Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 January	7 January >

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. G7 Wily D 23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Dodkins

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion found at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The article's references are all self-referential, and I could find no coverage from Independent Reliable Sources in a search. PROD was removed by author without comment. MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree completely with the nominator, this person does not meed the minimum notability guidelines. I would suggest we included Foundations for Customer Centricity‎ with this nomination as well, this is James' book. VViking_TalkEdits 12:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book could be nominated separately; I think it is too late to add it to this nomination which has already been running for a day. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete unnotable. .. Mean as custard (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it does not qualify for "speedy delete" , which requires that there not even be any claim of significance or importance; the book and the creation of a method probably count as claims of significance. For some reason the author of the article deleted ~~about three-fourths~~ all of the content after it was listed at AfD; to see the original version, look in the history. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the author at their talk page why they deleted the text. They left the images, so it does not qualify for G7 speedy at this point, but maybe that's what they had in mind. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7/G7 - I've tagged as such since the nom's blanked the article. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 13 January 2015 (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. Article might be recreated under its proper name in the future when WP:NFF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bourne Betrayal (2016 film)

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

The film has no release date or title, and has not entered production. So this article is basically a hoax. Koala15 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source? Come on, we need more sources. Delete. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the fact that one redirect already exists. Does not qualify as a WP:HOAX as there is enough reporting that the studio "wants" to make the film. Whether that happens or not is a WP:CRYSTAL situation. FAR TOO SOON also applies. If it isn't deleted ~~then it should certainly be redirected to Bourne (film series)#Future and~~ any useful WPRSed info should be added there. MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bourne (film series)#Future or Delete. It's not a hoax. However, it seems to have been put on hold. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question of procedure for the closing admin. Per the link provided by NRP showing that the film may not get a 2016 release. Is it better to delete the article now or come back and delete the article/redirect when a release year is confirmed? MarnetteD|Talk 16:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that you've raised that question, I just realized that the excessive disambiguation is unnecessary. The Bourne Betrayal (film) already exists as a redirect, which makes this one redundant (and not very useful if it won't even have a 2016 release). Since any release date is now speculative at best, I'd say it should just be deleted. I'll adjust my vote accordingly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for doing the research on this NinjaRobotPirate I will adjust mine as well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the information provided by NinjaRobotPirate. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2015 (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 Boston Christmas Tree. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ross H. Pentz

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

WP:BLP of a person with no genuinely substantive claim to passing any of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines — he's just a government employee whose job it is to select a Christmas tree, which is not a role that would be expected to earn somebody permanent coverage in an encyclopedia, and who's sourced only to a minimal selection of human interest "meet the guy who picked the tree" coverage that doesn't demonstrate any real notability. Try as I might, I just can't see any reason why this would be anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston Christmas Tree. That article includes a list of the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Christmas Tree Specialists, including Pentz. That's fine to include as details in the larger topic, but I can't see any possible way said Specialists would warrant their own articles absent further grounds for notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston Christmas Tree. He's mentioned in that article but he lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 06:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article with additional sources to show the notability. --Briancua (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston Christmas Tree, as he has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources outside of that WP:ONEEVENT. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston Christmas Tree - Not much to Merge so Redirect seems better. –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I planned on closing as Redirect but I thought I saw 2 Keeps hence !voting .... Turns out I'm seeing things!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Several references, but not enough depth to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:00, 14 January 2015 (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. KTC (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purplay

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Random86 (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 24 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per N. kashmiri ^TALK 00:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Asdklf; (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Comment: some evaluation of the copious extant sources would be appropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 21:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate reliable sources and depth of coverage. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. At first glance the source list almost looks impressive (by kpop standards) but the article is four lines long. There's been some kind of misuse of sources perhaps. Additionally, some of the sources, despite being Korean, are not reliable (crotch close-ups on one - that always says "serious journalism!"). One is a Japanese blog gossip blog. I looked around - everything appears to have at its root the group's self-published sources. Only one song, apparently(?). Way WP:TOO SOON, at the very least. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya (band)

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

No evidence of notability. Random86 (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. As with Shinvi, I'd rather see some of these much older groups kept around for a little while for further evaluation. It's hard to find sources from 2001 and hard to know just how notable they may have been. Tons of new artists are considered notable with much less than two albums, because we have a glut of online sources for them. It's a natural result of temporal systematic bias. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:04, 31 December 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 ⨹ 21:48, 6 January 2015 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Academy, 1992

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

This does not appear to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 21:04, 29 December 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 ⨹ 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUMS. Vrac (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. References do not support WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:43, 14 January 2015 (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavy NJ

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

This group may be notable, but there is nothing here to indicate that. Random86 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 24 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 21:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm pretty sure this group strongly passes notability requirements, but the article is poorly-written and does not include much information. Information on their newer activities may require following allkpop links to see if any of its reliable, but their older activities will be harder to document, as just a cursory search found original articles on reliable sources to have since been deleted. At any rate, this article can be improved. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:16, 31 December 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 ⨹ 21:45, 6 January 2015 (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. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aircharter

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

Article was written by User:Adamecho, who is either an employee or owner of this 46-employee company. Please delete because it fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. (I suspect it also fails WP:AUD.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 21:05, 29 December 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 ⨹ 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's got a generic name, so it's not exactly easy to locate sources. However, "aircharter" "john harrison" gets extremely few hits on Google and nothing on Google News. The article seems to be made of non-independent primary sources and a few questionable ones that don't even mention the phrase "aircharter.com" anywhere. Given that the article was created by an employee (diff), I'm going to say that we should wait until better evidence of notability is presented. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to agree. If anything, the selected references indicate that the predecessor FlightTime may have been notable; their inclusion implies an attempt to make AirCharter.com seem notable by inheritance, but WP:NOTINHERITED. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beaverton, Montana

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously; meets WP:GEOLAND, real place recognized by the US govt; being a gazetteer is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carlos. It's a "populated place" according to the GNIS government database. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While a poorly sourced article about a neighbourhood within a larger municipality can be redirected to the larger topic instead of standing alone as a separate article, any populated place that has really existed is always entitled to either an article or a redirect and may never be deleted as "non-notable" under WP:GEOLAND. Keep unless a viable redirect target can be identified. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn my error. Thanks to the participants, Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian miniature artist

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

I am not understanding what the article is about. Could not know whether it fits into G1 or needs a major rewrite as appears to be copy pasted from another source. So nominating it for deletion. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, I don't understand either. It seems it's about an artist named Bashir Ahmad. There are multiple reason for deleting the article. It doesn't follow wikipedia guideline at all. It doesn't follow writing style. There are no references for the relevant information, looks like copy-pasted from any document or any website which violates copyright WP:C-P and fails to meet wikipedia notability. Happiest persoN (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Article appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO created by Ustad bashir ahmed pakistani painter, -who is a Pakistani miniature artist and head of "National College of Arts" -[1]- and in the article they have made some claim of notability that at this moment, I'm uncertain of.. one source that suggest that they may be notable is, their coverage in Tribune pk. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But I do not understand the logic behind a Pakistani miniature artist described in an Indian miniature article. Moreover it seems that the author has even copy pasted some talk page of an article into this article. Even if the article is notable i think the article has gone beyond repair threshold. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been deleted as a user page (U5) and as Ustad bashir ahmad pakistani painters (G11) already. It's promo for the subject, and basically is his CV. There was also a deleted template and there is a sandbox. Whether notable or not, this is quite unencyclopaedic as it stands, and I am definitely not volunteering to unravel it. Peridon (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no reason to keep this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't understand either. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references to support WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:41, 14 January 2015 (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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-border derby

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

A lot of WP:OR used here, written in a local context.. what about outside of the UK? Fails WP:NOTSTATS too JMHamo (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there has been coverage, so probably scrapes WP:GNG, see The Independent, Daily Post, BBC (among others) - the article just happens to be in awful state, currently violates WP:NOTSTATS and as the nom says is full of WP:OR. It needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: What is your opinion on the title of this article? Have you any suggestions for renaming it? JMHamo (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: that's a matter for WP:RM, not AFD - however a Google search for "Cross-border derby" does perhaps show that to be the COMMONNAME. Giant Snowman 13:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable derby between two professional clubs, most games of which have been played in a fully-professional league. The most recent derby attracted a decent amount of coverage due to it being a "bubble match" (e.g. When Saturday Comes and plenty more here). Number 5 7 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per GS, needs sourced prose adding to it, but this does seem to be a rivalry for which significant non-routine coverage exists. I would suggest that a lot of the stats / line ups and the like could go though. Fenix down (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum genre

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

Extremely skeptical of this topic having any notability whatsoever, given that the provided sources all appear to be of a self-published nature. Had tagged for speedy, disputed by IP. Article creator had username 'vulea' and the first item on list of references is written by a 'V. Ulea', so it has crossed my mind that there's some conflict of interest issues here, too. Dolescum (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM or WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. War wizard90 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. A search doesn't bring up anything to show that this is anything other than a neologism used to describe a specific set of works. It doesn't appear to actually be used by anyone or really discussed anywhere that would be a RS. D. Harlan Wilson did mention this in a 2010 blog post but at the same time it was in relation to some stories he was publishing in one of V. Ulea's books so it's primary at best. Considering that the article claims that Ulea came up with this concept in 2008, the almost complete lack of coverage and mentions of this genre shows that the attempt to coin this as a new genre never caught on and as such this just isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Sometimes trying to create a new genre works (new adult fiction), sometimes it doesn't. In this case it didn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 7 January 2015 (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 LGBT rights in Sweden. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fag Army

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

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

I am posting this AfD on behalf of IP 83.254.148.228 (talk · contribs) whose reason is:

An editor suggested that I ask that these articles be deleted. They both concern Swedish facebook groups that were reported in Swedish national newspapers that discussed exactly one illegal act, (a) respectively hitting a cabinet minister in the face with a pie and (b) putting up posters on buildings in Malmö supporting Donbass insurgents and attacking Kiev's government in the city of Malmö.
(a) Fag Army's pie-thrower was named in the media. Please note that the Swedish article was deleted, following a discussion on the article talk page.
(b) Email from the Donbass Association Malmö (misnamed) was reported in an unreliable source; this email states that the facebook group was founded by four 20-30 year olds who fear having their names revealed. I can imagine that one or more may not yet be an adult.

I have not investigated these articles and express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As far as I can tell, the organization is notable because of the pie in the face incident, for which it received coverage in several sources. Thus it would seem to meet WP:ORGDEPTH, which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." On the other hand, the coverage could be considered incidental.- Mr X 19:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Won't get involved in this. I should also add though that I have yet to update the article following the pie-thrower's conviction. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stamboliyski: It's considered appropriate for the article creator to get involved in the AfD discussion. If you know of more recent sources, that would helpful.- Mr X 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I thought it was the opposite. This article by Sveriges Radio features a news report about the conviction of the assailant, a photo of him, an interview with him in which he explains the motives of his group, and a mention of him as a LGBT activist. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Swedish discussion is at sv:Diskussion:Fag Army. There does not appear to have been any Swedish article for "Donbassföreningen" or "Donbassföreningen Malmö". JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's just enough coverage to pass GNG. Vrac (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough or maybe I misread the organizational notability guidelines ("GNG"?). The guidelines warn that illegal events that make an organizational newsworthy for only one event do not establish notability, particularly if coverage of the event mentions the organization only in passing. Would you explain why concerns about illegal events or about one-event coverage do not apply here?

Did anybody bother checking the references with Google translate? You did notice that the only reliable sources for Donbass Association Malmö are signed opinion-pieces discussing the postering (one only in passing in a wider discussion of Russian propaganda) and mentioning the organization only in passing. There are a few other nonreliable sources used, which are the basis for most of the article.
A side note, particularly for special editors. A review of the page protection is in order, particularly in terms of judging who is summarily reverting all changes and who is discussing issues on the talk page (versus telling me to "fuck off" and accusing me of "vandalism").
83.254.148.228 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these two unrelated organizations shouldn't be combined into a single AFD. Vrac (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, can't see any reason why they should be treated as one. Tomas e (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge Fag Army selectively to LGBT rights in Sweden (or possibly another similar target) (haven't looked at the other and agree they should not be tied together) - This is a pretty standard delete. Only news coverage for only one event only from the time around the event. WP:CORPDEPTH is inapplicable: There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline. However, keep in mind that the organization may still be notable under separate guidelines (e.g., WP:CRIME). ...Going then to WP:CRIME (and this same text applies to WP:EVENT: An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. (i.e. WP:NTEMP). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Babbaq and Vrac: - GNG would require that coverage be about the organization versus about the event -- and if primarily notable for an event, it requires the coverage be sustaining beyond contemporaneous news reports. Aside from an update of the conviction, what evidence of sustaining coverage or sources that are about the organization aside from this one event? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge Since I've been asked to contribute, I will do so. I don't really have a strong opinion in either way, but it is my personal view that both articles fit the notability criterion within the context of Swedish national politics. Stamboliyski (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain which part of the notability policy you mean? I did not see a special guideline for "Swedish national politics" or your feelings. Thanks! 83.254.148.228 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm doesn't fit the guidelines either, buddy. I say personal opinion because I can't claim to represent a 100% objective viewpoint. It is my opinion that both articles fit GNG. Stamboliyski (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reread my non-sarcastic but direct statement. Other editors have explained that GNG specifically excludes organizations whose notability is based on one illegal event. (Putting posters on private and public property outside of public-posting zones is illegal in Sweden, obviously.) Why does this criminality exclusion not apply here? What part of notability/GNG are you citing? Also, you have not shown that there is any ongoing coverage, apart from the one night of postering. 83.254.148.228 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so aggressive? Why are you so obsessive? Why do you assume I have some type logic behind my opinion, or any desire to have such logic? I don't particularly care about this issue, but find it distressing that you're go to such lengths on it. Stamboliyski (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed voted to merge as per other contributors. Stamboliyski (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Crime is not excluded from the GNG. You're thinking of WP:CORPDEPTH. But the GNG does require sustained coverage over a period of time to show that the notability isn't temporary. Thus routine news coverage for a single event, criminal or not, is typically not sufficient to pass GNG. It's possible, however, that it could be added to another article. LGBT rights in Sweden seems a likely target, in fact, and I've changed my !vote to merge on that basis. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for another clarification. I agree that a merge for Fag Army is preferable to a self-standing article. However, in practice, a merge may function as a delete, since this event is rather trivial and GLBT rights in Sweden is a rich topic. But the decision to kill a distraction about Fag Army can be left to the editors of the gay rights in Sweden article. I would suggest merging it rather in the biography of the pieéd politician or perhaps in a section about the Swedish Christian Democratic Party about controversies, especially gender issues. is a 17:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge Fag Army to LGBT rights in Sweden- Govindaharihari (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Donbass Association: @EriFr: argued for deletion on the article talkpage. is a 21:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Is this even an organization? As far as I can see, the Swedish Donbass Association is mostly a minor Facebook page with just a handful of active followers. Of all that is written in the article, almost nothing substantial is written about the organization itself. Much is written about the alleged organization's purpose and views, but very little is written that explains who it is that has this purpose and holds these opinions. Unless additional information provides more information about the organization, I suggest that this article is deleted. EriFr (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

All reports about the alleged organization occurs during the period 10 to 14 December 2014 and relate to one single event, a night of postering. I do not believe that the alleged organization can be considered noteable at this level. EriFr (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/selective merge to Göran Hägglund or some other appropriate page. EriFr is right, as far as I can tell: this article discusses the supposed organisation behind a one-off action, so WP:NEVENT applies. Revert when it turns out this actually is an organisation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update on 'Donbass Association Malmö: The name has been corrected, following talk page consensus, based on reliable sources---this correction was delayed especially by the improper page protection. The article focuses on the postering incident and its slogans. A section discusses its goals and membership, using the sources already used---most of which are unreliable. Most of that section could be removed. The infobox has been updated. An introductory paragraph now summarizes the article. An unsourced paragraph was moved to the talk page, along with a plea for reliable sources. Please review the article history and talk page discussions and provide feed back to the editor who protected the page and to the editor who has reverted all changes repeatedly. is a 10:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They seem to only be know for the one operation that they took credit for. Juno (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Namoff

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

This is a hoax. No references are supplied, and while searches find plenty of mirrors (including the same text translated into German and Italian), I have not been able to find any independent confirmation. Early versions said that he wrote a book called Namoffnomics, of which there is also no trace. The statement that he "ran for the US Senate against Bob Graham in 1998" can be checked and is false - see United States Senate election in Florida, 1998.

The article was created by an IP, back in 2005 when that was possible, and an early edit shows that the first version had categories copied from an article Jorge E. Rodriguez. That article was created the day before, also by a Florida-based BellSouth IP, and was also a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How did this article last as long as it did? It is a hoax or very close to it. The claim of being part of the Watergate scandal made it easy to debunk. - Pmedema (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Vrac (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and place on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 00:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims about Watergate and the Senate run are implausible, failed verification. Kudos to the IP who uncovered this. Altamel (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Aldea (footballer)

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

The only claim to notability of this player is a game played for Steaua in the League Cup (which is a secondary competition, not a fully professional league). The only source is a brief interview (that doesn't really count as detailed coverage in an independent reliable source) after that match. In the meantime, he was placed on loan to a second league team that plays in a non-fully professional league, so he has never played a single game in a fully pro league. - Andrei (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - was the Cup match for Steaua against another team from a fully-professional league? If so he could pass WP:NFOOTBALL, by playing in a competitive match between two clubs from FPLs. Giant Snowman 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was the first-round (= last 16) of this season's Cupa Ligii, a Liga I-clubs-only league cup, which this season is being taken seriously, having previously been pre-season-friendlyish. So, an official compulsory competition between teams from a fully professional league. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Since the winners of this "league cup" are not granted entry into the next season's Europa League, I am inclined to consider this more of a friendly competition, particularly given its sporadic timing in terms of the various rounds indicating it is meant to fit in around the pre-existing football calendar in Romania rather than be a true part of it. As such, even though the source in the article shows he played in a match between two fully professional teams, I am not convinced this competition carries that much weight. Maybe in time it will but for now, I do not think this player quite passes WP:NFOOTY let alone GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fenix down. Giant Snowman 13:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. No references to support WP:GNG.^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:38, 14 January 2015 (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 and pretty close to keep. The case is complicated. It is possible that paid editing was involved. The nominator claims the subject of the articles issued threats against them. We have an enormously large number of new accounts voting, all or most of them voting delete and giving some rationale (mainly that the subject did not do anything notable, and there are many other photographers of similar notability and without articles). I ignored all this, though I strongly urge the nominator to contact the Wikimedia legal about the threats. I am not a fan of paid editing, but what we need to investigate is notability. Let us go to the real arguments. The books ~~presumably do not have ISBN and~~ are not found in the libraries (I did not check it personally, but DGG is a librarian, and I fully trust him). Thus, we are only discussing coverage and whether he passes WP:GNG. This is exactly where we have a problem. Some good coverage exists (the Guardian, Slate, Fox News, CNN, Vanity Fair is mentioned in one of the links), even if we ignore the Daily News. There is also an exhibition in a respectable institution in Munich. On the other hand, there are some reasons to believe that this is all or almost all coverage which exists. This is the point where the discussion participants do not agree: Whether the coverage as presented is sufficient. There are not only new accounts, but also some established users on both sides, without great numerical advantage (certainly more keeps), and this is I why close the discussion as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seph Lawless

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

~~Delete:~~ Non notable live figure. An urban explorer with no credentials does not need a Wikipedia page, much like every other explorer. No notable books (with reliable ISBN numbers), other publications and experience. seicer | talk | contribs 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed publication list earlier. No working ISBN numbers for any of them. They seem to be self published and not through the non-existent publishing house that was listed originally. seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the ISBN numbers below. Worldcat is usually pretty good about providing those, and when they aren't available (such as with older books) they'll always have an OCLC number you can use instead. Given that notability is established here via WP:GNG, we don't need to parse WP:AUTHOR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving numerous legal and personal threats from Seph Lawless, I have copied Oversight on those communications. Additionally, it seemed that the page was created by User:Bernie44, long outed as a paid editor. Per the communications sent to Oversight, it can be verified. seicer | talk | contribs 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your delete !vote. See WP:AFDLIST. Softlavender (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable live figure. There are many urban explorers, and he does not stand out from the crowd. Books appear to be self-published/not with a major or minor publishing house, or available on Amazon. TV appearances do not denote notable status, as many people have been interviewed on TV and are not on Wikipedia. Claims are largely self-referential at their source and unverifiable. Agree article should be deleted. Jacobssteph (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)— Jacobssteph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jacobssteph (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep. I am the creator of the article in question, so obviously I feel Lawless is notable in the field of photography. He has been profiled and his work discussed and displayed in respected media, including Slate, CNN, Weather Channel, Fox News, The Guardian, Fast Company and ABC News. User:Seicer has removed much of the information and good sources from the article, following destructive, unsourced edits from various IP addresses (until it was protected by another user). A user named Josephlawless then made destructive edits, the only edits the user ever made. And the one other commenter on this AFD is a user named Jacobssteph, who has done nothing on Wikipedia other than comment on this AFD here and on the corresponding AFD log. Lawless's Wikipedia page has been the subject of destructive activity for about six months now. This AFD is simply the latest. --Bernie44 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you disclose your involvement with Seph Lawless in regards to the paid editing you provided for him? seicer | talk | contribs 04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was create Lawless's Wikipedia entry, based on the strong press that's out there, i.e. what I listed above and interviews like this one in American Photo magazine, which to me indicate notability. If you want to say that Lawless is not actually notable, despite his work being covered in Slate, Fast Company, The Guardian, CNN, etc., fine, but it sounds like some sort of personal bias, and I would think it makes more sense to give weight to major media outlets like these over Seicer and a few users who have done nothing other than destructively edit Lawless's Wikipedia page, which is the reason User:FreeRangeFrog protected the page in the first place.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you disclose your involvement with the New York Daily News, and your involvement with paid Wikipedia editing, specifically with My Wiki Pro? Were you paid to write for Seph Lawless, as he claimed? And if so, do you believe it is a conflict of interest to cite your own newspaper clippings (possibly your own article) as citations? seicer | talk | contribs 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any involvement I've had with paid editing has already been disclosed on my user talk page. What bearing does that have on whether or not Lawless is notable? As for any involvement with the New York Daily News, I've never been involved with the paper in any capacity. This whole AFD feels like one person basically claiming without any viable sources that what's been written in a bunch of articles in major publications is meaningless.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(essay) is pretty explicit in saying that "Paid editing is generally frowned upon in the community. It creates an air of distrust and fear of an editor who will do anything to prevent the article being reverted to its original state, or being deleted by AfD to protect their agreed payment", which is exactly what it looks like is going on here. He paid you to put it up (which you still keep dodging the questions about) and you have a vested interest in maintaining the page. Redirecting the conversation to "Right, but he's still notable" doesn't mean we should discount that the MAIN person that put up the page and is fighting to keep it just happens to be the person paid to do so. I also see that "It has, however, been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so. Failure to do so may result in disputes with established editors and the Wikipedia community," however, I don't see any comment from you on the COIN board saying that Joseph Melendez (aka Seph Lawless) has paid you to put up this information. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC) WikiCommenter1[reply]

I'll be happy to provide information, including my identification and copies of the threats if need be, to OTRS. Joe Melendez/Seph Lawless has made personal and financial threats against friends and family as retaliation, which is why this account was created. Jacobssteph (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Whether or not this article was initially created under questionable circumstances (see above), the subject is nevertheless a very notable "outlaw" photographer of urban decay covered by many high-profile media. Here is the last version of the article prior to trimmings referred to by Bernie44. Pax 04:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. While this article has been subjected to bizarre edits in the past (example) and may need semipermanent s-protection, currently it appears to be a modest article making modest, sourced claims. The charge above is that he's non-notable; does this mean not notable-as-the-term-is-normally-understood, or not Wikipedia-notable? (His books don't appear to be notable, but this has nothing to do with their lack of ISBNs.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for Wikipedia-notable. Minus his non-existent mass-published books, he's only got a handful of interviews, and there are plenty of others who are much more notable in that respect that we simply deny or delete (seen plenty myself over the years). Most of the sources removed were questionable - they relied strictly or heavily on interviews of the individual, rather than any formality or basic research. Additionally, one of the primary sources listed is from the New York Daily News, usually not an issue except that one of the paid editors Seph hired to craft the article is an author at the newspaper. That's a huge conflict of interest, and while it can be accepted - there is little else to base notability on. seicer | talk | contribs 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: There are hundreds of so called urban explorers. Should Wikipedia be a repository for each and every one of them? Seph Lawless holds no notability merely because he published a few books on his own and has been mentioned in a few blogs. I've been mentioned in blogs yet I don't hold a Wikipedia entry. Seph's facts are largely uncredible and appear to be exaggerated including: his statement of being arrested over 50 times for trespassing, being arrested upon leaving the shopping mall which he photographed and that he has even been compared to "Banksy" as a sellout. There is no reference to such a comparison anywhere on the internet, and appears to be wishful thinking. Furthermore Seph's personal "verified" Facebook page contained a link to a page titled "The Urbex Memester" in which Seph appears in a video claiming to be "The King of Urbex" and mocks other explorers. The page also includes photographs of other explorers along with defamatory comments aimed at them. It seems anyone who opposes the opinion that this person is somehow a "king" of exploring ends up the target of harassment. However all that aside and keeping to the Wikipedia standards, the wiki entry says nothing more than "this person took pictures of abandoned places". There is nothing notable in way of the subject that was photographed, the author lacks notable sources (blogs with scripted like interviews do not provide such) and finally it appears to be largely self-promotion.Roadbound (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Roadbound (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, to have been arrested 50 times in (I infer) a short time could, it were verifiably true, suggest a noteworthy degree of incompetence (cf Eddie the Eagle). ¶ There are hundreds of so called urban explorers. Should Wikipedia be a repository for each and every one of them? No. But I know next to nothing about this area, so please educate me. Certainly a lot of people are doing this kind of thing; see here for example. And I know there are entire (and interesting) subgenres of exploring abandoned metropolitan subway/underground stations and not-yet-opened skyscrapers. But the only name I know is RomanyWG (currently redlinked); could you (or somebody) come up with a list of three to five notable urban explorers? Then we ignoramuses would be better able to compare the claims made for this fellow. ¶ Seph's facts are largely uncredible There's this matter, too. ¶ it appears to be largely self-promotion Yes, the talk page of its creator is rather interesting, as is mywikipro dot com. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgive my lack of formatting, I'm not sure how this works) If he had been arrested more than 50 times... "if" being the operative word. There is no evidence other than his self-referential claims to support it, as with many or most of his biographical details. Most of his charges are driving related offences, and the only other 2 notable ones were petty theft and one trespassing (for which he plead out). Any arguable notableness he might enjoy (and I would say he has none) is entirely self-manufactured, including this very wiki article. To the question of other notable explorers, I would say Steve Duncan, Bradley Garrett and Ninjalicious (all of whom are actually notable and have wiki entries) are notable. The first two have explored extensively, in multi-continents, have had tv programs made about them, have published scholarly papers and articles, and have explored places that no one else has. Ninjalicious arguably did more in his short life to advance the idea of exploring and inspired directly or indirectly many of the explorers in the hobby today. An example of explorers who do not have a wiki entry (that I could find) but are notable are the group known as the Brescia Underground in Italy. They have found lost rivers and bridges, were the subject of documentaries. An example of explorers who arguably have more notableness than Seph are the people in the tv series PhotoXplorers (though, they are also not notable enough to have a wiki entry I submit), a multi-part documentary series that aired in dozens of countries on 5 continents. Seph Lawless has been to 2 malls, the outside of some houses and the same old tired Detroit ruins that anyone can visit. His online popularity was manufactured by purchasing likes and clicks from overseas companies. Seph Lawless is a fiction entirely created for Joe Melendez's spurious business model. Because of this recommendation for deletion, his campaign against those who he thinks are behind it have stepped up. This wiki article is central to his business model and he feels it is under threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobssteph (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the reformatting for you. Thank you for the response. (But look, you sound as keen to deflate Lawless's reputation as [you allege] he is keen to inflate it. You risk coming off as somewhat obsessed. Remember that we're assessing the article and its potential, not the subject.) So, Steve Duncan, Bradley Garrett and Ninjalicious (among others). All three do indeed have more press coverage, which gives me a sense of perspective. (I'd say more, but I'm having too much fun reading Ninjalicious's informative and entertaining guide "Taking the plunge".) -- Hoary (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the formatting. I admit that given his threats against me and people I know by him, I may cross the line into taking this personally. I hope that I'm at least providing you with some good context as to why he is not notable, in the absolute and in the relative sense.

Keep—BLP with significant coverage in reliable sources. To answer the question above, yes, we will provide space for articles for any number of urban explorers whose work has been featured in Slate, Fox News and the Guardian. See WP:GNG for details on our criteria. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC) For whatever it's worth, the ISBNs for Autopsy of America : the journal entries of Seph Lawless are 9780615875781 and 0615875785 (Artivist Press, 2014), and the ISBNs for Black friday : the collapse of the american shopping mall are [0615875785 and 9780615875781] (Activist [sic] Press, 2014). The books appear to be self-published. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the "For whatever it's worth". But for the benefit of other interested readers: ISBNs are useful for books. If we mention a book that has an ISBN, we should give the ISBN. However, ISBNs confer no status whatever. Here's an almost ISBN-free list of recent books that have won critical attention; here's a list of negligible publications with ISBNs. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree his books are not notable, but he and his work have been prominently featured on CNN Money and The Guardian, among several other prominent news sources. Not just in their blogs, either. Meets WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm seeing a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST here. There is no doubt that Lawless is less important than other photographers who do not have an article, that isn't what is up for debate here. (although if articles on these photographers are created, then this debate has proven positive effects!) The question is, is Lawless notable? The geographic breadth of coverage and variety of dates where he is covered indicate that he is more than WP:NEWS. How he became notable, through self-promotion or otherwise, is irrelevant, if he meets the general notability guidelines. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable live figure. He paid to have this article created, and beyond his word there is no evidence to back up many of his claims. Hardwired 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) — Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Strong Delete: Non notable live figure. The only people that put up and modified this page in a positive manner are a reporter paid by the subject, and the subject himself. His claims are linked to sources where the subject himself is making exaggerated claims (aka lies). If I said I could fly in an interview, I can't pay someone to cite that source on wikipedia as a notable person that has the ability to fly. There are dozens, if not hundreds of more notable explorers with television and interview credits that aren't considered notable either. At the very best, this subject is a one sentence mention on the urban explorer page, if even that. The books are self published, with no sales figures, and no verifiable articles where legitimate sales figures are given in order to establish the books being noteworthy - I can self publish a book on the same sites, again, does that make me a noteworthy individual? This Wikipedia page is being used as a paid SEO and marketing tool to sell self published books, bottom line, and that isn't what this site is for. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC) WikiCommenter1 — WikiCommenter1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that WikiCommenter1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Strong Delete: The article as it currently is lacks notability. Owning a camera, seeing abandoned buildings, and talking to the media sometimes could describe half the population of some major cities at this point. Junganghansik (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Junganghansik (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@Junganghansik: Can you give me some names of photographers with similar international coverage that don't have articles? I'd be happy to start writing a few stubs. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Junganghansik, but . . . I hardly know where to start. OK, Gianni Berengo Gardin, Toni Catany, Thurston Hopkins, Klavdij Sluban, Bryn Campbell, Cas Oorthuys, Alixandra Fazzina, Bieke Depoorter, Dominic Nahr, Jérôme Sessini, Miguel Rio Branco, Kryn Taconis, I. K. Inha, Simon Wheatley, Dougie Wallace, Patrick Zachmann, John Vink, Peter van Agtmael, Paolo Woods, Christoph Bangert, Ferdinando Scianna. Want more? -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) PS please don't create mere stubs on any of these people. A stub demands attention from other editors, and there are very few here who deal seriously with non-self-promoting photographers. So instead of "a few stubs", just one decent start, please. (The kind of thing that you might charge $300 for, if you were charging; but like me and most but not all of the people commenting here, you're not.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most urban explorers would appreciate a Wikipedia page, other than a handful of attention whores. Most of us really don't like our real names being thrown around due to legal and privacy concerns. But if you really want, you can look up some of the urban exploring groups on Flickr and start from there. The largest I could find has over 10 000 members. Junganghansik (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this bloke doesn't seem to like his real name being thrown around (though he's surprisingly willing to show his face). And Banksy (who's hugely more notable, of course) has an article with no real name. (Thinking of anonyms, WP doesn't even have an article on Slinkachu. Amazing.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: @Junganghansik: @Lesser Cartographies: If primary sources were accepted, one can easily make the connection based on a mugshot. And for someone who doesn't want the attention of the police, he's sure willing to taunt them. They can surely make the connection. As far as other photographers - does it need to be limited to those with international coverage? There are plenty of notable folks who are more domestic that could stand a page, if we are using Seph's page as a benchmark. I would be willing to flesh out the basics of those pages. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seicer: I mentioned international coverage because that (in my mind) makes notability uncontroversial. And has Hoary has pointed out, our coverage of non-English-speaking photographers is frankly embarrassing. Hoary knows far more about this topic than I do. I'll leave suggestions to hir. Lesser Cartographies (talk)

@Lesser Cartographies: I can get you one from Canada who has been on television and has been in more art shows than you can count! seicer | talk | contribs 04:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lesser Cartographies: Oh geez. I found a good one. The first sentence. seicer | talk | contribs 05:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seicer: Good stuff, but any media coverage? I see that Sabrina Hill is the editor of SeoulFi, but beyond that I'm not seeing interviews, etc. Can you give me a pointer to the WP:RS you found? Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A big tip of the hat to Lopifalko for turning "Peter van Agtmael" from red to blue in the course of this somewhat protracted AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Only because any of the suggestions to delete this page is completely saturated by mentioning others that are more notable. They come off obsessed and have clearly attacked this photographer personally. Furthermore, (AND MUCH MORE DISTURBING) A quick google search gives us all the evidence we need. Seicer started this thread on a public forum and encouraged others to comment this post on wiki as well, which goes against wiki policy. After defaming and humiliating this photographer you can see who made the thread and then view his personal comments #75 and #77 boasting how he removed sourced information from his wiki-page then put this up for a speedy deletion. Not only should we keep this page but we should ban the ip address Seicer for poising wikipedia for all of us. Link of his Seicer's comments can be found here: http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=117450&currpage=4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — 184.56.220.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for the link. Here's the "boast" that you refer to: All because I cleaned his Wiki page of overly promotional material written by a paid editor, and then listed the page up for deletion. Doesn't look like a boast to me, doesn't mention sourcing, nothing about a speedy deletion. And in particular, neither provides a link to this page nor encourages anybody else to participate on this page or anything like it. Despite this, you say: Seicer started this thread on a public forum and encouraged others to comment this post on wiki as well. That's not particularly easy to understand but seems to be saying that he (she?) encouraged people to come here. If this is what you mean, let's have a link to the incriminating post. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets GNG with coverage as noted above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fifteen minutes of "Best Known For" style fame and self published works does not meet notability requirements for an encyclopedia. When he becomes Ansel Adams, then he will have earned it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So he has to equal the most renowned landscape painter in history in order to merit an article? ...sometimes being a grandstanding, rule-ignoring, hellraiser flash-in-the-pan a-hole is all you need to do to be conferred notability by RS. Pax 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape photographer, the last time I heard. Ahem: Can we please keep assholes (i) unbowdlerized but (ii) far away from this AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Self publishing books, and paying a click farm for page likes means anyone with a fat enough wallet can be notable. This person is a blight on the urban exploration hobby which has far more notable people who have earned that spot, rather than bought it174.62.142.98 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — 174.62.142.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 174.62.142.98 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Hi IP. Yes, anyone with a fat enough wallet can be notable in the wikipedia sense. And we'd be happy to have articles on other explorers who have received similar levels of coverage in the mainstream media, which is how we determine notability in the wikipedia sense. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's written up in the Guardian article, but NB the Guardian has a number of similar articles. Recent examples include: "Save the dinosaur: The rollercoaster story of East Berlin's forgotten theme park" (Ciarán Fahey); "Underground London: adventures in the secret city beneath our feet" (Bradley Garrett); "The Tour de Neglect: a cycle ride through Buffalo's deprived East Side" (David Torke); "Caofeidian, the Chinese eco-city that became a ghost town - in pictures" (Gilles Sabrie), etc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the above sources which establish GNG, there is also Vanity Fair (Italian) and Business Insider and ABC News and The Telegraph and National Geographic (photo contest) and Vice (interview about trespassing) and Amerikahaus (Germany exhibit). Doesn't make any difference how he achieved notability, are secondary reliable sources covering him and his photography and books, it appears that they are. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, then that would also include several dozens to hundreds of other explorers in the scene around the world and would be a gigantic article, not what this is, paying someone to put up and edit a Wikipedia page for SEO, marketing, and vanity reasons. There is nothing notable actually mentioned in the article. Unless he died doing it, or found something newsworthy, he is doing the same thing in the same places as everyone in the exploring community. Any locations he has publicized already have photos from other people all over the Internet, most of which he sees first THEN goes there to copy. News coverage of him doing it is not noteworthy. If simply being in the news is validation for having a Wikipedia page, then myself and everyone on the news every day would have a page. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Wikicommenter1[reply]

@WikiCommenter1: I'm afraid "news coverage of him doing it" is the very essence of notability as the term is used here. If we left the determination of notability up to people who know something about urban exploring, y'all would engage the kind of bickering we see above (nothing special about urban explorers; the communities of biologists and race car drivers would have similar difficulties coming to consensus). So we short-circuit the process by defining notability as follows (eliding a bit of nuance): if you're reported on in mainstream media, you get an article. If not, you don't. This may not coincide with whom you consider to be notable, but it does have the benefit of being objective and giving us ostensibly accurate information from which we can fashion an article.

By our definition, the subject of this article is obviously notable. That doesn't mean he's important, representative, ethical, or likable. It just means that mainstream media has covered him enough that an article can be written about him. Check out WP:GNG for details. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote, from the referenced WP:GNG "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity - Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Seph is ONLY initially on Wikipedia based on paying someone to write the articles here himself. He has been on TV ONLY based on his purchasing facebook likes, instagram likes, self-published fluff piece press releases, and self publishing books with no notable sales figures. Nothing notable has actually been done in his life that was independently recognized by the articles and news places that you are citing. HE contacted the news, not the other way around. Again, any one of us can do these exact things at any moment, being on the news or in an article alone doesn't make you a notable subject WikiCommenter1 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)WikiCommenter1[reply]

QUESTION You keep repeating the same thing after each time someone says 'Keep'. You also keep saying things you can't back up with facts. Your wiki user name has no other edits outside of this topic. Were you asked to come by the creator of this deletion page Seicer who is Sherman Cahal who also created a public post urging outsiders to come here and vandalize this page. This post here: https://www.facebook.com/TheUrbexMemester/photos/a.181014135345877.38957.181012418679382/697897720324180/?type=1&theater if so this page is for unbiased wiki writers. If you come here for unwarranted vandalism or for personal reasons then please refrain from commenting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the no-noes in Wikipedia is revealing the real-world name of a fellow contributor (or claiming to do so), but before deleting the comment above I decided to click the link within it. In it, somebody reveals his own name, so there doesn't seem to be a problem there. 184.56.220.119, you are fantasizing. The page to which you link doesn't ask anyone to vandalize anything. At least one of the comments lower down is stereotypically Facebook-stupid, and could get its poster into trouble; but even this doesn't ask anyone to vandalize anything. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer has provided his real name before here on wiki, such as when he outlined the threats leveled against him by Seph Lawless wiki threat page. I don't see a problem with it staying here. Is it allowed to note that the IP address 184.56.220.119 is in Cleveland, coincidentally where Seph Lawless himself lives?Jacobssteph (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently Seph (who for whatever reason we can't state his real name even though we all know it) is now joining the discussion, but won't reveal who he is because he and the creator of this page are really the only two people fighting to keep it. WikiCommenter1 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)WikiCommenter1[reply]

OK, that's an unfair characterization, WikiCommenter1. I would say the editors with a long and varied editing history are standing on their policy-based arguments, and don't feel the need to engage those who are taking positions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:ILIKEIT for that matter) and WP:IDHT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hoary, they may have deleted comments after this but they were urging people to come here on a page if you look has several other posts that are related. A known bully public page on Facebook. You are correct I only name the person because he publicly admits this on two different blogs his name and his intentions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of anyone's Wikipedia username or who they are, I'm participating in a discussion about deleting this page, which is up for any Wikipedia user to participate in. I am not sure how you consider discussing valid points to be "vandalizing" but your comment is baseless and reeks of more paid shill work that the page subject is known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCommenter1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to point out two things: (1) The nominator of this AfD appears to have a similar interest in urban exploring/photography as evidenced by his Instagram account and other websites. User:seicer has also posted to a forum/board (screenshots available) where he admits he is a WP editor and has met Seph Lawless in real life (recently), so, could seicer clarify when he decided to clean his page of overly promotional material and nominate it for deletion, was it before or after you met him? (2) According to this source, Lawless had an exhibit at the Beachwood Library where he was photographed, if you click on that photo (it will enlarge), look to the right of the poster The Autopsy Of America, you will see his WP page (earlier version) on prominent display. I don't know if he regularly puts his WP page on display like that, but it kind of looks like an attempt to verify his "notability". Nothing wrong with that I guess, but he and other editor's should be aware that WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so a WP article may change at any given moment, and possibly even be deleted. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway: I met Seph on January 6 of this year in Cleveland by accident (first and only time). It was shortly after that the very personal attacks came about from Seph's account that I had to seek legal advice here on WP:ANI#Legal Threat at Seph Lawless; it has since been taken to email. It doesn't take much to equate this username to my real name. As for editing - I first edited the article back in September of 2014. I have had no involvement with Seph before that point and given I live six hours south, I continue to have limited involvement with him, despite our similar interests. On the other sites where I have posted, I mentioned that the article was up for deletion and that comments were welcomed - constructive on the article itself, not on his personal character. seicer | talk | contribs 18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sticking to the notability guidelines as I understand them, I think this page should stay. I'm focusing on the multiple references, some from very good sources. The references relate to his work (photography) and that's where the notability lies, not in his status as an explorer, a person with a pseudonym or anything else. On the subject of whether or not paid editing is involved or any other shenanigans, this appears to me to be a side alley that lies outside the remit of how we assess articles here. It's not the first debate I've seen take this tangent and the advice last time around from the closer was that issues over authorship/status of paid for articles be addressed at village pump and not used to determine whether an article stays or goes (see here [2]). I'd say the same recommendation applies here. Libby norman (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable author. His two books are each in only two worldCat libraries. The notability of the photographs can be judged by the notability of the book where he published them. "Most interesting person" by a local magazine is not notability, but an attempt by the magazine to accommodate as much PR as possible. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of this article's inception, as a photographer full articles on him in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Daily News, Fast Company, ABC News, CNN Money, Slate, and Fox News (in addition to the other seven full local and national articles cited in the wiki article, and other national and international articles mentioned by other editors above on this page) more than meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ARTIST. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ambivalent about the notability of this person compared against subject-specific notability guidelines but, based on the sources quoted in several responses above, and also [3] and [4], and that he has attracted attention from UK publications: [5] and [6]; I feel he meets the WP:GNG comfortably. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering the references in the article and those provided in the above discussion, there seems to be the appearance of notability, but not actual notability according to the general notability guideline. Some references lack depth of coverage: The Guardian quotes the subject, exhibits photos, but is largely about the decline of shopping malls. The Telegraph exhibits photos in a slideshow, but only has 2 sentences at the first slide announcing his book. ABC News just has a slideshow of photos. Some references are to primary source interviews like: Fox News and American photo mag. Some references are just routine coverage of an exhibition or book release like: cleveland.com, Weather.com, thought catalog, CNN Money, Slate , and Fast Company. Some references are just local coverage from sources with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy like: cleveland scene and cleveland magazine. The only remaining references that may be suitable for notability purposes is from a source that employs the paid editor identified above: The Daily News. Examination of the references leads to the conclusion that the article does not meet WP:GNG, despite the appearance of reliable sources, and should be deleted. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't understand where this idea that I work for the NY Daily News came from. Once again, I do not work for the Daily News and never have.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question:: Becky Sayles The ABC NEWS story clearly quotes Seph Lawless twice in that segment. Please check the notable sources more closely before you comment. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I count two sentences by SL. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, There is actually four sentences (A paragraph) Please use arrow to continue reading. I'm troubled by the amount of what seems to be biased comments here not based on factual information. Please only refer to factual accurate sourced information. Any attempt to diminish sourced material could be seen as an act of vandalism to this page, which clearly has suffered several according to the history logs. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thank you, IP. There are indeed two quotations in the 121 words that go along with those photos. Of those, the quotations themselves make up 40 words. Characterizing the site as "just has a slideshow of photos" is, I'd argue, more imprecise than inaccurate. There's certainly not much there on which we could hang an article. (I'll note that while I disagree with Becky Sayles on whether this link is useful for notability, I do see where she's coming from and she has a fair point. Your point, on the other hand, fails to address the substance of her objection.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I see: "I wanted Americans to see what was happening to their country from the comfort of their suburban homes and smart phones." "'most Americans never read a book after they graduate high school, so I came out with a photo book." What else am I missing? (Incidentally, I do hope that Becky Sayles comes by to respond to Bernie44's objection.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bernie44 - I read and rely on the comment above from Seicer stating "Additionally, one of the primary sources listed is from the New York Daily News, usually not an issue except that one of the paid editors Seph hired to craft the article is an author at the newspaper. That's a huge conflict of interest, and while it can be accepted - there is little else to base notability on." I took this to mean that one of the multiple paid editors hired by the subject was employed by the New York Daily News. Seicer may or may not have been referring to Bernie44. Additionally, Seicer has edited this AfD since Bernie44 stated having a lack of involvement with that source, and has yet to retract the statement. Assuming good faith of both Bernie44 and Seicer, the statement refers to another paid editor, which still represents an issue with accepting that reference for the purpose of establishing notability.
As for the ABC Slideshow: I agree that there are two blocks of text that go along with the images. The first slide has text that states the source of the image (the subjects book) and provides information about the subject of the image. The second slide has two quotes from the subject. Feel free to disagree, but neither of these contribute to satisfying the general notability guideline. The first block, like in many of the other sources, is equivalent to a trivial mention as it only serves to identify the source of the image. The second block quotes the subject(primary source), and makes no attempt to cover him specifically. It would better serve the notability of "declining American retail facilities" as a topic than it does the subject of this AfD. This reference should further be rejected as it is largely content from the subject. These slideshows provide little to no information about the subject, or minimally offer it in captions. They are photographs selected for release by the subject, and done so for promotion of the book from which they come. Characterizing the reference as just a slideshow, precisely and accurately reflects my sentiment towards its ability to establish notability under the guideline. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You mentioned Fox News who had him as a television guest to interview Seph Lawless, but failed to mentioned the television interview on CNN, which is still online as part of the most recent CNN Money story. He's been on CNN four different times in 2014 an once already in 2015. A simple search shows that Seph Lawless's stories with the Guardian and Slate were recently named most popular stories for those magazines in 2014 just released a few weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.229.110 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do try to get your facts straight. The Guardian is a website or a six-days-per-week newspaper (with supplements that can be termed magazines), or both. The story is attributed to David Uberti (this person) and Lawless, and is described not as the most popular story but as the fourth most popular among "The top city stories of 2014". If such popularity means anything in an AfD (which I doubt), then it might be noted that this story comes behind another (with multiple photographers) about abandoned structures. (I didn't check any of your other claims.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hoary, you seem to be having trouble navigating the ABC news article as many others have pointed out the other text you don't seem to be able to see. Also, you ignored the CNN comments and CNN television interview of Seph Lawless that's attached to even the latest CNN news story about Seph Lawless and the Slate comment. You mentioned the Guardian is a website but it's a known Newspaper first and foremost. The original story was printed in the Guardian Newspaper about shopping malls centers entirely around the work of Seph Lawless and he is quoted through out the story from top to bottom with every image used being the work of Seph Lawless. Lawless took the Guardian Newspaper inside an abandoned shopping mall which was the main source of the story.You claim it's the #4 story but they are not listed in any particular order as well. The fact both of these stories were among it's top news stories in 2014 is rather significant. Please read these articles very closely before assuming and commenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.220.119 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I ignore the CNN material, I made this explicit: "I didn't check any of your other claims". (The reason why I didn't is that time is limited and I thought I'd spent enough of mine on the Guardian reference.) You called the Guardian a magazine, I pointed out that it was a website and newspaper; now you're telling me that it's a newspaper: yes, I already know this. Maybe we are looking at grossly different versions of the Guardian's website: on the version that I'm looking at (via a computer), I read: 4. The death of the American mall / More urban death in America. This time David looked at the physical and cultural decline of shopping malls, while Seph Lawless contributed a visual tour of the abandoned Rolling Acres mall in Akron, Ohio – a “retail graveyard”. Note the "4" at the start: this means number four (of a "countdown"). And not number four news story (which would be here), but instead number four among "city stories". I hope that I am making myself sufficiently clear. Incidentally, when you comment here, please end your comments with four consecutive taps on the "~" key. -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a note about coverage: For an artist or photographer, articles or news stories devoted solely to their works are considered "significant coverage", no matter the amount of text in the article. Therefore this subject meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This subject also meets its profession-specific notability guideline, WP:ARTIST: "3. The person has created ... a ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrahash

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

A terahash is a billion hashes. This fact doesn't seem worth its own article which explains hashes from scratch (and also mentions kilo, mega, giga and petahashes without explaining why terahashes are uniquely significant), but a redirect to cryptographic hash function was reverted. The correct spelling of terahash already redirects. McGeddon (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really nothing here that's salvageable, and that's not even addressing the fact that the page title's spelled wrong to begin with. Cryptographic hash function has the actual content on this topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There are parts that are related to other articles, like hashing and BitCoin. But it's all unsourced and reads like an essay. WP:OR – Margin1522 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agree that there's nothing salvageable here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this delete seems completely appropriate, the article does address an area of Cryptocurrencies not addressed by Wikipedia at this time. Maybe add a sentence or two to [[7]] mentioning that the efficiency of mining devices is determined by the number of hashes per second? Piboy51 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references support notability. Fails WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:37, 14 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taiga.io

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

Everything in the article can be verified (although it's unsourced) but none of it is enough to pass WP:GNG. It's just another software project that has not received coverage in reliable independent media. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiga.io has received substantial coverage around the world. Examples include:

RedHat's OpenSource.com, The US 2144 most trafficked site in the US and a top site covering the Open Source movement. The article introducing Taiga.io has become a top 5 reader favorite:

Japan's 90th most trafficked website [8] profiled the tool extensively

T3N.de, Germany's 275 most trafficked website highlighted the tool.

Webrazzi.com, Turkey's 161 most trafficked website profiled the tool

In order to avoid any editorial issues and to avoid any appearance of self-promotion, the author of the page used the same language (adapted) used to introduce the tool Github.com on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.96.109 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 December 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, Deadbeef 21:27, 21 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The refs above appear decent, perhaps falling just short of WP:CORPDEPTH in my view, though their use of the same images with much of the same information makes me suspicious that they may be working off PR materials. It may also be that it's just WP:TOOSOON -- it's still in beta and some of the article's language is even in future tense. There's also the issue of the article containing WP:UNDUE information, some of it presented as though for an advertisement, company website, etc. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – generally the same opinion as Rhododendrites, although I don't think the article was all that promotional. The Japanese review was a good run-through of how it works (looks pretty easy to use). But it's Beta software and coverage is still pretty thin. If version 1.0 is successful that should change, so I say wait a while longer. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 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, SpinningSpark 09:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Non notable software, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets notability requirements. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neall Ellis

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

I believe that this person fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't see anything in his mercenary career that would make him notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Aside from the Independent, Cracked and ABC articles already listed, there are also a Telegraph article and a book. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and the individual's significance to the conflict in Sierra Leone. --Katangais (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Hockey World Championship

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

There's no indication that this tournament is notable. Yes, it's an international event but ball hockey is a recreational sport. There's no elite level. It does not pass WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 December 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, Deadbeef 03:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's the World Championship of an internationally sanctioned sport. ALL sports are recreational. There are plenty of sources, too, about this specific tournament to meet WP:N: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. It literally took about 20 seconds to load google to see that this is notable. An article needing work is not the same as an article not being notable. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 14:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. More specifically, searching for sources reveals no depth of coverage. [14] is routine coverage. [15] is not about the event, but merely mentions it once. [16] is about a team expected to compete, but not about the event itself, and actually says "Oh wow, there’s a ball hockey world championships – who knew?". [17] is the closest to being an appropriate citation, but half the article is about a player who competed in the event. [18] is more routine coverage, that is primarily about the Canadian teams and not the event itself. Becky Sayles (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize those were just the first random links I found while searching google. Everything is going to be coverage specific to the event...because it is an event. Here are more. These are all reliable, secondary sources. [19] [20][21] [22] [1670365-boufounos-milonow-on-the-experience-of-playing-at-the-ball-hockey-womens-worlds] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[23] and [24] and [25] are about hockey players going to compete in the event, not the event itself. [26] is about a player at the event apologizing for his conduct. None of these has any depth of coverage. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I dunno -- the coverage looks enough to me. Those are full-scale articles, in reliable sources, discussing this tournament in detail. That's a GNG pass, and trying to argue that the coverage has no "depth" is crocked. The GNG doesn't require 20-page essays. It also looks at the breadth of coverage--- if you've got a flipping lot of sources, that's an indicator in of itself. I don't agree with anon SPAs much, but I got to admit he's got a point that the GNG doesn't care whether there's an "elite" level or whether a sport's played recreationally or not. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the articles isn't at issue. After reviewing all the references in the article and raised in this discussion, it seems clear that they do not actually cover the subject of the article, but rather subjects related to the article. These appears to be an attempt at inheritance of notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 08:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When you can find an assortment of news articles about different iterations of this tournament, it's reasonable to reach the conclusion that the tournament itself is worth covering on Wikipedia. The Toronto Sun article cited above begins by informing the reader that this tournament draws more fans than the world ice hockey championship.[27] In addition to the sources noted above there's also this, which is in substantial part about the 2013 tournament. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schirmer Abduction

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

Fails our WP:FRINGE inclusion guidelines. Unsourced and not-notable. jps (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally unsourced original research culled, presumably, from various fringe blogs and websites. No mention in reliable sources, never mind substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, our requirement for inclusion. Flush twice, and close the lid, please. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Nickm57 (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep. Unreferenced, and this cannot be considered to be a reliable source. --115ash^→(☏) 16:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear delete. About.com is not an RSCapeo (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article on the report, which will have reliable sources regarding that part of their findings. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet our inclusion criteria and clearly fails content policies. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:49, 13 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film in film

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

Non-notable masters-degree thesis. Content has many cites, but they are all the primary references for the thesis itself. The only ones that come close to WP:RS are for the topic of intertextuality, but notability is not inherited to a thesis on that topic. Was declined speedy-A1 (I agree) and speedy-A7 (due to limited scope of the subjects to which that criterion applies), and dePRODed by creator (as is his right). DMacks (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS verifies the notability of the subject which is required to merit a standalone article as per the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Story within a story#Film within a film. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost incomprehensible as well as inappropriate.Deb (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – then redirect, per Clarityfiend. We don't have articles on dissertations unless they are very notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – But I think a lot of this material is valuable. I considered suggesting a merge into the Story within a story#Film within a film section, which currently has zero analytic content – it's just of list of scenes in movies that have used this device. It is sorely in need of attention from an expert. Of course the dissertation could be cited there, along with other references. Eventually it could be developed into a separate article. "Film in film" is a fine topic for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above; master's thesis not-notable per WP:BOOKS. If somebody is feeling WP:Be Nice then tell the author to move their stuff to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShowWithinAShow. However, does not belong here. -Augustabreeze (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to above arguments: extremely limited scope abstract within film theory and history; esoteric, academic text not fit for an encyclopedia. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As reflected by concensus, a 14th century national monument is unquestionably notable Philg88 ^♦talk 07:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gongchen Tower

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

WP:NOTNEWS. The only coverage I see is about the fire basically. Other coverage is only passing mention. Note that I would withdraw this AfD should it be found that it is covered in great detail in travel books, which I wouldn't have access to. Google Books doesn't return much either. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Variant spellings may cause variant search results. A GBooks search for <Weishan Tower> turned up a few travel guide hits that do identify the tower as a local landmark, such as [28] ("the town's central point is the unmistakeable Gongchan Lou (拱长楼)"); [29] ("the only thing you need to find is Gongchen Lou . . . a huge old gate tower marking the centre of town"); [30][31]. If more detailed content about the historic city existed on English Wikipedia (compare zh:巍山古城, Google translation here), the news about the destroyed tower might be best included there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

拱长楼 is wrong. It should be 拱辰楼. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This must be notable. Did we search "拱辰楼"? The news is the fire, but the article is about the tower, which is old and surely notable. Should the whole city gate at Weishan Yi and Hui Autonomous County be the article, with the tower as a section? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Buildings dating from the 14th century are invariably notable. I don't know anything about China's historic building listing, but in Western countries this would undoubtedly have the highest listing, which would pretty much guarantee it an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Weishan Yi and Hui Autonomous County. Both at the moment are stubs consisting of only a couple of sentences. Combining them would make a much more useful and interesting article, still short, which would better server readers. The information about the gate should probably be added to the town/county article anyway as it's the only photo there and probably its main notable feature. If in the future the resulting article grows too long then it could be split again, but now I think a single article makes most sense.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't believe for a second that a 14th Century cultural landmark doesn't have a great amount native language coverage spanning centuries. Even that one source the nom speaks of says its listed as a Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level ("key cultural protection site"), similar to a building in the US being listed with the National Register of Historic Places. Older Chinese sources, particularly those that are pre-internet, are very hard to recognize to us English speakers. No need for systemic bias.--Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those of you saying it is "definitely notable" had better actually provide some sources of that kind, the burden is on you to show their definitive existence. Many 14th-century objects in China that I've personally seen myself are usually not worthy of Wikipedia articles, particularly small features.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be impossible for sources not to exist if it is listed as a Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level as to be listed as such would require very in-depth government reports on history and analysis of cultural impact. This isn't an "object" but a major 14th Century building. Whatever other articles of Chinese "objects" have nothing to do with the notability of this building, and has nothing to do with the national origin of a topic. WP:GNG makes it very clear that sources do not have to be online nor in English. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but until and unless you can produce said sources it doesn't matter. I've been to various Chinese locations of such significance that don't deserve articles (the research by the government alone would not be independent). Also not every item on the National Register of Historic Places has a Wikipedia article or is eligible for one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG only requires the existence of coverage, not that they be "produced" or in the article and barring serious BLP violations per WP:AFD, articles are not to deleted simply because source are not in the article. As for the NRHP, actually, by the nature of the HRHP every one is eligible for one. That there are no articles of many means there's a lot more work to do. Even I created one - Old Shelby County Courthouse. --Oakshade (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, I need concrete evidence that said coverage is highly significant. If the only source is a single government study on its history, then it doesn't meet GNG, for example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states that "reports by government agencies" are considered reliable sources per that guideline. Even those "fire" articles you speak of go into detail of its history so that's no even the only source currently demonstrated in this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline requires multiple sources, which must be independent; for example when writing an article on a government, its own publications are usually not generally enough to establish notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think this was necessary to write, but A Chinese heritage agency source only wouldn't be independent if it was written about the Chinese government. In this case, it is not. The Chinese government is separate from the Gongchen Tower. Just becaue a building is in China doesn't mean it's part of the Chinese government. --Oakshade (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding AfD. You don't need anything since you don't decide whether the article is to be deleted or not! Also note that government documents are only non-independent when describing the government itself or one of its agencies - this is not relevant to historic monuments. The suggestion that, say, English Heritage research into an English building wasn't independent because it's a government agency would be laughable. And yes, every building on the National Register of Historic Places is eligible for an article; this is long established. The fact not every such building has an article yet is utterly and completely irrelevant. Since this was a site with the highest national monument status, held by only 4,295 structures (not a lot for a country the size of China - about twice that number of buildings in the much, much smaller England are Grade I listed, for example), it is clearly notable whether there are multitudinous sources or not. This falls into line with our normal conventions for articles on historic monuments, where the highest level of national protection (e.g. NRHP in the USA, Grade I listing in England, MH in France) is generally considered sufficient for an article, despite a lack of sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not called Gongchen Tower fire. The article is about the tower, not the fire. So, NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The fire media articles talk about the tower itself, and there are plenty of those media articles. Plus, govt, book, and Chinese language sources. The thing passes GNG easily, very easily. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more info to the article from the Compendium of Chinese Archaeology. Unfortunately only a snippet view is available on Google books, but the notability of this tower should be beyond any reasonable doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now this much much better. Negebaur Forlan Brusadin (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy if possible) The building is listed at zh:全国重点文物保护单位, which is the Chinese equivalent of NRHP. So it clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original nomination was reasonable as a "No News" stub, but with the recent expansion it is clearly notable.ch (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (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. Discussion regarding recategorization, a page move, etc. can continue on the article's talk page. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novorossiya (confederation)

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

For generating discussion, I'll throw out that this article on an idea (not a real entity) be deleted. What do you think? Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:N does not require things to exist to be notable. Wikipedia is filled with articles on ideas (ie Korean reunification). All that is required is significant coverage by reliable sources. Novorossiya has been widely covered by RS and as such is notable enough to warrant an article. Of course we must be careful to present it for what it is, but that is a question of WP:DUE and not WP:N. TDL (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean reunification is a good parallel, an idea, but not a state. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – well summed up by TDL. One of my favorite somewhat-parallel examples of this is the Principality of Sealand. Deadbeef 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability doesn't require existence. Enough WP:RS asserts its notability. AadaamS (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least it as a reference for the "Novorossiya concept", not necessarily an existing political entity. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As noted, it's covered by RS. However I have do have a problem with the way that the article is structured, with sections on Demographics and Economics sections, like a Wikipedia article on an actually existing country. It should hew more closely to what the sources say about it. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, from the title to the bottom it reads like a country, but it is a concept. Is it better to try to fix this under a new title or add relevent info to Novorossiya? Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has already some news sources (reliable) that explains about this unrecognized political entity. I also agree per who agrees to keep it. Why delete it when it already has RELIABLE SOURCES?--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this article is an abomination and untruthful representation.
The post is pre-emptive there is no conferederation as yet - there is a war and a "break away state - not having any recognition from any world body UN etc.
The map in question is not correct
one only needs to look at the following videoand see how these "novorossiyan" conduct themselves whil interogating dying soldier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V1RNxKXIbQ

looking forward to your comments --Ozikozak2 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but recategorize: it's currently presented as a state or quasi state, but in reality it's just a proposed confederation that never really stuck between two unrecognized non states. It has notable content, I guess, but maybe this should be refashioned as concept on par with an new Islamic Caliphate or New World Order, and not a real state or even a real confederation of entities. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but recategorize per LeVivsy, Legacypac, and Margin1522's observations as to its not existing 'in the real world'. The current TITLE doesn't correlate with RS, nor does the article content clearly differentiate between actual events and the political concept. In short, it needs a thorough overhaul. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. Close this discussion. Royal Mate1 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' as what? The brunt of this discussion revolves around its existence, not whether RS have referred to it in some form or another, but the fact that it is being represented as being a real region. Notability is an issue unto itself, and is immaterial to the actual content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move to Novorossiya (political concept) initiated. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support requested move. Per my comment on the article talk page, confederation implies a real state (as has been noted by a number of users who've commented on this page already), and I see this alternative proposal as appropriate per NDESC as disambiguation to distinguish it from the historical region. "Novorossiya (confederation)" is not supported by any RS indicating it as being any form of COMMONNAME. Renaming would certainly make for a good starting point for disentangling the content to fit the scope of the subject. The only other possibilities occurring in RS are probably more CONCISE, but lean towards being identified as POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - With the amount of reliable sources why would this be deleted? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Novorossiya – Most of the content here is a fiction. "Novorossiya" does not functionally exist, and even proponents of the idea are saying as much. Given this, there is no reason to seperate this concept from the main article on the subject. Delete this article, and create a small section in the "Novorossiya" article for modern "concept". RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't the ones in charge though anymore, also why do we have United Armed Forces of Novorossiya which is full of RS connecting this as a real thing? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is in charge of "Novorossiya", because "Novorossiya" doesn't exist. The LPR and DPR leaderships do exist, but they do not agree on most things. In fact, the LPR itself has had significant problems with infighting between different factions in recent days. I couldn't tell you why we have that article, because it isn't representative of the reality on the ground. Nothing about the various separatist factions is "united". "Full of RS" is a great overstatement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon

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

WP:GAMECRUFT EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the compromise that led to List of Pokémon. The parallel recent AfD of that article is illuminating in the context of this one, although there is an imbalance in comparing the levels of notability in this one. I don't believe this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as the "other stuff" in question was arrived at after a long period of argument and a rough consensus for it. Deadbeef 04:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Deadbeef. This isn't much of a gamecruft thing either. While the article is a mess and lacks references (indeed, it's just a listing of Digimon and nothing else, lacking even short descriptions), AfD isn't cleanup and this can easily be fixed. While arguably detailed information belongs better in the Digimon Wikia than here, it's still important to acknowledge all Digimon here somewhere (obviously not at the main article). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: While I completely agree that AfD isn't cleanup, I'm not to sure that the article can "easily be fixed" - realistically it'll be at least weeks before the article resembles anything like List of Pokemon-quality, and that's assuming editors will be willing to clean it up. I believe userfication/moving to draftspace may be a better option as there the article can be worked on without violating policy or being re-nominated for deletion. Thoughts? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:NOTDIR wikipedia is not a fan site devoted to every single Digimon character that has or ever will exist, I am sure anyone can look up all of these entries on wikia. Some of the entries are notable yes (The ones with the articles) but I can bet that they are already wiki-linked elsewhere through plot details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google reveals no WP:GNG level notability of such a list. AadaamS (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deadbeef and Narutolovehinata5. Wikipedia can handle a list as part of its coverage of Digimon; there are entire books about these characters, so notability shouldn't be a doubt any more than it is for Pokémon.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay where are these "Books" that prove notability here and support that this list is needed for all of the un-notable Digimon? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nom: When would this list reasonably be used? None of the characters have a useful description. If someone needed this Wikia has more than enough pages covering it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: - WP:CSC #2 says "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic" as said above by me the names of minor digimon if they are relevant to the plot should be placed within the plot details. The other problem is that not every link on the list is non notable so the " Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" I don't see as applying here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what did I miss? Which ones are notable enough to have their own article? Which actually have their own article? The article would be WP:TOOLONG by an order of magnitude if they were all included in the parent article's plot details, besides which, that level of plot detail would also be too in-universe by at least an order of magnitude. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition we also have: DigiDestined, List of Digimon World characters, List of Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01 characters, List of Digimon Tamers characters, List of Digimon Frontier characters, List of Digimon Data Squad characters, and List of Digimon Fusion charactershat all talk about the characters in further detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and format after List of Pokémon. There are hundreds of these things; with one existing List article, all their names can be redirected to it. In the absense of such, the encyclopedia is likely to endure continual recreations by unaware editors. Pax 05:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are policy based arguments though that favor deletion here, I see no evidence of notability like the ones on List of Pokémon for many of the Digimon listed. recreations can be solved with WP:SALT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Digimon aren't as widely known as Pokemon, they're certainly not not notable - the cartoons aired on US television, and video games are slated for release this year. But even if I were to agree it wasn't, in this particular case I'd be inclined to ignore the rules and let users have their "revolting fancruft" if keeping it contained to one list article saves us from a ton of individual article AfDs in the future. Pax 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Move to Draftspace - while AfD is indeed not cleanup, the article is a complete mess and it would be a long, long time and a lot of work before it would even remotely be appropriate for mainspace, so moving it out and let willing editors clean it up is the best option. Evidence still needs to be supplied that most of the individual Digimon are themselves notable enough to justify the existence of a list, but at the same time I'm convinced that references do exist due to the popularity of the franchise. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do all those with blue links, link to List of Digimon Adventure characters? Regardless, character list for notable series are standard. This list helps bring about an understanding of how vast the Digimon series is. Adding additional information like the Pokemon list has, would be more desirable that what is there now. Dream Focus 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-but clean up. Its pretty common to have a "list of characters" article for fictional works, since it provides useful information about the work without cluttering up the main article. I'd also like to note the similarities between Pokémon and Digimon, specifically that they are fictional series that include an anime, manga, video games and card games. While I normally attempt to avoid "other stuff exists" arguments, I feel its valid in this case since there is valid reasoning for keeping the Pokémon lists that applies equally to the digimon list. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2015 (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. Sandstein 20:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wingmen (TV Series)

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

WP:TOOSOON. TV series to be released. Non-notable right now. While there are many results on Google when you search it, the results do not refer to this particular topic. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to a couple of sources (like this one and this one), the pilot has already aired. There's quite a bit about the trademark dispute, but not really "significant coverage" of the show itself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 14:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a WP:TOOSOON at this point. The article is relying almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources like its own Facebook profile and IMDb for "referencing", with only a single article about a trademark lawsuit in a properly reliable source — and while that article says that the pilot has aired, I cannot find a single reliable source which confirms what network aired the pilot or when. And those are exactly the two most critically important details that an article about a television show must always be able to provide and source in order to actually qualify it for a Wikipedia article — so if they're impossible to confirm, then the show just ain't there yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the sourcing improves — and no objection to sandboxing it in draftspace, either — but it doesn't qualify for an article until we can at least source what channel airs it. Delete or sandbox. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon, and unreliable sources. Nothing to support notability yet. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:31, 14 January 2015 (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. Although there are a few editors vehemently arguing for this article to stay, their arguments failed to sway a majority of editors !voting delete citing policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Not notable. Winning one of one years National Grandparents' Day council's songwriting contests is not a major award. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Gets a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. Scans of personal letters is not coverage in reliable sources.
Note that the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is his own personal website.
He claims to have the "official" song but who makes it official? The National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista, California. Who are they? A self created council with no official authority. What makes what they say official for a public holiday? Nothing. Was the song official for only the year in which he won the contest then official goes on to the next winner? We don't know cause it's a minor contest reliable sources don't seem to be covering and the only info we are getting is coming from Prill himself. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:04, 14 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 22 December 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 14:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be an attempt at passing GNG by sheer volume of trivial mentions, non-independent sources, and local sources. 0+0+0=0 Vrac (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One hell of a self-promoter here, but all those one-sentence mentions? As far as the GNG's concerned, 0+0+0+0+0 still equals zero. The nom's reasoning's pretty good. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Weisenbach, Traci L. (2011-08-26). "Prill wins statewide volunteer award". Huron Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Music and volunteering have been two very important pieces of Johnny Prill’s life since he was a boy. This year, he’s receiving a special honor for doing both at Courtney Manor for 25 years.
2. Treadwell, Matt (2004-09-10). "Prill's song chosen as official 2004 Grandparents Day anthem". Huron Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  "We're being tied into National Grandparents Day - a national holiday. That's a big honor and hard to top," Prill said.
  That's no small statement coming from a musician who has had five of his songs picked up and sung by "The Polish Price" himself - Bobby Vinton.One of Prill's songs, "Polka Radio," can be heard on Vinton's Greatest Polka Hits of All Time.
3. "Johnny Prill to host Grandparent's Day concert on Sept. 7". Huron Daily Tribune. 2008-08-21. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Prill, who is the writer of the Official Song of National Grandparents Day, “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa,” is Courtney Manor’s longest running volunteer, entertaining residents once a month for over 20 years.
  Prill said: “This concert is a family affair and we’re excited to have this opportunity to honor our nation’s grandparents.”
  In a recent interview, Prill had the opportunity to talk about his grandparents, his volunteer work at local nursing homes, and what inspired him to write “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa.”
4. Unscintillating (talk · contribs) wrote at the previous AfD:
  Here is a Highbeam preview of a 2004 article about Prill in the Polish-American Journal and here is an amusing music review in the lasvegasmercury that is comparable to the review already cited in the article from the Las Vegas Weekly. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
5. "Prill song on Sturr CD". Huron County View. 2011-09-08. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Local songwriter Johnny Prill has a song on a new CD. “Polish Prince," about Bobby Vinton, is on “Not Just Another Polka,” by 18-time Grammy Award winner "Jimmy Sturr and his Orchestra." The Starr Records release features 12 tracks in all.
  Prill said he was elated when he received the news that his song “Polish Prince” would be included on Sturr's new disc. “I've always been a big fan of Jimmy Sturr and his Orchestra, and when I received an advanced copy of the disc, I was thrilled. It meant that Bobby Vinton would be honored with my song performed by a top-notch band like the Jimmy Sturr Orchestra,” said Prill.
6. "Prill song on Grammy-nominated CD". Huron County View. 2012-01-19. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Singer/songwriter Johnny Prill was thrilled when he was notified that Jimmy Sturr & His Orchestra’s new CD “Not Just Another Polka”, which includes Prill’s composition "Polish Prince," had been nominated for a Grammy. Now, Prill is looking forward to the 54th Annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 12, to see if his song will be part of a Grammy award winning CD. Sturr's CD was nominated in the Best Regional Roots Album category. The Grammys will be broadcast live at 8 p.m. on CBS.
7. "Johnny Prill to present free concert for National Grandparents Day". Huron County View. 2010-09-05. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
8. "Polka CD Reviewed in Detroit Papers". Polish-American Journal. 2005-02-28. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required)
  The article notes:
  
  Johnny Prill's CD The Polka Beat was reviewed in the January 2, 2005 edition of the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. The article entitled "Bad Axe Polka King Keeps it Fresh," was written by John Smyntek and included a picture of Johnny.
9. Smyntek, John (2005-01-02). "Bad Axe Polka King Keeps it Fresh". Detroit Free Press.
10. "Johnny Prill Wins National Songwriter's Award". Polish-American Journal. 2004-10-31. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required)
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Johnny Prill to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) More sources added. Cunard (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Huron Daily Tribune articles are very local (County has a population of <35,000) indiscriminate puff pieces. None are significant coverage. The Polish-American Journal "article" is a reproduction of a press release, not independent. The amusing review is trivial. Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entire articles about the subject cannot credibly be dismissed as insignificant coverage. They are not "indiscriminate puff pieces". The articles are neutrally written.
One piece discusses the subject writing "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa", the official song for National Grandparents Day. Another article discussed how five of the subject's songs were chosen to be sung by Bobby Vinton. One of those songs, Polish Prince, was on a Grammy Award nominated CD Not Just Another Polka.
Prill's CD The Polka Beat was reviewed in the major newspaper the Detroit Free Press.
There is more than enough material here to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such hyper-local sources tend to be overly indiscriminate about what they publish, as these articles clearly are. They should be dismissed as not significant coverage.
That one piece discussing "the official song" is another reason this source should be dismissed, a lack of fact checking so not a reliable source. The song is not the official song for the day. Where did they get that info? Straight from Prill? They did not get it from the press release from National Grandparents Council of Chula Vista. They just said the he won their 2004 songwriters award. Did they do any fact checking? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The major newspaper the Detroit Free Press is not a "hyperlocal source".
The song is not the official song for the day. Where did they get that info? Straight from Prill? – From the United States Census website at http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/facts-for-features/2014/cb14ff-19_grandparents.pdf^WebCite:
“A Song for Grandma and Grandpa” was named the official song of National Grandparents Day in 2004 by the National Grandparents Day Council.
From The Roanoke Times at http://www.roanoke.com/life/gratitude-for-grandparents/article_6abaa591-8d7b-51ac-bb25-efb9032651cb.html^WebCite:
It is appropriate, then, that the official flower of Grandparents Day is the forget-me-not. “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa,” written by Johnny Prill, was named the official song of the holiday in 2004.
The sources say Prill's song is the official song for the day.
Cunard (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Free Press is one source of unknown size.
They got it from the United States Census website? Bullshit! They did not get it from a source that did not yet exist.
Articles, such as that Roanoke piece, that source Wikipedia for trivia tidbits are not reliable sources.
Are there any sources outside Bad Axe that say that before that bit of info, misrepresenting sources used, was spammed into Wikipedia by a SPA promoting Prill? Such as around the time it supposedly happened, back in 2004? Or are they all after ~~May 2011~~2006? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They got it from the United States Census website? Bullshit! They did not get it from a source that did not yet exist. – I do not know (nor do you) where they got that information from. But it is evident that they are correct. The United States Census' information confirms they are correct.
There is no evidence that the Roanoke piece sourced anything from Wikipedia. You are making stuff up.
Cunard (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single source of this info from 2004 when it supposedly happened? Is there any mention predating it's introduction into Wikipedia? Is there any mentions that go beyond mentioning this trivia titbit? The 2014 United States Census trivia collection just reproduces that claim, no indication of where that info came from.
Where does that claim come from? An SPA dedicated to promoting Prill introduced that "fact" unsourced to Wikipedia. No press mentions exist before then. They only started after that time. Lazy journos sourcing from Wikipedia. Another SPA dedicated to promoting Prill re-introduced that "fact" With sources. The sources used, 1 National Grandparents Council press release that does not say that the song is the official song. 2. "Editorial. Happy Grandparents Day!.". The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online, a paper which quotes directly from this version of a Wikipedia page. "."In 2004, the National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista, California announced that "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa’’ by Johnny Prill is the official song of the National Grandparents Day holiday.US Senator Debbie Stabenow told Prill that "it is wonderful that ‘A Song for Grandma And Grandpa’ was chosen as the official song of National Grandparents Day. You have put into words the unique relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren." Lazy Journo copying from Wikipedia but at least they admit it, "Other countries celebrate National Grandparents Day on different dates, the Wikipedia said." Two sources, one does not verify the claim, the other is Wikipedia itself. After that dodgy reintroduction of the claim it again appears in press as a trivia titbit. It's a claim that has been repeatedly removed from Wikipedia but has been reintroduced by SPA promoting Prill but not providing any Valid verification.
What does The National Grandparents Day Council [32], the organisation that supposedly made this declaration, have to say about Prill and his song? Their press release says nothing about it being the official song of the U.S. National Grandparents Day holiday. It just says it he is "the winner of the the 2004 Grandparents Day National Songwriter's Award." And their website? It says nothing.
What does Johnny Prill's press release of 23 August 2010 say about the song. "He penned the official National Grandparents Day Song". Is he the source of this claim? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.grandparents-day.com/y2006/OVjprill/OVjprill.html^WebCite says:
Johnny Prill's CD "A Song For Grandma And Grandpa," contains the official song of National Grandparents Day. This enhanced CD allows you to print the sheet music for “A Song For Grandma And Grandpa” right from your computer. It also contains a music video of the song.
http://www.grandparents-day.com/aboutus.htm^WebCite says:
The National Grandparents Day Council is a non-profit corporation, established by descendants of Marian H. McQuade, Founder of National Grandparents Day.
Cunard (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the website. In 2006 a page posted on the National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista's website called it the official song of the day. I still stand by my position that this self created corporation maybe saying so does not make it THE official song of National Grandparents Day. The lack the authority. It just makes it the official National Grandparents Day Council's song of National Grandparents Day, not a major thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for consideration of sources posted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source is a 1993 article about Johnny Prill in the Huron Daily Tribune:
Oglenski, Debbie (1993-09-25). "The family that plays together". Huron Daily Tribune. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
The article begins:
Family has a high priority in Johnny Prill's life, and that's apparent in his latest audio cassette, 'My Sweet Rose'...'For this last album we cut 14 tunes and we picked 10,' Prill said.
Cunard (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has in depth reporting from the Detroit Free Press, the Huron Daily Tribune (apparently owned by Hearst Corp), and Huron County View. In terms of reliability, DFP and HDT would seem okay. It is not clear if HCV has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. I haven't been able to access the Diario Las Américas reference, nor the The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online one. The article minimally meets the requirements of WP:GNG, having significant coverage in multiple (here at least two) reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Assuming good faith with regard to HCV and the inaccessible sources, there may be five reliable sources. It has many references that are to the same repeated sources. But even when regarded as one source, it still passes for notability. Some of the references should absolutely be removed, but the article does not appear to cross the threshold for WP:PROMOTION nor other WP:NOT criteria. Therefore, there is not an appropriate rationale for deletion. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diario Las Américas reference does not have any depth of coverage of Prill. The Manila Bulletin Newspaper is sourced from Wikipedia. There is no evidence of depth of in depth reporting in Detroit Free Press. That leaves local coverage only. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: Do you have a link for the Diario or Manila references? When I click on the one on the article I get "Page not found" and "page you requested either doesn't exist or isn't available right now". ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. I read Diario Las Américas last time it was introduced at afd. Manila is available through Factiva. The article I quoted is their initial piece on the day (September 12, 2009) The followup editorial (used as a source) repeats much of that piece without providing attribution. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the nominator of the 2nd afd for clarification. What does he remember about the coverage from Detroit press? duffbeerforme (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage linked above is mostly from a very local paper with limited coverage, and does not pass the threshold. The only other sources are press releases that also fail to mention him entirely, or only mention him in passing. I don't remember much of the Detroit Free Press coverage, and they don't have an archive, but I remember it being only one-sentence mentions here and there, and maybe one review at best. The only other coverage I remember is a single paragraph in Country Weekly that said nothing more than the fact that he name-dropped Alan Jackson in a song. The only hits on Google Books are one-sentence mentions of his "Grandparents" song or false positives. Overall, there are only 327 unique hits for his name on Google. It is clear that he is not notable outside a small hub in the Thumb of Michigan if at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rarely !vote on a popular music AfD, but this seems a very clear case of hype and making a big deal out of minor accomplishments. I suspect news stories of the type presented here to be very much influenced by PR, and local coverage of local artists and writers is not usually considered sufficiently discriminating here for the purposes of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicions that the new sources are influenced by PR are backed by no evidence. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clearly promotional. You can't use your own website to establish notability Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill's website is not being used to establish notability. That is not a reason being used to support retention.
The Detroit Free Press article provides substantial coverage of the subject. The Detroit Free Press is a major newspaper. In 2011, it was the 23rd most circulated newspaper in the United States. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He created a song that is now "the official song of the U.S. National Grandparents Day holiday". He gets ample coverage for this and not just in America. In the Filipino newspaper Manila Bulletin, he gets coverage, and it says US Senator Debbie Stabenow told Prill that "it is wonderful that "A Song for Grandma And Grandpa" was chosen as the official song of National Grandparents Day. You have put into words the unique relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren." [33] Highbeam list various other newspapers covering him. [34] If your work receives that much attention, then you are a notable artist. Dream Focus 23:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I wasn't aware that creating a song for a non-notable holiday made you notable. Also, the sources you're linking are about the holiday or grandparents in general, with Prill only being mentioned in passing. I also wasn't aware that being passingly name-dropped was the same as significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American government has declared it an official national holiday. It is celebrated in other nations as well. So how is it you decided its a "non-notable holiday"? And he clearly passes WP:CREATIVE #3 "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Dream Focus 11:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Again, he is not the primary subject of the sources. The holiday is. The sources only mention him very, very, very passingly. He's literally one sentence in an article about something else entirely. I was mentioned in an article on a local shopping mall; does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His well known work has been the subject of multiple newspapers. So he passes Creative. Dream Focus 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Are you intentionally ignoring the "passing mention" part? He is not the subject of the sources. The holiday is, with him only mentioned in passing. How much clearer can I make this before you finally see it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His work has not been the subject of multiple newspapers, just a few passing mentions as an item of trivia. His work (no sign of it being popular) is not THE official song of the day (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Huron Daily Tribune and the Huron County View, Prill has received coverage for his work in the Detroit Free Press, the Las Vegas Weekly and the Las Vegas Mercury.
It is not an extraordinary claim to say that Johnny Prill's song is the official song of the day. The non-profit organization founded by the National Grandparents Day founder's descendants chose his song as the official song for the day. Their website (as I showed above) says this. Cunard (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "his work" I was referring to that song that was being discussed.
That council don't get to pick the official song for a US Government holiday. The US government that made it an official US holiday gets to do that, not a little self created corporation.
It is an extraordinary claim that that ~~horrid little~~ song is the official song for a US holiday. We have very ordinary evidence for this claim. Mentioned in passing as an item of trivia. Mentioned in passing by a self created corporation. That page on their website looks more like they are hosting an advert for Prill than anything written by them. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. To repeat. Manila Bulletin copied that from Wikipedia. Not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage of the subject seems to be mostly limited to local publications and I don't personally agree that creating "the official song of the U.S. National Grandparents Day holiday" is a credible indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. He appears to be somewhat locally notable but no more than that—note that link is to a failed proposal. Locally notable ≠ notable. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The major newspaper the Detroit Free Press is not a local source. Detroit is roughly 112 miles from Johnny Prill's hometown Bad Axe. The article is titled "Bad Axe Polka King Keeps it Fresh" and discusses Prill and his CD "The Polka Beat". Prill is the "Bad Axe Polka King" referenced in the title. Cunard (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said "mostly limited to...". Unless I have missed something, and I am known to make mistakes, it's still the only non-local source that lends significant coverage. Which is not in my opinion sufficient. I commend your efforts to find sources Cunard, and your arguments have swayed me previously. But not on this occasion. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes the first criterion of WP:MUSICBIO:
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
WP:MUSICBIO criterion one prohibits less reliable sources like school and university papers, but it does not prohibit reputable local sources like the Hearst Corporation–owned Huron Daily Tribune. Cunard (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single short review. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is mostly built on material from a self-published website and a local newspaper. The most credible source appears to be a review of a CD in a non-national newspaper. There is not enough credible evidence supplied in the article nor in this discussion to establish notability. The main claim for notability appears to be that he wrote a song. The song redirects to the article. So which is notable, the song or the author? If the song itself isn't notable, then the main claim to notability has gone. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My second preference (after "keep") is redirect to National Grandparents Day (with the history preserved under the redirect) (where Prill and his song are mentioned). As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the connection to National Grandparents Day:
1. From The Roanoke Times at http://www.roanoke.com/life/gratitude-for-grandparents/article_6abaa591-8d7b-51ac-bb25-efb9032651cb.html^WebCite:
  It is appropriate, then, that the official flower of Grandparents Day is the forget-me-not. “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa,” written by Johnny Prill, was named the official song of the holiday in 2004.
2. http://www.grandparents-day.com/y2006/OVjprill/OVjprill.html^WebCite says:
  Johnny Prill's CD "A Song For Grandma And Grandpa," contains the official song of National Grandparents Day. This enhanced CD allows you to print the sheet music for “A Song For Grandma And Grandpa” right from your computer. It also contains a music video of the song.
  http://www.grandparents-day.com/aboutus.htm^WebCite says:
  The National Grandparents Day Council is a non-profit corporation, established by descendants of Marian H. McQuade, Founder of National Grandparents Day.
3. Coleman, Marilyn J. (2014). The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia. Sage Publications. p. 641. ISBN 1452286159. Retrieved 2015-01-21.
  The book notes:
  
  Since 2004, there has been an official Grandparents Day song, "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa", by Johnny Prill, a singer-songwriter in the folk-polka traditions and a lifelong volunteer performer at nursing homes.
4. Barber, Lorin (2011). 28 Tips to Become a Great Grandpa. Cedar Fort, Inc. p. 36. ISBN 1462100554. Retrieved 2015-01-21.
These sources present a clear link between Johnny Prill and National Grandparents Day. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support a redirect to National Grandparents Day (with the history preserved under the redirect), Bellerophon (talk · contribs), SilkTork (talk · contribs), and the others? Much of the material in the article could be used for the basis of a restored article if new sources surface in the future. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UWF Live

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

No notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the current state of the article doesn't cut it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references that support notability are present. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:29, 14 January 2015 (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 New Taipei City#Education. (Non-admin closure)--114.81.255.41 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuwei Elementary Schools

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

No evidence to suggest notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard procedure for nn schools as documented at OUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [[]] per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Davey et al.Charles (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers who have performed at the Mall of Asia

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

As per WP:NOTDIR. WP is not a directory of everyone that has performed at a venue. I compare to Events at Madison Square Garden which only notes the most significant events. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Performing at a mall is not a defining moment in an entertainer's career, I hope. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tiffany would consider those fighting words... postdlf (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing vote to KEEP. My bad. I should have found out more about this place before shooting off my comment. Article is within WP standards. Sorry to Tiffany too.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 21:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kitfoxxe. La Scala sure, Grand Ole Opry probably, Mall of Asia not so much. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I don't think this is an appropriate topic per WP:SALAT. In order to have a stand-alone list, there needs to be a quality that is noteworthy. At the very least, there should be something in the article of each artist about their performance at the Mall of Asia if this is noteworthy, and that's not the case here. Tavix | Talk 22:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Performing tat the mall does not look notable enough for an article.--TMD Talk Page. 03:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This isn't a mall, but a rather large arena adjacent to the mall: the Mall of Asia Arena. Apparently this also includes the concert grounds which holds a much larger amount of people. –H T D 12:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was off-base with my comment. However the capacity of the arena is only 20,000 and it's only been open 3 years. I would still say delete.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. They have an outdoor venue too.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd understand questions on age, but at ~20,000 capacity, this is one of the largest indoor arenas in the world. Indoor arenas rarely surpass a capacity of 25,000 people. The outdoor concert grounds supposedly hold a lot more people but has now been increasingly depreciated in favor of the arena. –H T D 14:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA concerts are often held in baseball stadiums which are much larger. But still any list like this is kind of incidental. Successful performers will play in hundreds of venues over their careers. Anyway there are also at least two other articles on the mall and the arena, so its notability is not in question.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the "concert grounds" capacity should be equivalent to baseball stadiums. Outdoor stadiums aren't popular in the Philippines, and most outdoor venues are ad hoc, like the "concert grounds". It's just that they don't use that frequently any more ever since they opened the arena. Probably they earn more money indoors. –H T D 14:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there really don't seem to be any other "People who performed at Venue X" lists, which would seem to suggest there is no interest in such information. (Interest should probably be the guiding criteria for lists since notability is hard to define: Does the fact that most concerts are reviewed mean a list of concerts by venue is notable?) Pinging @Mz7: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's been over two years since I last gave this article attention, and looking back, I can't say for certain whether or not I would review it in the same way if I were faced with the same submission today. So setting my status as the AfC reviewer aside, here are my thoughts: I wouldn't bank on inclusion as a method for gauging notability; the fact that similar lists do not exist does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest for the subject. Thanks to the fact that most concerts are generally verifiable, it is pretty likely that a reliably sourced list can be created for "entertainers performing at venue X". On the other hand, per WP:NOT, the fact that a subject is verifiable doesn't necessarily mean it is worthy of inclusion. (So no, the fact that most concerts are reviewed does not mean a list of concerts by venue is notable.) WP:LISTN suggests that a list topic is notable if the elements in the list have been discussed in independent reliable sources as a set with each other. Ultimately, the question is whether or not a list of entertainers performing at the Mall of Asia would contribute to our goal of producing a high-quality encyclopedia. I'm personally not sure, but I do note there is a scarcity of evidence to support this article. Mz7 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the following precedents: List of concerts at Barclays Center, List of concerts in Hyde Park, List of concerts at Parken Stadium and List of concerts at NDK, Sofia.--RioHondo (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those other stuff are so many that it has become commonplace in Wikipedia for articles on notable venues. List of events at the Jacksonville Coliseum, List of events at Tele2 Arena, List of events at Wrigley Field, List of performances at The Little Theatre on the Square, List of music concerts at the Millennium Stadium, List of music concerts at the National Stadium, Cardiff Arms Park, List of concerts held at El Campin Stadium, List of events held at Warner Bros. Movie World, List of events held in the Stožice Arena, List of events held in Kombank Arena, List of events held at Simon Bolivar Park. With the venue here being among the world's 25 largest indoor arenas, it should be easy to see why this should also have its own list.--RioHondo (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm definitely going to nominate The Little Theatre on the Square for extinction. It literally is a little theatre. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden list to List of events held at Mall of Asia or "...the Mall of Asia complex" and keep. The early opposition was based largely on a misunderstanding based on the name of the venue. As noted, this isn't a mall in the typical sense, but rather one of the world's largest indoor stadiums. Googling, a see a wide variety of events have been held at the MOA complex including concerts, major sporting events, Guinness World Record attempts, visting from the pope, a celebrity wedding, and more. Certainly there are plenty of notable events that warrant commentary (as is the case for the majority of RioHondo's examples) to justify a list article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ThaddeusB. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep, but please clean-up. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igor P. Kaidashev

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

There is too little evidence that the subject of this BLP, which is written like a resume, passes general notability guidelines. See discussion at WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a hard time reading the "article" due to a combination of poor English and the fact it is mostly lists of proper nouns ("name dropping" if you will). Not really sure how to determine notability under WP:NACADEMIC for a Ukrainian doctor, so no opinion on notability at this time. All I can say is the article is pretty much useless as written. Pinging @DGG: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I go considerably by that national language encyclopedia for nation figures. . It is true that some national encyclopedias may be over influenced by local people, or over-accepting for certain types of articles. But here the question is judging whether the positions he has held are the leading professional positions in his field in his country, and I say they are President of the Ukrainian Immunological society is sufficient. As is characteristic of the successor states of the USSR, he also holds a number of related positions in related societies. Citation figures will be low for any Eastern European applied medical scientist, because ISI, Scopus, and even Google Scholar include very few of the relevant publishing venues, and in order to be included both the journal publishing the work and the one citing it must be included. We've had the paretic for WP:PROF of using an international standard for pure science, but for everything else we use a national standard. The equivalent positions in the US would qualify, and enWP covers the world. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs cleanup, but subject appears to pass notability as an academic. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Montanabw. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2015 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Knowles (actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable actor EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promotional article without a single reliable source.--162.105.99.188 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All unreliable sources, no support for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya–Mongolia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. there is nothing to this relationship except diplomatic recognition, given that happened only in 2012, there is also unlikely to be any real trade, agreements or leader visits, or any significant interaction. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a "boilerplate relationship", and the text even mentions that it was entered for purely formal reasons. Unless there's something more to it that gets added to the article, I have to agree it fails WP:GNG. --Latebird (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Latebird Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Latebird. No substance to the relationship between these countries. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the suggested standards for bilateral relations. Does not meet WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:34, 14 January 2015 (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 Nomination withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy High Commission of Sri Lanka, Chennai

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

I really don't see the encyclopaedic value of a deputy high commission aritcle. most of the sources merely confirm factual info about the commission like who's been appointed deputy commission. any actual decisions would be made by the proper high commision in Delhi. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH, albeit on the weak side. Source examples include [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -It may not have the highest authority and high commission situation at Delhi may be the final decision-making body, but it is not a valid criteria for deletion. It appears to have been written in detail in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (sources provided above by User:NorthAmerica1000, see also -[42]), therefore it does meet the required standard and merits a Wikipedia article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:48, 6 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Cullen Marshall

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

The article suggests notability for having a notable father and husband. See WP:NOTINHERITED. The stud farm does not appear to be notable. Vrac (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although my user name might lead me to want to keep any article containing the name "Cullen", I am obligated to adhere to our policies and guidelines. This lady is not notable, although some of her relatives are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claims of notability or significance. Per WP:NOTINHERITED. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps did not find much, although there is a hospice center named for her that came up a few times.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2015 (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. Whereas it might not be spam, notability has not been demonstrated by reliable sources, and therefore the consensus is for deletion. May be recreated if sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TinyCA

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

Not shown to be notable. Kind of advertisy. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 23:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should've PRODed, my bad. I've been gone for too long.. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As it's a free tool, I'm not seeing a spam angle here. (And I like obscure thingy articles.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. a search did not turn up any other significant RS coverage, just incidental mentions in how-to articles.Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and likely spam (and yes, free things certainly can be spammed and often are). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, IMHO it does look spammy so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:03, 6 January 2015 (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 HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. Closing early as this looks like a borderline attack page and has severe pov issues reporting allegations as fact. Closing as Fork / POV Fork NN Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton's Enemies List

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

There is only one source for this article, which is a political hit-piece book and the additional sources listed from news sites are reports on the book. Adammc123 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced negative material on a living person. (WP:BLP) The book does seem to be notable, having been reviewed in several well-known publications, and has its own article: HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. That should be enough.Borock (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to the book article would not be so bad. At least then it would be clear that we were reporting on what the book says, not reporting their allegations as fact.Borock (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only enemies list that I know of that merits an article is Nixon's Enemies List (and its longer version Master list of Nixon's political opponents), as it was kept in document form by a sitting government with the intent of using government agencies to punish the people on the list (via tax audits, deny grants, etc). The Nixon list got a great deal of press attention at the time and is still remembered. This Clinton list, however, was made by an out-of-office staff remembering people who they felt had screwed them in a heated election contest by not supporting them when it counted and who they would try to screw back in the listed person's next campaign. But all politicians have such lists in their head, if not written down, and there's nothing about this one – which hasn't gotten much press attention since the flurry of discussion after the book came out – that merits a separate article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "clinton enemies list" has more than 1.2 million ghits, which is about a million more than "nixon enemies list". It has its own Huffington Post news tag and its impact still ripples through Democratic Party primaries. No one doubts the existance of the list and it has been covered by Reliable Sources extensively. Juno (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this article does not leave readers more informed than before they read it. It is just repeating speculation. (BTW if you want to know I have never voted for either Clinton.) Borock (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. Look at the sources. For instance the Time magazine article. It starts by saying that the information is "according to a new book." And then goes on to repeat the allegations. WP is not gossip. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. I make this recommendation due to all sources referenced ultimately getting their information from a single source, the book, which has it's own Wikipedia page. LloydSev (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book in question. Comment: I just created a new redirect page, Clinton enemies list, forwarding to the book above, but now I'm not so sure that it shouldn't stand on its own, and even have this article redirect into it. Rationale: the term "Clinton enemies list" has been around considerably longer than the 2014-released book above (where appears to merely be the latest confirmation that such a list exists/existed). For instance, here's HuffPo from 2009, JudicialWatch from 1999, and Sherman Skolnick from 1991. Pax 05:45, 7 January 2015 (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 snow close. This looks like someone's clear attempt to try to promote themselves on Wikipedia, so I'm also going to block the original editor for spam, if he hasn't already been blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amerrycountry

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

Possible hoax, but claims of notability. Googles terribly, but may exist. I found a pic of the cover. Such glowing praise conflicts with the near absence of author and title at search engines. I also see no google matches for the review quotes, so not reviews taken from another book. This one is odd and I thought I'd AfD it rather than speedy, to be on the safe side. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was on scd patrol and came here to axe it, but if its at afd I'll throw in with the axe group on this one on WP:TNT grounds if nothing else. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to apologize for the waste of community resources on this one. Sometimes I err on the side of caution a bit too much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, sorry. I should have just deleted it. Anyhow, the author isn't responding at his talk about whether or not this is a hoax. That fact and more googling shows this is highly likely to be a hoax. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Real or not, I can't find any evidence that it passes WP:NBOOK. --Drm310 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 - Penemy of Pignorance is the author of the book and is trying to promote it [43], I assume POP is Stephan anyway?, Who cares get rid. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:00, 6 January 2015 (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.