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7-Eleven in Taiwan[edit]

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

non notable topic. delete or possibly merge to 7-eleven. See also the AFD for FamilyMart in Taiwan Gaijin42 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article all material worth salvaging. Alexius08 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 7-Eleven. Target article already has the requisite geographical sections. Unique products/services can be listed there. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 7-Eleven per above. No independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Member (2014 Movie)[edit]

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

Non-notable (per WP:FILM) independent film in development. Could be notable for an article at some point, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find evidence to establish that this film meets WP:GNG or WP:NFF. Gongshow talk 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything either. I'm not opposed to them userfying the data and running it through AfC, but right now it's just too soon. I did give the user a warning about their screenname as it can be seen as promotional. I had initially blocked them, but the name wasn't entirely obvious as a promotional username (since it didn't go by the company name or by the film's name) so I reversed the block and recommended that they change it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Aside from the official website at Weebly, I can't find a trace of this film or its production company outside Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and is basically an advert. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - TOOSOON. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. With no available sources, TOO SOON is a kindness. Anyone wish to bring this new contributor under their wing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Graham[edit]

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

Not notable until he's played in a regular or post-season NFL game per WP:NGRIDIRON. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG either. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to work at it to even figure out who this article is about!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent unsourced BLP with no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Graham Parker is notable. Parker Graham, however, needs to play a pro down in the NFL regular season — at which point I would hope that this article would be seriously upgraded. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Europe[edit]

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

I am completely unconvinced about the notability of the topic, and I can't really figure out what the organisation really does by reading the article. Slashme (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep While the writing of the article has some issues, I think that the organization has some potential as its own article, with me finding several news reports on it. Staglit (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. There's no reason it couldn't be notable, and may be notable in the future, but the independent sourcing does not appear to be there at the moment. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album). j⚛e decker ^talk 06:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Piece of Heaven (song)[edit]

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

Prodded as "No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS." Prod removed and three references added, a self-promo, a wiki article and the common Allmusic write up. Still nothing to prove notability of this "9th track from their self-titled allbum" Richhoncho (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing approaching notability in this article. Love the self-ref back to the Wiki article for the album though. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Visvanathan[edit]

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

Recently deproded by an ip. The rationale of the PROD was "Article of a minor academic & columnist. Non notable. Only sources are self published material from subject's empolyers.", which I agree with the nominator. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 15 gives a possible keep of WP:Prof#C1 for this public intellectual. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article caught my attention, when I found it included subject facebook page [[16]]. Then, when I read through the article. found it had been badly written and uses self published source of subject and his employer. Tried to find independent sources that talks about the the subject and was unable to find anything. If we can get independent sources that talk about this subject, we can keep with a complete rework of this article.Prodigyhk (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research Foundation for Governance in India[edit]

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

The article is fairly non- neutral and the article is merely promotion of the organisation. The page creator is one of the directors of the organisation Uncletomwood (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be self promotion under WP:COS, author does appear to be the lead in the organisation and no other authors have added any credible information to improve the article. Potentially falls foul of WP:notability as none of the major members appears to be notable in their own right Amortias (T)(C) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm open to persausion, but from the sources it seems to get quasi-regular coverage from the major Indian english-language newspapers. Do we have a guideline for thinktanks? --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shia–Sunni relations. Taking what appears to be the most favoured redirect target, but anyone should feel free to re-target if a better article is available. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dua Sanamain Quraish[edit]

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

This dua (prayer), if it is indeed real, is not notable. The article, whether the prayer is real or not, is merely a copy paste of a primary source. I have not found a single scholarly article or book from a notable publisher which even mentions this, though I have found a lot from publishing houses in India which make it clear that their content consists of Wikipedia articles. I have not found a single reputable website which mentions this prayer at all, though I have found a lot of Wikipedia mirrors showing exactly what is written here. I have found the prayer at some Muslim polemical websites where different sects argue, but all such sites are of disputed authenticity by other sects and none of them have proper editorial boards; they're just polemicists ranting. I have found mention of this prayer on Muslim discussion forums, but none of the discussions predate the creation of this article. Even if it is theoretically a real prayer, there is no proof for any sort of notability at all. It's just a copy paste of a primary source only reflected in Wikipedia mirrors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge if appropriate, probably not simply delete -- I don't know any of the technical details, but Shi`ite traditions of cursing some or all of the pre-Ali (and therefore Sunni-only) caliphs are quite notorious in the Middle East, even if such customs are rarely practiced in most areas today. This little Google search turns up over 2,000 results, many quite reputable looking. Probably preferable to set up an article with the title Shiite traditions of cursing the first caliphs or similar... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this Arabic-script Google search turns up quite a lot of results. Maybe part of the problem is that the letter "n" in Dua Sanamain Quraish" is completely incorrect and bogus! This Google search gets 700 results... AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnonMoos, I actually would agree with creation of an article on "cursing first three caliphs," but what realistically can we merge from here? This is just copy paste of a prayer that, even in the links you provided, is only mentioned on discussion forums and Youtube. Even the Arabic version of the search you provided is entirely from blogs and discussion forums in Arabic. My question isn't rhetorical by the way, you might be on to something. If we have an article on "cursing the first three caliphs" we can surely find reliable sources on that topic, but how does this specific prayer in its current copy pasted form on this article fit in?

I still think this should be deleted per my reasoning above and because I can't think of how the text in this specific article could be used in another, but if there's something I've missed that can be pointed out to me, I'd withdraw the request. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shia–Sunni relations or possibly Islam in Iran. It seems to have been a genuine custom in some parts of pre-15th century Shia-ism, but it's not notable; none of the sources give more than a sentence to it. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if not even one source gives more than passing mentions, this is not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements and, even if it did, the article does not contain sufficient scholarly value. Andrew³²⁷ 03:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiana Tambosi[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage in secondary sources. I can't determine how the subject would pass the general notability requirements or the WP:NMODEL requirements. ParacusForward (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - really can't see anything to support notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cute but not notable, only one minor source. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois[edit]

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

I feel this is a violation of WP:NOTDIR and have serious questions about the article's notability, as NWS Chicago does not seem to function differently from any other NWS office (assuming NWS offices themselves can be notable) and does not seem to have a remarkable history. —203 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, this seems to be not only a fine article, but a great way to organize the NOAA Weather Radio radio stations by main NWS office rather than many redundant articles. The article is sourced itself and I see no outstanding issues; at that this is the NWS office for a major metropolitan area and it would be myopic to delete it, especially as it seems to be the official NWS office for northern Illinois. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I struggle to see how those statements imply notability. This article does not pass WP:GNG because it lacks adequate sources showing significant coverage by independent sources. Every source in the article is from either NOAA or NWS Chicago. If we're going to make list articles of NOAA Weather Radio stations by WFO, they should be titled as such, and they would still have to establish the notability of the list itself to avoid another WP:NOTDIR violation. —203 01:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Not to be bringing up a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but on that last part (by Blurred203), if you use that argument here, you could delete several other NWS articles for WFOs as well, and one of the WFO articles (also in Illinois, I think) received a good article rating. I am just bringing that up so you don't end up deleting a whole mass of decent or potentially good articles based on notability. Dustin (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually question the GA review of the article to which you're referring, and I'll likely put it up for reassessment when I get a chance. I do not find the rigor I expect in a GA review by any means, but regardless, a non-notable article should not be present on Wikipedia regardless of whether it qualifies as a good article. Much of my response to Nate above also applies here. Both NWS Chicago and NWS Central Illinois's articles rely heavily on sources from NOAA or the NWS office itself, though the NWS Central Illinois article is better in that regard. This article has precisely zero independent sources. —203 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article doesn't look to me to violate WP:NOTDIR, it is sourced, and quite useful for an encyclopaedia. I am One of Many (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question we have to answer here is each of the 123 national weather forecast offices notable or worth giving articles too? - Personally i think Guam, Honolulu and Pago-Pago may be worth it, since they have to issue Tropical Storm Warnings and sort of have international responsibilities.Jason Rees (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What about certain other notable forecast offices in the contiguous United States? There are a few that I would consider significant there, as well, including a few located in the US interior. Dustin (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no opinion on those.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question -- we had to deal with this with individual meteorologists pages a year or two -- what establishes notability for a NWS weather forecast office? They all issue forecasts, coordinate with national centers on watches, and issue warnings. Some of them are doing news conferences too, usually involving recent tornadoes. Deciding notability is important, as it could threaten the articles we have on the NWS National Centers as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that to be a very simple question, but here is my response. Notability altogether for a NWS WFO should be decided based upon a combination of factors; some of these factors would include references from media, importance of research done by this office, historical importance of the WFO (e.g. first weather radar, major firsts for weather forecasting, etc.), references (not including list mentions) from other parts of the government (including other parts of NOAA), and others which I am yet to think of. That is just what I think; I believe that there would be at least a few NWS WFOs which meet those criteria, and so in my opinion, there should be articles for at least a few of them. Dustin (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair way to go -- you'd favor the offices which were formerly WSFOs -- State Forecast Offices -- like Chicago, Peachtree City/Atlanta, Miami, Birmingham, Jackson, etcetera and possibly those which were former hurricane warning offices/marine weather forecasting offices, which would include Boston, D.C./Sterling, Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans/Burrwood, San Francisco, Honolulu, and Seattle. Maybe even the SPC predecessor's home in Kansas City/Pleasant Hill. The Paducah KY office article would likely not pass this criteria. It's best to spell this out now -- there are only eight NWS offices with articles, the last time I checked. All the National Centers have articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the predecessor centers / offices, I would just include relevant information in an article titled under the office's current name; while these offices may be significant, there probably wouldn't be enough information to fill two separate articles with. Also, I don't understand what you mean "which were formerly WSFOs;" that just stands for Weather Service Forecast Office. There are more than eight WFOs with articles; see List of National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices. I once created an article for an NWS WFO, National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma, but it was, wrongly, I believe, speedily deleted. Then, a user asked an admin to userfy it, which was promptly done. I eventually moved it back to my user space; I don't know if that will have any impact upon this AFD, but I thought I would mention it. Dustin (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The former WSFOs/former marine and former hurricane offices would have a potentially extensive history (research-wise or otherwise) associated with them, as they were the main forecast offices at the time and would have been the source of research papers for many years, fax transmissions and, far enough back, input in the surface analyses drawn at the time (I'm finding evidence of this in 1949 and 1950). OUN/Norman would fit in here, as it is a continuation of the OK City office. Offices like PAH/Paducah, CRP/Corpus Christi TX, and Springfield, MO/SGF were not WSFOs, they were WSOs, meaning there would be minimal history other than maybe that they took observations, performed pilot weather briefings, initiated weather warnings in the radar era, did weather radio transmissions from around 1970 onward, and perhaps launched weather balloons -- that could be covered in a few lines at most. All that aside, the Chicago article needs a lot of work -- it seems only their weather radio transmitters get much coverage (it's unbalanced). Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that this article needs work. Just to support the notion that NWS office can be notable, it would be best if there were an article that was good enough in terms of secondary sources and reliable sources to indicate coverage. It wouldn't matter if there were some unreliable sources (to indicate notability); it would only matter that it had a combination of primary and at least a few secondary sources. Am I being clear here? I don't know if any currently existing articles on the list meet those criteria, but I am certain (because of my user space OUN article) that it is possible for at least some of these offices to meet these standards if given enough work. Dustin (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pretty much all current NWS WFOs were former WSFOs (like WFO ALY - formerly called WSFO ALB) or WSOs that were "spun up" into WFOs (like WFO BTV - formerly WSO BTV) in the 1990s. There were a small number of WSFOs that were formerly called "Category One WSFOs" (like WFO BOX - formerly WSFO BOS), which were basically WSFOs with offshore marine forecasting responsibilities & therefore a higher GS grade structure to them (their Lead Forecasters were GS-14s, their General Forecasters were GS-13s, their Meteorologists-in-Charge's were GS-15s, etc.). I'm pretty sure that some, but not all, of that difference in pay grade structure still exists today. Guy1890 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to look this up...it's been a year or two since I thought about the NWS structure from the 1980s and early 1990s. There were 52 WSFOs (mentioned on page 52), as opposed to the over 120 WFOs that current exist. The only offices with GS-14 lead forecasters these days are the National Centers and Honolulu (which is nearly a national center). MIC pay structure is mottled...some spin-up WFOs got GS-15 MICs if they had the combination of marine responsibility and/or portions of three states in their area while others have GS-14s. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the remaining Lead Forecasters & General Forecasters at the old Category One WSFOs were downgraded one grade a number of years ago. Some of those GS-13 General Forecasters were given the opportunity to non-competively bid out on GS-13 Lead Forecaster job openings at many of the spin-up WSOs in the late 1990s. The grade structure of the management people (MICs, Science Operations Officers, etc.) at modern WFOs has a lot to do with how many people live in a WFO's County Warning Area (CWA), how complex the terrain is in a CWA, whether a WFO has marine forecasting responsibility, whether a WFO is a state liason office, whether a WFO has international coordination responsibilities, etc.. Not all of this criteria was necessary applied equally across the entire USA, but that's really inside baseball. Guy1890 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know all of this? I am having trouble finding relevant information when making searches. Dustin (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work for the NWS, so I might be biased in voting on this particular article at AfD. Not that it matters, but it looks like "Thegreatdr" apparently does work for the NWS. Guy1890 (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that (in your second sentence)? Perhaps I am missing something here? In any case, how can all of this be applied to the office we are discussing for the AFD? Dustin (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Williamson[edit]

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

A Google search reveals no reliable sources to, in fact of the sources that do exist (poor quality and only mentions her in passing) her name is actually Virginia Londner or Virginia Londner Green. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 00:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on the fence doesn't seem to pass GNG for now. @Ottawahitech: can you get more sources that cover her life and impact on Byte magazine and early computing in more detail? Also need to determine best name for the article as Mrfrobinson is right in the sources I found she was Virginia Green. But I think we need more than just the fact she founded a magazine - we need more detailed coverage of her. Such might exist in magazines from the late 70s, early 80s but would require likely going to the library. One option might be to move to draft space while additional sources are found to establish notability - I have a guess that she might pass but need to see more sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was the problem I had, on the surface she looks notable except there is barely any mention of her anywhere. You would think there would be even a news article that mentions her but I came up empty handed. Plus the name thing is a big issue. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the name worries me less - thAts a matter of just finding the best title. But for now we need some way to establish notability, which would probably require pulling old magazines from a library that might have a more detailed profile of her and discuss the impact she had on computing. Absent that we should prob delete for non-notability or Userfy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that bothers me about the name is it makes the search hard, I've just found another reference to her but her name was Peschke in that one. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just put the other names she is known by in the lede of the article, and list any other new names you find here so ppl looking for sources can find them. If kept we could discuss a rename later.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Finding sources for this subject is difficult as she has had many surnames, including Green, Londner, Peschke, and Williamson. As the founder and publisher of an important computer magazine in the early days of personal computers, she has some claim to notability though. The book Priming the Pump: How TRS-80 Enthusiasts Helped Spark the PC Revolution has more than a passing mention of her. She also figures prominently in the history of Byte magazine. I'm still looking for a reference to support that she was a vice president of McGraw-Hill, which I imagine would also add to her notability. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that reference I wish I could change my nomination to strong delete. It states that once she become the owner of Byte she quickly sold it to McGraw-Hill. I am sorry but if that is true quickly flipping a business obtained from a divorce does not equate notability. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 02:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She had a longer term relationship with the magazine than that. She and Wayne were also the first employees in 73 (magazine), the predecessor to Byte (see [17]). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if any of the statements in this diff for Byte (magazine) could be verified, it might be sufficient to make her notable. However, all I have been able to find are copies of old versions of Byte (magazine). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It sounds like she should be notable, but I haven't been able to find any good sources. I'll happily change my vote if anyone can find any that do more than mention her. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources check out. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a few people have said they aren't adequate, perhaps you could provide some detail? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My answer:

is a users' organization, and it mentions her twice
vintagecomputer.com appears to be reliable, and discusses a "publishing predicament [that] would never be settled...."
is a local source, but WP:AGF, and mentions her in passing
is also a local source, but 'small town papers' can be reliable; this has more of an extensive discussion, and
may not be reliable (is The Seeker Books a vanity publisher?). Bearian (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources online include The Internet Archive and The PC Museum. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Miller[edit]

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

Non-notable local government employee, covered in only local publications. LGA _talk^edits 05:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, reads like a CV. Probably speedy A7. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article is User:Cbnauert's first and, so far, only contribution to the project, though I assume it's done in good faith, especially since the user seems to be part of an education programme in public administration. GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hired manager of local government of a city of about 45,000 people. More appropriate for LinkedIn. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page is properly formatted and referenced but far from notable. I can't seem to find any other pages on City Managers. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sampoornesh Babu[edit]

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

Not a notable actor yet and page seems bias. Apparently only 1 film so far (which was just released as well) Wgolf (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One sentence article and one source. Nothing shows notability or significant coverage in reliable sources.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hrudaya Kaleyam and fix either the spelling of this name, or the spelling of the name there. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is completely promotional and coverage is low. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: Neither of those is a valid deletion reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: My point was that the article has too little coverage to meet WP:NACTOR, and promotional material is not allowed under WP:DEL-REASON. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: The correct reason for your !vote would be "disregarding promotional material, there is inadequate coverage in reliable sources." Except you have a broader idea of "promotional material" than I do, and mine seems a little more extensive than the general WP:CONSENSUS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. Essentially, this is an unreferenced biography, because neither source is reliable. Even if everything were true, it is so badly written and sourced as to require blowing up. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to even get a passing claim at notability. Even if there were, the article itself has serious WP:BLP issues. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 02:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Number 5 7 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzegovinian Radio Festival[edit]

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

Festival which was held only twice (in 2007 and 2008) and which seems obscure even by local standards. Fails WP:GNG, Google search yields only routine media coverage of those two editions. Timbouctou (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. Checked everywhere. Absolutely nothing. Small amount of content anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A "small amount of content" is not a reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found several Croatian language sources that seem to be reliable enough.CTAГЛИT (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please show these actual sources. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. a search by its croation name "Hercegovački Radijski Festival" yields one line mentions in events listings and blogs. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Levin (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charles Levin (actor)

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

person does not meet criteria for notability, this person is a relative unknown, no biographical significance, and the person in question is the likely creator for self-promotion. Longstanding request for citation has gone unfulfilled. TheFurorDivinus (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think his role as a regular in a hit TV show (Alice) is enough to make him notable. Sources should be added, but he certainly seems encyclopedia-worthy. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One, partisan source cannot save an article. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's marginal whether he meets WP:ACTOR: "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He was in every episode in Capital News and a regular in one series of Alice (TV series) and starred in 1980 TV movie Brothers (which currently doesn't have an article), as well as a reasonably big though not leading role in the film Honeysuckle Rose and the odd "footnote in tv history" role like the pilot of Golden Girls and in Seinfeld. How many of those were significant though? Plus some guest roles which normally aren't considered enough to meet that requirement. The lack of sources about him is a problem, and if there were a few things even saying "hey look at this guy he popped up in Spinal Tap" I'd lean keep, but no indication any of his roles were particularly noted or iconic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Archetypal psychology. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginal psychology[edit]

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

Fringe and not widely known or reported course from Meridian University.[18] With that being said, the page is a copyright violation. At this time, there is no Meridian University page to redirect this to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUPINONEDAY. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archetypal psychology, and remove copyvio from history. The last sentence in the article says "Imaginal psychology is also known as archetypal psychology". From a few sources, especially 3, there is a link between the two terms. If someone points out the two terms are different, then delete it. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 12:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Archetypal psychology; imaginal psychology seems to be a different term for the same thing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: thorough attempts to find reliable secondary sources per MEDRS have failed. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autosomal chromosome epigenetic silencing to cure Down syndrome[edit]

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

A case study of a result in one paper. The last section might be better to be put in a paragraph of Down syndrome rather than an individual article. Mys_721tx (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?. Looks like original synthesis. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Some info can maybe be merged into Trisomy 21, but that is just a single (even if remarkable) study. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge subsection, Autosomal Silencing with XIST, into page on Down syndrome research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenderboutons (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article lacks secondary sources to support the material that are recommended by WP:MEDRS; this is synthesis of several primary sources, with heavy reliance on a single August 2013 study in Nature. It's a very important, groundbreaking study, but is preliminary, foundational research that probes what it refers to as "the major first step towards potential development of 'chromosome therapy'". Merging elsewhere is inappropriate; medical topics are treated differently than other subjects on Wikipedia, and coverage of proposed medical cures should generally be referenced with secondary sources, not individual studies (primary sources). Rationale and details for the different treatment are discussed in WP:MEDRS and its Talk page archives. If secondary sources can be found with substantial information on this approach, it may warrant an article, but I didn't find any; the Nature article is recent, and while it has been widely cited in medical literature, it does not seem to have been cited in any reviews yet. (Note: I'm a layperson with no medical expertise; weigh my opinion accordingly). Agyle (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WASP (Winning and Score Predictor)[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:Notability. Sources do not confirm any notability and include some which are deadlinks and others like the match scorecard which are incidental. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect to one of the academics behind this, if they're notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has quite a bit of coverage from a range of sources (from a quick Google search). I don't know if it is of significance to the cricketing community but may be notable enough for a keep if they agree. NealeFamily (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this methodology is now being utilised within UK coverage of cricket as well as New Zealand where the technique was developed. I think this may become an established part of future coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fd2006 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wasp has been shown to be a useful and interesting statistical guide, and is being used on major broadcasting channels in their coverage of the 20/20 format and is proving a great talking point both for the commentators and amongst the viewing community - it will become a significant part of television cricket coverage and I would suggest the entry should be kept.Gkt57uk (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Evidently it is becoming widely used so I suppose it will attain notability but the editors need to observe WP:MOS and especially categorisation which I have now done for them. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excursion Insurance[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this product as separate from Liability insurance, only reference is to the company "excursioninsurance.com" Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It exists, but I'm not sure there's enough for a stand alone article. It could find a mention on another article though. Bali88 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = this seems to be an ad for a brand of Travel insurance. Even if kept, it would have to be started from scratch, per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consider speedy G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional and the only source to support it is from a blog. Meatsgains (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Red[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable group, fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND, no additional notability since last time it was deleted. In fact, the article even seems to go out of its way to confirm this ("Currently, in the year 2009...", LOL!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. All I could find are profiles in unreliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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