Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 14

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 21 (Sat) September 20 (Fri) September 19 (Thu) More...

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

< 13 August	15 August >

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Content of a business plan

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a how-to guide. This completely unsourced article consists entirely of instructing the reader how to construct a business plan, which, in addition to violating WP:NOTHOW, is also impossible to do in a single article. Each business will have unique needs that cannot all be encapsulated in a single article. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - the article might as well be titled, How to write a business plan. The whole article {{main}}-tags business plan and, as WikiDan61 points out, is only relevant to certain industries/styles of business plan. Stalwart111 22:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete as flagrant violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. Ansh6 6 6 04:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong delete per the above. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:NOTGUIDE. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

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 result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The International Journal of Learning

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, but no sources forthcoming and journal website still displays only the non-selective databases listed here. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No indication of notability from reliable sources. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete This journal does not appear to have a signifigant academic impact within its discipline as shown by its lack of indexing in selective databases per WP:NJournals, and lack of independent coverage per WP:N. Hence, this journal has not yet risen to the level of acceptable notability, which is necessary for inclusion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fraser Aird

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that Sky Sports article sourced in the article was not written yet the last time this article was deleted. Since it is a routine transfer announcement, the article still fails WP:GNG and Mr. Aird is still yet to play in a fully pro league, so the article still fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G4 (or at least the spirit of G4) and salt. We shouldn't be second-guessing consensus every time someone publishes details of a routine contract announcement for a junior player in a non-professional league. When, or if, the subject meets either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY, take it to Deletion Review and get permission to recreate it. Stalwart111 00:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Meets WP:GNG criteria going by sources currently used in article and other sources on Google that could be incorporated into the article. Also WP:GNG trumps WP:NFOOTBALL. VanguardScot 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG if there are national news outlets writing articles about his future national team choice dilemma: Decision time for Gers kid Fraser Aird as Scotland tussle with Canada. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we really at the point where a local paper's article about a junior footballer potentially signing with an amateur team counts as "significant coverage"? He still has to be notable for something. He's not notable for his football (per WP:NFOOTY) so what is he notable for? Being an indecisive teenager? We're going to start including articles for every unsigned junior amateur who happens to have had their indecision covered by multiple local papers? Stalwart111 22:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

He is actually a professional first team footballer (not an amateur junior player), plays for a fully professional football team (not an amateur team), who happens to play in a league of mostly semi-professional teams. Facts wouldn't go amiss in a debate eh? VanguardScot 11:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the obviously routine player profiles, match reports, squad lists, and transfer announcements, all we've got are a couple of local human interest stories, and an article written about every young dual-national footballer. Most of these sources were already rejected as routine the last time this article was deleted, and not without reason. This does not constitute significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - no prejudice to recreation if the new Rangers club survive long enough to be promoted to a notable level, or if he's capped by either national team at senior level. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'new Rangers club'. See: spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/. 90.207.49.117 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - he passes Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Football/Notability. "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below: 1. Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional." Rangers F.C. are a fully professional football club and play at a national level of the league structure, Scottish League One. 90.207.49.117 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Scottish League One is not fully pro. See WP:FPL. Also, WP:FOOTYN is an outdated essay which is no longer used for player notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep -- Rangers is an extremely notable club, fully professional, but currently in a strange position due to its financial problems, which measn that it has had to work its way back up through the league structure. I would accordingly suggest that its players remain notable, dispite the club's (probably temporary) fall from grace. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That argument has been heard and rejected at afd on at least five separate occasions, including the last time this article was deleted. It is not the professional standing of a particular club, but the league in which they play that is relevant for football specific notability, or, failing that, the coverage received by the player in question. While some Rangers players will likely meet general notability, this one does not for the reasons I've outlined above, making a blanket exception for Rangers inappropriate and this article non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - while Rangers still is a big club, this footballer hasn't received enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline, and playing for a big club confers no notability. And obviously, he fails WP:NFOOTY as he only plays at amateur level. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hot Radio

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

A small local radio station, lacking any substantial coverage in independent sources, with no evidence of notability. (It is interesting that the creator of the article had second thoughts about its notability, and proposed deletion here.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep As I noted on the article's talk page I believe as a Ofcom (UK radio regulator) licensed radio station with significant broadcast and social commitments that the organisation should be able to meet the criteria for notability as per Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(media) policy that "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, as well as the uniqueness of the programming." Philedmondsuk (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what you say, Knowledge (XXG):Notability (media) is not a policy. It is an "essay", which means that it is simply a page created by one or more editors to express their personal opinions. is there any evidence that the subject of the article actually satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy? I have searched extensively, and failed to find any. "Uniqueness of the programming" may be interesting, but it does not feature anywhere in the notability policies, as far as I know. Also, saying that a subject "should be able to meet" criteria, without actually producing any evidence that it does so, does not prove anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on my taking Knowledge (XXG):Notability (media) as a policy. However I have read similar view expressed amongst many editors, so it appears to be a "common" view, though I appreciate that my vague assumption of it being a "common" view does not make it the consensus view. However the matter in hand is the notability of Hot Radio. A brief search shows up several sources on the topic, including ] ] ] ] ] ]

Philedmondsuk (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Philedmondsuk. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. Caffeyw (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete -- They may be licensed, but I doubt that this kind of low-power community radio station is ever likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:NOTPAPER. As noted in the article, it started life as "The Bay 102.8" (not to be confused with The Bay up north). I've discovered that it was then bought and rebranded by A.F.C. Bournemouth. There are a few refs supporting such. It's also been noted by others. While the current content isn't of great encyclopedic value, the article could certainly be improved (even if not much more than a stub) for the benefit of listeners of the station, and anyone else. -- Trevj (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Philippines' Next Top Model#Attempted second version comeback. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Top Model Philippines

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

The planned franchise had canceled after auditions were abrupt. No further announcement on any future shows.

P.S., it should include the planned first cycle is going to air. ApprenticeFan 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 05:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 05:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Since this series was indeed announced and some work went toward producing it, and since it would have been part of a popular worldwise franchise, I think it's probably worth keeping, although it needs to be thoroughly rewritten to make it reflect the current situation. (As for the "Cycle 1" article, that can be merged into and redirected to the main one.) - dcljr (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER - it has been delayed for the time being. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment WP:HAMMER doesn't apply here since the title of the subject of the article is actually known. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep but Improve. For the main article. There is a lot of unreferenced stuff so improve refs if this article is to be kept (otherwise Delete or Merge and redirect per WP:CRYSTAL to List of programs broadcast by ETC) It says in one of the refs by the official website that it's postponed, but not cancelled. Merge and redirect for the "cycle 1" article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep Top Model Philippines, redirect the cycle article. A new version of a major international franchise is pretty obviously notable. It's a bit thin for its own article but there's nowhere appropriate to merge and there's nothing special about a page vs a page section -86.155.137.48 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Fails notability. It could have been, but Wiki is NOT:CRYSTAL, and notability is not inherited from parent show. Caffeyw (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - A failed project with no encyclopedic value. STSC (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ Redirect to ~~either List of programs broadcast by ETC or Top Model~~ Philippines' Next Top Model#Attempted second version comeback for now. At the moment, it's unknown if the show will proceed, so for now it would be best for it to be mentioned and the circumstances surrounding it explained. Narutolovehinata5 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Per comments made below, a redirect to the section on the PNTM article regarding the aborted revival would probably be more appropriate, although information can also be added to the two previously mentioned articles. Narutolovehinata5 03:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I wrote a sub-section of Philippines' Next Top Model page, suggesting merge the article and redirect to Philippines' Next Top Model#Attempted second version comeback when the consensus is going to close. List of programs broadcast by ETC or Top Model are unlikely to be redirects for the page and inappropriate with these targeted links suggested by some editors above. ApprenticeFan 14:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Philippines' Next Top Model#Attempted second version comeback for now, per above ApprenticeFan's sound analysis. It appears the most reasonable solution. Cavarrone 09:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep per dcljr. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Philippines' Next Top Model#Attempted second version comeback. I don't have a problem with ApprenticeFan's suggestion. Let's just not delete it completely. BTW, for those who are citing WP:CRYSTAL, I would note that the failure of a member of a popular franchise to be brought to fruition may be in itself notable, as long as the article is about that failure, and not simply a "placeholder" article stating that the show didn't happen. I don't know if there are enough sources to make such an article, but if so, it could be worth having. However, I have no problem with attempting to do this at Philippines' Next Top Model#Attempted second version comeback instead of in its own article. - dcljr (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to André (singer). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by André

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

Per the rationale given on two similar AfDs, this is a list of just one notable item. This fails WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Knowledge (XXG)). Lugnuts 07:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - "List of songs recorded by X" is a valid search query, but it doesn't seem like any of this artist's albums are notable either, so this one should be deleted. T C N7JM 09:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 02:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to André (singer) per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Aunty Disco Project

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

Per the rationale given on two similar AfDs, this is a list of no notable items. This fails WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Knowledge (XXG)). Lugnuts 07:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Aunty Disco Project#Discography. "List of songs recorded by X" is a valid search query, and this section is this artist's discography. TCN7JM 09:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe it is a valid search query. "List of Aunty Disco Project songs" might be a valid search term, but this isn't. Lugnuts 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  - It must be, as this seems to be the naming convention for all other lists of this type. T C N7JM 11:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 02:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - this seems little more than an unsourced list of tracks from Aunty Disco Project (album), effectively a repeat of soemthing that already exists. It's a highly unlikely search term therefore not warranting a redirect. Sionk (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Abhijeet Bhattacharya

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

~~Redirect~~ to Abhijeet Bhattacharya#Notable songs. "List of songs recorded by X" is a valid search query, and this section has a list of notable songs by this artist who I cannot pronounce. TCN7JM 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Non of those songs in that list are notable either - it's a list of films he's sung for/on. It's a very unlikely search term to be honest too. Lugnuts 13:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  - I guess they are not that notable after looking at the table again (I confused the first and second rows), but on second thought, they don't really have to be. It's not a standalone list, it's within the singer's article and it helps give meaningful content to the article. If this is redirected, a person looking for songs recorded by this singer can find them here. TCN7JM 10:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    - The policy on stand-alone lists clearly states "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Knowledge (XXG)". It fails that and WP:NOTDIR too. Lugnuts 10:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      - First off, the list in the singer's main article is not standalone, so that does not apply. Second off, having a list of films this singer has recorded songs for and having the name of the song that was featured in the movie is useful information, and does not fail WP:NOTDIR. Furthermore, what does that have to do with redirecting the list? T C N7JM 12:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping a list of non-notable items. They are all non-notable. It is non-notable. They are not notable. Lugnuts 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        While I must proclaim that I was trying to avoid ITSUSEFUL by attempting to explain why and how the information was useful, I have come to agree with you that the list should not be redirected, but instead deleted because the list of songs is not notable. However, there still should be something in the article about the films the singer has sung for. I now vote delete. - T C N7JM 02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Have following article been missed out of AfD, or are they more notable than this one or did nominator not come across these yet?

Instead of scattering all discussions, it would be better to have one discussion, if nominator feels these should be deleted too. I see that Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi is a separate discussion for no specific reason as such. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want an "all or none" type discussion. Each of those lists will be looked at in time. They all look prime deletion candidates. Lugnuts 08:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if combined together, editors can gauge them differently and put their opinions. Isn't that possible? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 05:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - the artist might be notable, and his songs might be too, but that doesn't mean it needs to go in a separate article, particularly as the main Abhijeet Bhattacharya article isn't really big enough for a content split. Ritchie333 14:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - this a "list of everything he's ever done ever, ever" article, more appropriate for his CV or website than a Knowledge (XXG) list article (even the list of 'notable songs' on the Abhijeet Bhattacharya article don't seem to show evidence of notability). Sionk (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Balog

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

Fails notability. Citations for material are mostly, if not entirely, from non-WP:RS sources. IMDB, .com sites, facebook. He is supposedly notable for five jobs, unusual in a 60 year old, much more suspicious in a 23-year old. There are no cites from WP:RS sources at all. Student7 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete This filmmaker is not yet notable. Neither are his films to date. No coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen Let's discuss it 15:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 21:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

SubmitINme

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

Article on a SEO company. All the references are to either social media or to press releases - it lacks independent sourcing, so it does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete -as per norm.- Jayanta Nath 07:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was Merged to USS Maury (AGS-16) as per below. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Willard J. McNulty

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER IMO. I can't see anything in this article that makes him notable. This article is more about the USS Maury and hydographic survey achievements than him Gbawden (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge to USS Maury (AGS-16). Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Don't believe a merge/redirect is in order since there's nothing really about him to put on the main article on the ship Caffeyw (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There is info on the boat not in the boat article and some bits on the person. Should be merged. 19:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge Gbawden is correct. The article Willard J. McNulty primarily contains extensive sourced information on the USS Maury (AGS-16). This information on the Maury's activities and its sourcing though are critically absent from the Knowledge (XXG) article on the Maury, which does not without it even contain a reference list. Captain (naval) McNulty is noted in historical texts and in archives of the Naval History and Heritage Command. A simple redirect, however, can facilitate researchers interested in this of his commands or brief context on him. I have already edited USS Maury to include the missing information relevant to the Maury contained in Willard J. McNulty and its sources and noted, therein, briefly, information on Capt. McNulty's contribution to the Maury 's command and, briefly, relevant context on him and created a redirect page Willard J. McNulty (Captain naval USN), which redirects to the article USS Maury (AGS-16), so if this is a satisfactory resolution for the community, the Willard J. McNulty article can simply be Delete. Albiet (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet (originally forgot to sign)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Albeit has merged this into the ship article. I am redirecting. As a satisfactory outcome I think that should conclude this discussion? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Snaugh

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

Contested prod. Word made up in one day by a bored individual. - Blanchardb -- timed 18:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:MADEUP. A prime example of what Knowledge (XXG) is not. (I might add, let it snow...) Ansh6 6 6 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete, really want to G3 it, but can't quite... We really need a G14 for neologisms, among other G-#'s we need. Dea db eef 19:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Snow delete as made-up word and dictionary definition. Urban Dictionary has 2 meanings for this word (laugh+sneeze, laugh+snort) neither of which match the meaning given in this article. Clearly not any kind of commonly used word and not an encyclopedic topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Keep - Withdrawn by nominator. Transcendence (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Timothy Brenton

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn - per Tiptoety Transcendence (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - This is not your run of the mill murder. This incident received national media coverage and the suspect was linked to another high visibility attack in which he is accused of engaging in a firebombing. This incident was also part of a group of attacks on law enforcement (to include Lakewood, Washington police officer shooting) that continually received national media attention. Additionally per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, the trial of the suspected murder has continued to receive lasting media attention years after the incident. Tiptoety 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The points you bring up suggest notability for the suspect, not the murder victim. Transcendence (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am doing some more research so I'll withdraw the nomination if it's clear I'm wrong. Transcendence (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ValueOptions

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

Does not cite any sources or references and is borderline promotional. --Forward Unto Dawn 10:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Very weak keep - I'm going against all my deletionist instincts here to suggest this might stay, considering no-one else has been brave enough to put forward an opinion. But it's so borderline I quite frankly couldn't care much! The article is now sourced, the company is evidently of some considerable size with health contracts across the USA, including with entire states. Its real estate moves get write-ups e.g. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Sionk. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted by User:BDD under criteria A7 and G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Herbert Theodore Thomas

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

no indication of WP:notability. Appears to be WP:original research into an ancestor. noq (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 18:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7. Nothing in this huge wall of text does anything to suggest passage of WP:BIO. Dea db eef 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - one of the worst examples of a genealogical tract I've seen, definitely not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). If the grandson has self published a book then that is a far better place for this sort of thing. Sionk (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment the author has now blanked the page, so G7 is now in play. Dea db eef 21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan Willis (comedian)

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

This article was created by a serial spammer, who has been blocked both in his/her original account and in numerous sockpuppets accounts. In this article, as in several others, he/she made a very good attempt to make it look superficially as though the article was well-sourced, by a well-known technique used by professional spammers, namely packing it with dozens of references, without regard to their quality. However, examination of those references show that they include dead links, pages not mentioning Dan Willis, pages only briefly mentioning him, pages merely announcing or advertising performances, and promotional sites, such as www.comedycv.co.uk, which says "How to put your photo and biog on this website? To put your photo and biog on this website is FREE, yes FREE!" There does not appear to be any reliable independent source giving any substantial coverage anywhere. (A PROD was removed by an IP half of whose edits consist of contesting deletions of articles created by the same spammer.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Fails notability, SPAM/Advertising. Caffeyw (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Will undelete if anyone wants to merge content into an article on his company. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Terence O'Rourke

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

One-line stub on someone who appears to be non-notable; a Google search turns up primary sources, and nothing else, so he appears to fail WP:GNG. Article has been tagged as an orphan for over 4 years. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've referenced the MBE, which confirms the award for services in his field, but have been surprised not to find anything more detailed on the subject. I'm not sure that award is sufficient to carry notability in itself. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any inherent notability from being awarded an MBE, OBE or CBE. They're relatively common and are given to people from all walks of life, both notable public figures, and non-notable, but hard-working, "commoners". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The MBE and OBE, I'd agree with you, but the CBE has consistently been held at AfD to confer notability. It's not actually that common (a few dozen are awarded every year) and is only given to senior or prominent individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I frequently get the three mixed up anyway, and it's not very often you see anyone with these awards at AfD (or, at least, I've rarely seen it) as a lot of them don't have articles, for obvious reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Privacy violation against WP:BLP; I can't find significant coverage and the MBE isn't enough by itself. Also, note his company is also called "Terence O'Rourke". Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what? How on earth is it any sort of privacy violation? I think you may be misreading WP:BLP. It doesn't say you can't write articles about living people. It says you must be very careful that what you write is accurate. No part of the one sentence currently in this article breaches that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
REpurpose as an article on his company, who are notable planning consultants. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

At which point it may as well be deleted anyway. I didn't find any particularly significant coverage of the company either, but I wasn't looking very hard for that aspect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

United Ants (company)

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

Questionable notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this company meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP at this time. Gong show 02:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

800cc Ducati Riders

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

A search for "800cc Ducati Riders" turns up pretty much nothing; regardless, this is just a duplication of the main MotoGP seasons (which it doesn't even link to). It's orphaned (and has been for 3.5 years), it's unreferenced, and has no prose whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete it is so orphaned, I cant even tell what it is trying to tell us. Are these races? are these professional riders? or are these total # of bikes in the country? not a clue. Exit2DOS 20:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I know what it is; it's a list of the championship positions of all Ducati riders from the 800cc Moto GP era. Which makes it a non-independently notable subject, that is also devoid of referencing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WHOQOL-DIS

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 2 years ago. Website is dead. No sources have been forthcoming, so the previous delete rationale still stands: "Ephemeral project, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG." Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - No RS, and fails notability. Caffeyw (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Third Day (album). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thief (Third Day song)

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

While it was popular song, I'm not certain if it was a charting single. Does not meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Third Day (album); redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Redirects are cheap, but if I was searching for this song, and I was redirected to the album page with no information about the song except for its name and runtime in a track listing, I wouldn't really find what I was looking for. In that sense, the redirect would be pointless. If this discussion were taking place at RfD, I'd !vote keep, but as it is, this should be deleted. T C N7JM 07:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to Third Day (album); If article is not kept, it should be redirected. In that case, a whole lot more information should be added to the album article. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
So what you're really proposing is a merge, right? T C N7JM 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Dara

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

Subject is a Salt Lake City, Utah singer-songwriter who does not appear to meet notability standards. A number of sources are cited in the article, but most of them are not independent (e.g. Dara's own website, PRLog, YouTube) or do not contain in-depth coverage (e.g. events listings). The only independent source that covers Dara at any length is an interview in the Salt Lake Tribune; such coverage of a local artist might not be regarded as indicative of wider notability, and, in any case, a single article doesn't meet the standard at WP:MUSICBIO of "multiple, non-trivial, published works". Google and Google News searches for ("benjamin dara") didn't turn up anything else that might establish notability. The article mentions that Dara won an award for "Best Song" at the Akademia Music Awards; I'm not sure how significant these awards are, but a Google search for ("akademia music awards") didn't produce any sign of their being noticed by the media; a Google News search for the phrase turned up no significant coverage, suggesting that the awards don't confer much notability on their recipients. Note that the article was created by a SPA, User:Benmcolmek: according to the article, Dara was born Benjamin Mahallati, and worked for a firm called Colmek; this suggests that the article's subject might have been its creator. Ammodramus (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages: an album released by Dara, and two singles from that album. Since Dara appears to lack notability, his albums and songs presumably lack it as well. None of the citations in the album or the song articles appear to confer notability.

Ammodramus (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently Benjamin Dara is not a household name for his music. However he has a huge amount of interest and notability within his home state of Utah. As a musical artist he is up and coming as made evidenced by the constant growth on his social media page and already impressive list of online references.

Many of the references listed on the bottom of the Benjamin Dara wikipedia page are completely objective. For example the Salt Lake Tribune is the largest and most distributed newspaper in Utah. St. George is also one of the largest and fastest growing cities in Utah. Dara has independent, unbiased, and notable coverage from both of these sources. Not every subject, artist, film, novel or other form of art listed on Knowledge (XXG) is a household name. In fact a great deal of the acceptable wiki pages cover topics that are very little known to the general public.

Knowledge (XXG) is meant in its purest form to provide information for the inquisitive mind so that they may learn about a subject of their choice. By submitting a page for deletion that has content that is completely unbiased in nature, you are taking away a great venue like Knowledge (XXG) as a source for those who wish to learn more about the artist Benjamin Dara. Benmcolmek (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Fails notability for music. While I understand someone might want to find information on her, Wiki is not a place for everyone to have a biography posted. Caffeyw (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. Data lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a little local interest puff. Akademia awards are not major, they are a pay for play award farm. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted by User:Versageek under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Abhilash Joseph

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

Page fails notability under WP:PEOPLE and WP:NOTEBLP. The whole page seems promotional towards his business and most of the page is pictures of sales/revenue figures. EuroCarGT 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 16:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 16:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Seems to meet A7 and G11. Fails notability, and reads as an advertisement for the person. Caffeyw (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was Delete - strong arguments from both sides; to me it's agreed that he fails sporting notability and the real debate is over general notability. Looking at the sources provided on both the article and here, I cannot see the "significant" coverage that is required by GNG. Giant Snowman 12:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Chris Denton

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

No evidence he meets WP:ATHLETE Delete Secret 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom and specifically WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka 23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep Sure he was a Div III player, but it seems (if I'm reading it right) he played in two Division III national championship games. I'm finding a good deal of coverage from his college days, more than enough to pass WP:GNG. It needs to be added to the article, but I think this is an example of an article that is incomplete and can be saved with a little work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Other than this which is borderline routine at best and a few passing mentions I clearly don't see it. There is/was a McNeese State pitcher with the same name that has some coverage as well, so the results is confusing, plus its (to my surprise) a very common name. Can you link me to the "good deal of coverage". Thanks Secret 03:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

- - In just google news here's a good selection, although sadly the San Antonio News article was pulled down. A wider search of all google, not just news yields a whole lot more. Granted many of those are not what we would call "reliable" or "third party" but many of them are.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    - The few of these that might be considered "reliable" is just passing mentions or routine coverage (signings, game coverage, and such), still nothing that separates his college career as unique per GNG. Secret 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

- - - - The Yahoo News] article featured him in a video link and has multiple mentions of him in the text of the article itself. The Durango Herald article prominently features him in photo and mentions him early in the article. The NCAA press release stated "Led by seniors Jake Simon, Charles Dieuseul, Chris Denton and company, Mount Union overpowered St. Thomas (Minn.) 28-10 en route to its 11th national championship in 16 appearances." The Sports Illustrated article mentions him multiple times. D3Football.com has a good article about the senior class including Denton. Reliable. Not passing mentions. Far above routine. Clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        All of that is poor sourcing that every college football player always get, and if you are going to rebut and keep every expected AFD of players released during training camp, that is a very alarming trend. The Durango Herald was a photo caption of the game, the SI article only mentions him as "Burke threw a 17-yard touchdown pass to Chris Denton" and that he fumbled on some play, which you very much know its a passing mention source that doesn't qualify, the Yahoo article the same, typical game coverage. And what makes you believe that D3Football is a reliable source? and we both know a random press release isn't independent of the subject. None of these sources is about Denton himself, which is what is required per WP:GNG Secret 22:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        The so-called "random press release" that "isn't independent" was from the NCAA: not from the individual, not from the school's athletic program, not from the school itself, and not from the conference. There's a good deal of separation there. The Durango Herald believed that he was significant enough to the game to include a photo and that means something. They led the story with the photo and the caption stated "Chris Denton and Mount Union ran away with their 11th Division III championship... ". The mentions in SI further support WP:GNG because, as GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Further, he is mentioned four times in the SI article concerning four separate plays in four separate paragraphs, not 2 as you are attempting to lead everyone to believe: "Burke threw a 17-yard touchdown pass to Chris Denton on fourth down late in the third quarter", "a fumble by punt returner Denton recovered by Zach Novaczyk", "Burke hit Denton in the left corner for the TD.", and "the officials said they needed to review Burke's 10-yard pass to Chris Denton to the 1". These are not trivial mentions as clearly SI considered him significant to game play. On D3Football.com, that's a part of the USA Today media group, which is widely considered to be reliable on Knowledge (XXG). The "typical game coverage" is coverage that far surpasses WP:ROUTINE coverage of box scores. And finally, your crass comments in the history of this article ("-sigh i can't deal with this shit every single day") are disruptive, uncivil, un-called for, and certainly are not a reason to delete the article. This apparent uncivil behavior combined with invalid assessment of the SI article leads me to believe that you are being deceptive in your argumentation and your comments should be ignored. I have provided evidence here to support my statements with reasoning and links to support with the documentation. Could you simply have made an error? I would think so had it not been for the crass comments in the discussion history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        
        There is no error, and I'm not going to back down until I see extra evidence otherwise. Most of the NCAA content is from the schools themselves and violates "Independent of the subject". They are usually student based press releases written for the school they are affiliated with if you read it closely in the bottom, I did some work with them years ago for my university so I should know. Only a small amount of their content go though an editorial review, and that's typically the major bowl games, top 25, top players and whatever is popular at the present moment. Plus the only thing it states about Denton is "Led by seniors Jake Simon, Charles Dieuseul, Chris Denton and company, Mount Union overpowered St. Thomas (Minn.) 28-10 en route to its 11th national championship in 16 appearances." That is not "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" which is most important part of GNG. The SI source, I made a small error, but still, you know better that its typical game coverage that Denton in, same with the Yahoo source, both of which has always been considered "routine coverage in GNG. As for the last source, it has a small paragraph on Denton, but the content of the article is about seniors playing their last game for Mount Union, a rather weak source but the best you posted so far. But seriously sometimes I believe that you simply pick articles that you like and vote keep as I've seen you vote delete on players that has a far stronger case of meeting GNG. Secret 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" You look at the first part but fail to include the second -- there is no original research in this article that I can find and therefore the requirement of the sources addressing the subject directly in detail have been meet per the guideline. Over... and over... and over... again. Instead, you admittedly are 1) requiring "extra evidence" (which could be viewed as an admission that there is ample evidence but you are choosing to ignore it) and 2) owning up to a personal bias with your background at one particular university and that we should "trust you" (another way of stating "original research"). And then you bring up unstated and unverified "votes" that I make in AFD as though that would matter. It doesn't. However, if you have any other AFDs that you'd like me to revisit you can let me know on my talk page and I'll check them out.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        By the way, I just noticed an earlier comment "All of that is poor sourcing that every college football player always get" -- but that's another untrue statement. For example, in the SI article I count 16 unique individuals mentioned. Each team will yield 11 players on offense and 11 on defense before special teams and substitutions. That gives 44 players that would get significant time in any given game--yet only 16 are mentioned--about 36% of the starters. Therefore, the coverage can't be something that "every college football player always get(s)" as you state.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        
        You are not starting to make sense here, how the hell do have a personal bias with any personal university. I don't and that's borderline WP:NPA right there. You keep ignoring the fact that there no, significant, non-trivial coverage of Denton in mainstream media sources that isn't run of the mill game coverage. Also with your rationale, presume 11 players get "coverage" in a game per day, that doesn't mean that those 11 players are automatically notable. There are injuries, poor play, and so forth to consider. With your rationale, pretty much every coverage athlete mentioned in any game coverage automatically meets WP:GNG, which is simply flawed. Secret 17:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        "I did some work with them years ago for my university so I should know." -- your words, not mine. You posted it. you imply that we should trust you because of your bias, your history, your experience. See WP:IKNOW for further reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        I'm talking about writing press releases for my university that they sent to the website, so I know how it works. I never directly worked for the website, nor I have nothing against Mount Union or the player (my university is Division I btw so why would I attack a Division III school which is simply absurd). You clearly know what I meant when I stated that comment but now you are intentionally mixing words around to try to win an argument, which is clearly disappointing. We both should stop snipping attacks at each other and just drop the subject matter completely as we both look like fools here. Agree? Secret 18:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        
        Better yet I think we both should drop the conversation and leave it up to other editors to decide if the article is notable enough for to stay on Knowledge (XXG). We both have such strong, opposite, differentials on the subject area, this conversation will simply drag on. Most of what we argued anyways is better discussed in some policy or guideline page, as we both are making fools of each other here for a Division III player. Secret 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        It's unfortunately not a matter of just a difference of opinion. People disagree with me all the time and I leave it at that. But whenever I see someone in AFD make a false argument, provide incorrect data, make crass comments in the article history, ignore facts, demand "extra evidence", threaten they are "not going to back down", quote part of a policy or guideline while leaving out material information, or other such arguments--whenever I see that, I will comment and point it out. That's the deal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        
        Well its a personal opinion then, especially with "false argument" "ignoring facts" and "incorrect data". Guidelines, especially like GNG can be interpreted in many different ways, including your rather inclusionist belief or my deletionist belief as shown here. With the unclear wording of many of the key notability and the WP:NOT stuff, an editor needs to figure out what is the best interpretation/meaning of the relevant guideline/policy on the subject nominated for deletion. That doesn't indicate that either side is "right" or "wrong". Unless the rationale is so flawed (WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff, copyvios, stuff like that), there is no such thing as any of those statements here on AFD. Secret 02:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
        No it is not personal opinion. Every point I showed above can be verified by anyone. You are going way beyond the breadth of interpretation. You can't even count the number of mentions of a subject in a third party news article properly. Is it your opinion that "four" is the new "two" or that "box scores" and "feature article" are the same thing? Is it your opinion that you can require "extra evidence" for this article but not another article? That's not an opinion, that's flat-out wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
        
        Uhh... yes it is, plus now you are making false allegations. I'm tempted to take you to AN/I as it is becoming ridiculous and you refuse to corroborate here, misleading my comments, and refusal to back down despite telling you a few times. Now I think you are trying to prove a WP:POINT with your personal opinions, adding an essay you created based on this gone out of hand discussion to WP:ROUTINE and that the other regular sports editors Dirtlawyer, etc. are hardly active. Secret 19:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
        Before you do that, you might want to read a little bit about what WP:AN/I is for. I'd recommend you go to Dispute resolution instead. I would welcome a third party review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
        
        Read some more of your last response and have some questions: 1) What does another editor not participating in this AFD yet have anything to do with this discussion? 2) What does my writing an essay have to do with lessening the quality of any argument I bring up?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Paul McDonald. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't meet Notability. Only articles out there are not about him but about the team and mention him in passing. Also concerns on POV/COI in the information from other references. Caffeyw (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The Knowledge (XXG) general notability guideline does not require that the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article be the feature subject of an article to establish notability. POV/COI concerns can be addressed using other sources cited above in this AFD that have yet to be added to the article (there is no deadline).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're adding something that I didn't say. I never said it was because they where not the main subject. I stated they where only mentioned in passing. ie Chris played tonight doesn't make a usable source for notability. However, Chris consider by many to be ... would lead to at least some notability since he was the subject. Regardless of if it's only a small section, he needs to be the subject and not a detail for the subject. Caffeyw (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Response Please go read WP:GNG. The guideline is clear that the subject of the Knowledge (XXG) article does not need to be the subject of the source article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak Keep - though I think that Knowledge (XXG) is increasingly too US weighted (and especially in the amount of sportsmen who count as notable), there does seem to be just about enough notability (reasonably sized piece on bucaneers.com, especially) established for this guy based on current guidelines. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG. The sources provided, here and in the article, are not even taken cumulatively enough to meet the notability guidelines. BigDom (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep He's part of an NFL team, plus he's already attracted some media attention which grants him an article. Also, all Tampa Bay players have Knowledge (XXG) articles. Why shouldn't he have one?Springyboy (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:OSE. BigDom (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete NFL teams sign lots of players before season begins -- article can be restored if he ever actually plays in a regular season game. NE Ent 11:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Gadji (band)

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

Local band. No significant assertion of notability per WP:BAND. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources. It seems there is an unrelated Canadian band named Gadji-Gadjo that can probably support an article, though. Gong show 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Include per WP:BAND I note that section 6 may be satisfied if relevant citation is presented. Also... section 7

6 Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. 7 Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Knowledge (XXG) standards, including verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.84.107 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

One Member notably took over from Brian Johnson (of AC/DC fame) from the well established band 'Geordie' Another member a notable musician for his work released by Phillips Records. Another, one of the UK's notable Big Band Trumpet players. Billy Hogg additionally a prominant representative of a style of music within the Noth East are of England and City of Newcastle.

Please allow me some time to further collate relevant citations that may be required. Kind Regards .. Had I been more aware I would have ensured the entry was as complete as possible before starting , my appologies John kirk (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BAND. The closest thing to a claim of notability here is that this band has a member who was once in another, different band that had a prior member who was in yet another band that was notable. That's a bit like claiming to be famous because your aunt's hairdresser once rode the same bus as Daryl Dragon (but not at the same time). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Include per WP:BAND Members in question have gained critical respect in their own right. Links to other 'famous' bands or individuals are a bonus. The band system on wiki appears to ask for Associated Acts by default..!? This band happens to be relative and associated by lead vocalist to Geordie and PowerHouse and very notably by the similarity’s between the vocals of 2 singers who pursued parallel careers in two similar bands.

I have begun to cite these important critical points in the article... Again I point towards section 6 and 7 "two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." John kirk (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Include per WP:BAND as sections 2,5,6 and 7 would now appear to be adhered to - per WP:BAND Citations are now also appearing John kirk (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The entry is now starting to fully document the history of the band with citations and reasoning's to be of worth and value within Wiki on its own merits. The band may not be known worldwide, but that alone is no reason to dismiss its value and notability based on its achievements to date mainly to the credit of Founder Billy Hogg over his 40 years musical career (20 with Gadji). Gadji has and still is one of the most respected bands in the North of England and the Scottish Borders. (as was band-Geordie before it) One point to note is that Gadji is still performing 20 years later. So we really are talking about a well established band that has impacted a music scene. Not a startup band attempting to gain publicity. Gadji is also of course furthering the careers of younger musicians who have already been accepted into Wiki.. What are they doing now ? No-one will be able to find out if this entry is deleted.

I am trying my best to satisfy the criteria with limited time at my disposal. Could I politely ask that the article be turned into a Stub article to allow time to sort it all out please. (even to make the content more concise as happened with the Powerhouse (band) entry) I don't really have any idea how long the article has under its present status before it may dissapear.. (hopefully not of course !) Kind Regards JK John kirk (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BAND. I note that four (of six) of the present references in the article, are to Knowledge (XXG) articles. Which, in itself, is NOT a reliable source. Why is there a shortage of secondary sources ? As per "A topic should also meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards of "notability", which usually means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media or major academic journals that are independent of the subject of the topic."

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Include per WP:BAND Thanks for the help ! :) ... Diddnt realise Wiki references were unsound. Most of the Wiki refs are well established and I assume well policed by now....

HOWEVER I have added parallel external links to the 3 (of four) references your refer to with the last replaced completely :) Please also allow more time for further sourcing of press releases etc from that time, May involve a trip to a real library which I will try to get to ASAP... In the meantime I am trying my best to satisfy the criteria with limited time at my disposal. Could I politely ask that the article be turned into a Stub article to allow time to sort it all out please. I don't really have any idea how long the article has under its present status before it may dissapear.. (hopefully not of course !) Kind Regards JK

Additionally content has been added about a 2002 re-release by one of the record labels which includes Bonus tracks from live Session recordings provided by the BBC John kirk (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Include per WP:BAND Some early TV footage has been found on Video tape with source material which requires collection and scanning.. trying to find someone to do the video conversion... please allow time and consider turning the entry to Stub.. many thanks for all the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kirk (talk • contribs) 12:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC) John kirk (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Prominent Venue section added, Citations to follow in the next days John kirk (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Since the status of 'considered for deletion' was added to Gadji (Band) The entry has grown considerably in content, additionally more notable additions have been added about the band itself with several references as support.. No referances at all were present when the entry gained this status.

Please change the status to at least Stub, so more time can be awarded to those looking for more references and additional noteworthy content/converting video etc. Kind regards. ... John kirk (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. I'm willing to consider undeletion after its release. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jatt Boys Putt Jattan De

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

I prodded this for lack of notability as an unreleased film. The prod was endorsed by another editor. The prod was removed without notability being addressed or any explanation. Before coming here I removed some copyright text, two images with fake authorship, and a spamlink to a commercial sales site Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Soft delete or incubate... as the film is slated for release in a week, incubation is a valid consideration, and we can allow undeletion/recreation/return-to-article-space when it is released and gets coverage. Schmidt, 07:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Exari

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

Not a notable company - all the references seem to be primary sources or press releases. I searched for news sources and found only prweb hits and other press releases. I searched for book sources and found this entry in "The Lawyer's Guide to Working Smarter with Knowledge Tools", but all it does is mention the company without giving any indication that it's notable.

The article has had quite a bit of history - it was nominated as a G11 speedy in November 2008 () which was removed () and then tagged as A7 (). The A7 tag was removed by Jamwod (talk · contribs) (), in violation of the rule that a creator cannot remove speedy tags from articles they created, and subsequently userfied (). It was put back into mainspace following "improvement" () in January 2009 and nominated for A7 again yesterday (). Given so many people have had a hand in speedy tagging the article, I feel a full AfD is the best way to settle this issue once and for all. Ritchie333 09:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete I was the most recent speedy deletion tagger. Ritchie333 sums up my thoughts pretty well - this article is sourced mostly to press releases and primary, which one exception of the 'our CEO was quoted in an article' variety. Does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep as nominator requested withdrawal. NAC Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 17:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Hornaday

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

Withdrawn by Nominator - Still have concerns. However, since it's pointed out the author (who's the subject) has asked for help I'm willing to hold off for now. BTW Calling someone distasteful for a good faith effort isn't a great way to get them to agree to your view point. Caffeyw (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

COI, Unreliable sources including IMDB and references to Wiki pages. Fails notability, search on Google only brings up this page, IMDB, and Facebook/self-promotional websites Caffeyw (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

...what? He has been nominated for two major awards, both reliably sourced. Conflict of interest has no bearing on notability. Google brings up tons of other stuff if you go past page one. Bizarre nomination, and I must say I find it a little...distasteful to immediately jump in and AfD an article whose creator has just asked for help improving it at the Teahouse except in very clear cases (especially without making any attempt to talk to him first, or even notifying him of this AfD). Seems like an easy Keep to me. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The article has been around since 2008, and it appears to me that the person who inquired something at the teahouse is the article's subject. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My Google results only seem to pull up results where at most a website says Jeffrey Hornaday directed a certain movie. After 5 pages in it seems the only stories I can find are of self-promotional nature. The way it's written seems promotional, and I don't think it's clear that it was being written by the subject. Sorry if you find it distasteful, it's not a personal issue or anything. I thought the point of bringing it here was to have discussion and come up with a consensus. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. Caffeyw (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I did a short search and found quite a few sources that focus on Hornaday. I haven't gone through everything, but there are more than enough reviews and articles to show notability for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Tokyogirl79. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: , , , , , . Northamerica1000 16:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edward L. Cochran

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

Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation. MilaPedia (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.

A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”

WP:Politition states- 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in. 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.

The banner stated - If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it

Following the specific instructions, the concern was met by meeting section 3 of WP:POLITICIAN by additionally citing each article from a book, in addition to existing citations. The notation was marked in the summary, and the AFS tag removed as instructed. The following entry was posted on MilaPedia’s talk - Thank you MilaPedia for your efforts to make sure all new articles related specifically to Howard County Elected Officials are to be deleted. The articles are works in progress, however each has been significantly cited from a variety of sources which meet criteria #3 of WP Politician (listed below). Some of the articles recommended for deletion are politicians that have also sought higher office and are also notable for their influence in their respective fields. In addition, the guidance clearly states alternatives to AFD "deletion" as a first step. I hope you will direct your future efforts toward expanding and improving these articles with accurate information and relevant citations.

Recommendations were given in Lieu of deletion. Six of the same articles were recommended for deletion again August 14, 2013 with the following notation – "Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation." Each article is in progress, and has been well-cited by a variety of sources, and extra care has been taken to exclude the extensive amount of voting history and procedure that may be considered trivial or not independent of the subject. Although notability is subjective, each is relevant in the history of a rural county that became one of the 10 wealthiest counties in America during their terms and provides supporting information to historical articles. Notification was provided to the user, and noted in summaries. The AFD’s recommended are very specific with similar articles in the same categories not facing the same scrutiny, such as Janet S. Owens or Calvin Ball, III. FlugKerl (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Note Vote Corrected below so not to be copy/pasted - Fails notability. Apparently someone believes that being a county executive/board member qualifies people to have a page of their own. Lack of any references where the person is named as anything other then "candidate" or simply listed as holding said office. In fact for at least a couple the only articles about the person is their obituary. Caffeyw (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Caffeyw (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

* This particular article did not use an obituary as an source, just one book, 19 newspaper articles, 16 weblinks and a technical digest. FlugKerl (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - For some strange reason, "Caffeyw" decided to post the above, exact, same "delete" vote in 6 AfDs all over the course of 2 minutes time. Something odd seems to be up with this user IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Now, everyone: stop copy-pasting your comments. Mysterious Whisper 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#1 with a GS h-index of 18, plus political activities. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
Comment - Sorry being new didn't know that when you had similiar issues with similar articles that copy/pasting the comment was not acceptable. I was trying to reply to the massive copy/paste that the user before me had posted. However my point still is the same. All of these articles are about non-notable per search former county executives. Being a county executive does not give rise to being notable. Any hits on Google are because their name is listed as being county executive or covering the fact they're running for the office. Caffeyw (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Xxanthippe. However, the article does need to be rewritten to make it clear that his academic career is his primary claim to notability, although his political activities are verifiable (and marginally notable) enough that some mention of them in the article is justifiable. PWilkinson (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am not familiar with this scientific field, which is why it was posted here for discussion. Thank you for reviewing Xxanthippe. And I agree with your assessment PWilkinson MilaPedia (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep County Executives are a lot like mayors of major cities, so in a heavily populated county like Howard County, Maryland they will be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

J. Hubert Black

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.

A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”

WP:Politition states- 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in. 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.

Delete - Note Vote Corrected Below so not to be copy/pasted - Fails notability. Apparently someone believes that being a county executive/board member qualifies people to have a page of their own. Lack of any references where the person is named as anything other then "candidate" or simply listed as holding said office. In fact for at least a couple the only articles about the person is their obituary. Caffeyw (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Caffeyw (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

* This particular article uses two obituary references with five published documents, 1 county document, 3 books, and 3 newspaper articles for references. FlugKerl (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - For some strange reason, "Caffeyw" decided to post the above, exact, same "delete" vote in 6 AfDs all over the course of 2 minutes time. Something odd seems to be up with this user IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Now, everyone: stop copy-pasting your comments. Mysterious Whisper 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. His former house, however, may be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Just so that it gets included, I'm typing each comment here by hand. Article is about non-notable person. Election to county executive does not give notability. Search provides no RS to show notability. Only hits seem to be their name being listed as county executive or that they're running for office. Otherwise no notable coverage. Caffeyw (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- You really need to stop multiple voting in numerous AfDs. I would suggest that you read (or re-read) Knowledge (XXG)'s article for deletion guidelines before you participate further in these types of discussions. Guy1890 (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  - You complained that my "vote" was copy/pasted. It was therefore suggested I ensure I reply to each with an individual reply to ensure it was understood that I was indeed posting about the subject. I did as requested, and am still being hit with a complaint, all notably while nothing has been posted to support or not support the deletion. It seems to be getting down to a complaint on copy/pasting more then the subject's notability which no one so far has supported. I'm sorry that I copy/pasted the reply to similar postings (all about county executives in Maryland) that all had the same issue. Caffeyw (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    - I personally don't care whether this article gets retained or deleted. What I do care about (and I am not alone in this) is that our AfD process is not corrupted and/or disrupted by Knowledge (XXG) editors that don't understand how the process actually works. Please learn from your recent missteps. Guy1890 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Mary Kay Sigaty

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

Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation. MilaPedia (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete: To call the references "local and trivial" is being generous. Most of them cover the elections or her opponents/successors, and only mention her in passing. I thought the first reference (to an actual book) might make a difference, but this is the extent of her coverage in it. Mysterious Whisper 12:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (Full disclosure: Previous discussion)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.

A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”

Delete - Ignore Vote - Vote posted below to correct copy/paste error - Fails notability. Apparently someone believes that being a county executive/board member qualifies people to have a page of their own. Lack of any references where the person is named as anything other then "candidate" or simply listed as holding said office. In fact for at least a couple the only articles about the person is their obituary. Caffeyw (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Caffeyw (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

* In this particular (stub) article, no obituary was used for a source, just 6 newpspaper articles, one book, and two official websites. Mary Kay Sigaty is alive as of July 2013. FlugKerl (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - For some strange reason, "Caffeyw" decided to post the above, exact, same "delete" vote in 6 AfDs all over the course of 2 minutes time. Something odd seems to be up with this user IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Now, everyone: stop copy-pasting your comments. Mysterious Whisper 12:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Google search turned up nothing but trivial hits. Only hits concerned subject being office holder, or running for office. No notability was found otherwise. Caffeyw (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Multiple voting in numerous AfDs is really not OK here. Guy1890 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  - It's not a multiple vote. You complained about the fact the vote was copy/pasted and thus shouldn't be used. It was suggested to reply to each showing the issues and to overcome the concern on copy/paste. I've done so. Notably nothing is being said to keep, it's just a complaint about copy/pasting. I also note that the concern seems to only be about mine, despite the post before mine being a massive copy/paste. Caffeyw (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    - "It's not a multiple vote." Yes, it clearly is. "It was suggested to reply to each showing the issues and to overcome the concern on copy/paste." I have not seen any such suggestion given to you at all. The issue with your edits here "Caffeyw" is really not whether or not this (or any other Knowledge (XXG) article) should be deleted, it's that you apparently have little idea what you are supposed to be doing in these AfD discussions in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

David W. Force (politician)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.

A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”

Delete - Fails notability. Apparently someone believes that being a county executive/board member qualifies people to have a page of their own. Lack of any references where the person is named as anything other then "candidate" or simply listed as holding said office. In fact for at least a couple the only articles about the person is their obituary. Caffeyw (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

* This particular article did not use an obituary as an source, just 3 books, two weblinks, five newspaper articles and 3 weblinks. FlugKerl (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - For some strange reason, "Caffeyw" decided to post the above, exact, same "delete" vote in 6 AfDs all over the course of 2 minutes time. Something odd seems to be up with this user IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Caffeyw also cast a "Delete" !vote at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Benjamin Dara in which he/she used the pronoun "her" for the male subject of the article. This !vote was registered at 17:37 GMT; Caffeyw had edited a different AFD at 17:34, and edited yet another at 17:39. Caffeyw's contribution history shows edits to lots of AFDs in a very short span of time, which suggests that he/she's not spending a great deal of time researching before !voting. Ammodramus (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Replied. Now, everyone: stop copy-pasting your comments. Mysterious Whisper 12:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Ammodramus, and have left a comment on User talk:Caffeyw noting these concerns. Mysterious Whisper 13:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. A Google search for ("david force" OR "david w force" "howard county") turned up lots of links to the park, but nothing else suggestive of notability. Searching Google News archives for the same terms yielded several 1960s Baltimore Sun articles; unfortunately, these were pay-per-view. Reading the one-sentence abstracts suggested that many of them were routine local-politics coverage: who's running for re-election and the like. Whatever marginal notability Force may have seems to be associated with his co-approval of the Columbia project, and that's adequately covered in the "History" section of the Columbia article. Ammodramus (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

:: * Thank you for taking more than a cursory glance. Google is a great resource, however, just because newspaper articles are pay-per view or only partially searchable on-line should not be the deciding factor if someone had an impact on Howard County (or any) history. This is precisely why Knowledge (XXG) lacks detail on figures from this period. Hopefully this article will not be AFD'ed before it can be completed with information not available online. FlugKerl (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you userfy the article? Your userspace is the appropriate place to work on it until you've accumulated enough material to establish notability. That's a much better approach than using the mainspace for what amount to early drafts, with the promise that citations to etablish notability will be inserted at a later date. Ammodramus (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry to cause concern. I copy/pasted the same comment after doing a search on each, and coming up with the same results. It wasn't done without thought. Non-notable, fails to rises above local office, and all searches bring up links to articles where the only mention is they're running for office/got elected type material. In one case the only possibly reliable material was an obituary which doesn't give weight to being notable. It seems someone has decided that all office holders of this office are worthy of an article. Even if the office was notable (which I don't believe it is) notability is not inherited. Caffeyw (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

William E. Eakle

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

Article fails Notability WP:Politician - Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation. MilaPedia (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Fails Notability - Only article cited about him, is his obituary. Otherwise other cites are just listing of his name as county executive in a report. Caffeyw (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-obituary references added FlugKerl (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The added references added no weight. None contain a line about the person. At most they are listed as being the county executive. References need to be about the subject even if it's very brief. All the added references are about other subject (ie an OMB Report) and simply list the person as a detail. Caffeyw (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.

A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”

Comment - Being county executive does not give notability. Search online shows only trivial hits such as being listed as office holder or running for office. Caffeyw (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Levon Khachigian

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

Subject is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Tim Bennett (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - On the contrary, it would appear subject is notable as per WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore it would seem the article has been cleaned up and then nominated for deletion by someone associated with the university for which the subject works, suggesting a strong conflict of interest. 09:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigLPST (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep - This alleged case of academic misconduct is certainly notable, but it is very important that Knowledge (XXG)'s policies on biographies of living people be carefully followed. All sources must be reliable and verifiable, and this article must in no way preempt the findings of any investigation. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It is important that proportionate space be given to the major viewpoints and any and all libelous material be removed.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Full professor at a university, president of two learned societies, research awards, lots of influential pubs. Appears to satisfy Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics) . Edison (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As the editor who initiated the page in question (and apologies for whatever wrongs committed), I should note that the article should be balanced and comprehensive, while not defamatory or, say, compromise due process. Certainly, further work on the article must be done, as opposed to merely removing material.

With regard to the OP's "Subject is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC" comment, I should direct him (presumably) to WP:ACADEMIC and caution that, as an employee of the University of New South Wales and, especially, as one who has worked in media and comms division, there is potential for conflict of interest or an understandable bias against having a page such as this. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for not nominating this with the rationale: "Subject is not notable as per WP:ACADEMIC". :) --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. A GS h-index of around 48 easily satisfies WP:Prof#1 even in this highly cited field. Nominator is reminded that WP:Competence provides for the removal of editing privileges of people who are unable to edit Knowledge (XXG) with competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC).

The result was speedy delete. A7, G11, G12 (this is verbatim from several pages including Yelp), WP:SNOW - pick your poison. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Rule Boston Camera

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

Notability/Reads as promotional Caffeyw (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - basically just an advertisement. Stalwart111 06:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete, borderline G11. Only fringe coverage online. Dea db eef 06:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Not only is it borderline G11 but it appears to be a clear CSD A7. I see no assertion of this company's significance. Knowledge (XXG) is not a business directory. –Wine Guy~Talk 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find any evidence that the company meets our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Infinit (technology)

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

The article summarizes a 2012 Cambridge University Ph.D. dissertation. The dissertation has been cited only once (per google scholar) and I am not able to locate any other peer-reviewed publications that were generated by this research. The only other claim to notability is that the technology discussed in the article is used by a startup company. Does not meet notability guidelines in WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - yeah, nom seems to have this one right - basically a combination of a non-notable concept together with some "how-to" type material. Stalwart111 06:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There's also Infinit (company) and Infinit (disambiguation) created by the same SPA along with a couple of other articles currently up for speedy deletion. Looks like someone is trying to use WP to promote their original research. Stalwart111 06:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Infinit (company), per WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT, WP:BEFORE. (However, the company itself may not be notable, of course.) -- Trevj (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete this one. Too detailed and promotional, based on that one source which seems indeed a school project. I tried to rescue the company article, but as indicated it is marginal too. Nothing really to merge except to mention the thesis and cite it. The second external link is dead, but it appears the poster did appear at the "summer school". Best would be to userify until the company either goes defunct or becomes clearly notable. As noted, Special:Contributions/Mycure seems the single-purpose account who created these for the most part. That user name matches one on Github to the person described in the article. But now that most of the promotion as been taken out from the company one, I would rather keep Infinit (company) for now and delete the technology one, then get an admin to move it to Infinit which is now a disambig page for the two (was previously essentially the content of the "technology" article). W Nowicki (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Infinit (technology): lack of evidence of achieved notability. The Infinit (company) looks unlikely to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time as a start-up, but isn't at AfD at this point. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. There also seems to be a consensus to merge Erie Life Magazine into Great Lakes Life Magazine Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Erie Life Magazine

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

Non-notable magazine, possibly even self-promotional. Doesn't appear to even exist anymore. Niagara 03:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Also being is nominated is the following for the same reason as it is closely associated with the first article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge Erie into Great Lakes. Keep Great Lakes. Magazines are notoriously difficult to find sourcing so any sourcing is a sign of notability. For Great Lakes we have and , both published in Folio magazine which is a national "that serves the entire magazine publishing industry". Erie is part of the history of Great Lakes, a merger or name change. These sources have enough information to write an article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Great Lakes Life and merge Erie Life into it. The sources provided above by User:Green Cardamom denote that Great Lakes Life meets GNG, and I agree with the merge suggestion. Northamerica1000 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep, per above research into source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - The article needs sources, which have been found.Crtew (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MADNESS

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable computer package. No evidence of independent coverage. No independent references. It appears to have won an award (this is the link given, this appears to be the best URL), however, this URL certainly makes this award look like a pay-per-play advertising event rather than a merit-based award (see also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/R&D 100 Awards). Note that there appear to be a number of completely separate computer systems called 'MADNESS,' (see for example Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/MADNESS (Embedded Systems)), so please check that sources / keep arguments are for the right MADNESS. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed relative to the discussion from last time, when the community nearly unanimously agreed to keep the article. This is a complete waste of everyone's time. Jeff.science (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:BEFORE, isn't Robert J. Harrison a suitable merge target? -- Trevj (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for thinking people = software? I want to understand so I know if I should merge MSDOS into the page on Bill Gates. Jeff.science (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

To be consistent, Trevj, please also propose NWChem for deletion and merging into Robert J. Harrison. Jeff.science (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you recall, I !voted keep in the last AfD. I was intending to point out that we should perhaps be having a merge discussion rather than a deletion discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The merge discussion went nowhere last time and no one else came close to supporting you in that position so I don't see why you want to bring it up again. You had no compelling argument then and you've not made a new one now. I reiterate that if you are a logically consistent person, you need to propose that NWChem be merged into Robert J. Harrison since you seem to conflate codes with one of their major authors (which is, of course, grossly unfair to all of the other authors involve; both NWChem and MADNESS have dozens of authors). Jeff.science (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Err, Jeff.science, is the above addressed to me or to the nominator? -- Trevj (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is addressed to the one that proposes merger rather than deletion. Jeff.science (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert J. Harrison is not a suitable merge target. That article only has a single reference, the subjects former employer, which would be non-independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep although the article needs much work, pruning out the promotion and perhaps culling the citations a bit, talking about 2013 as being future, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comments, W Nowicki. I made changes that were obvious to me. If I missed something, a more specific pointer would be useful. Jeff.science (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well this subject is a little out of my field, but generally phrases I see like "important" "increase programmer productivity" (cite a controlled study that shows a metric?) "around the world" (where else would they be?) "leadership" (in what metric, money spent?) "workhorse" (seems like software, not a draft animal?) "noted" (that is what we are judging here) would tend to raise the red-flag of promotional language. See WP:PEACOCK but I still think it is worth a keep, since there are real sources in journals over several years etc. W Nowicki (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep I will address all of Stuart's criticisms, although this seems unnecessary since he made the identical arguments before and was soundly rejected. First, the R&D 100 Award, despite never having been won by Mr. Yates, does recognize quality software, including several other packages on Knowledge (XXG) such as Trilinos. This is a notable software package in that it is a premier computational chemistry package, and the only one to employ a novel wavelet discretization. There are many scientific papers, such as this one on wavelets. This is indeed the way that most scientific advancements are documented, and serves as documentation for a great many pages here as well. Knepley (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There appear to be two arguments in there, which I'll address separately.

First "he made the identical arguments before and was soundly rejected." I did indeed make similar arguments before and the result " no consensus. The actions of the major contributor to this AFD have been contemptable - full of badgering, and ad hominem arguments, PLUS all the quite-likely canvassed SPA's that is utterly inappropriate and shameful. When I reduce the AFD to the only non-SPA and truly policy-based arguments, we narrow the discussion down to a handful of valid entries. Take in toto, those few provide no specific consensus to delete at this time" I see no rejection of my arguments in that summary.

Secondly "There are many scientific papers, such as this one on wavelets." The given paper is an exemplar of what's wrong with the article, in that it's not independent---the authors of the paper are the authors / architects / creators of this software and what we're looking for under the WP:GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Note that peer review is not about independence, it's about quality.

Stuartyeates (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to New York City Public Advocate election, 2013. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Cathy Guerriero

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

Non-notable candidate for NYC Public Advocate. Running for an office does not necessarily establish notability nor does their appear to be anything in her life establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment-She's a major candidate for office in New York City who would represent millions of people. That's significant. Msrpotus (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please cite how this meets Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for notability. Being a candidate for office does not automatically establish notability.

Cathy Guerriero falls within the category of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Msrpotus (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I suppose the issue here is whether her running for office would be considered, by our standard, one event for the purposes of WP:BLP1E. If we accept that the things that brought her to becoming a candidate represent significant enough a history to nullify WP:BLP1E then the obvious and significant coverage of her and her campaign get her over the WP:GNG line without any concern whatsoever, in my view. Stalwart111 03:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe running alone is enough to meet the criteria for notability. Just holding an office is not enough to meet the criteria for notability. In this case she is not an established politician nor has she met the criteria for notability via another effort.reddogsix (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, possibly not, but significant coverage in independent reliable sources is enough, regardless of what she received the coverage for. There are, of course, a few exceptions to that "regardless", one being WP:BLP1E. I'm interesting in what others think about that aspect. Stalwart111 04:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I proposed a merge of this article into the election's page for more-or-less the same reasons, but I think "significant press coverage" is tenuous here. Virtually all of Guerriero's web presence has been generated in the last eleven months, evidently by her campaign. Is a merge not the right idea here? Most of this page can be scrapped for now, but any relevance she might have has to do with a current event, right? Do we wait until the dust settles on the campaign? Ben (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

At the very least I would hope that this discussion considers page of other questionably-notable candidate, Reshma Saujani, whose page is an evolved form of this one.Ben (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta say, I would have a problem with us having an article for one candidate for a particular minor office but not another, especially since this candidate's campaign seems to have received more coverage. Stalwart111 05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Should she be listed on the page (assuming one exists) for the election for this office? Yes. Should she have her own page? No. She's done nothing notable to warrant her own page. Running for office, even President of the United States, does not mean you are now notable enough to warrant your own page. I can run for President, however just because my name gets listed because I've sent in paperwork, doesn't mean I'm notable. Caffeyw (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Essentially right -- isn't this what merge would be for? Does merge not deprecate Guerriero's page in favor of making Election page more robust? Excuse me if I don't understand the difference here.* Ben 06:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, but the issue here is that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That is, per policy, enough to "warrant her own page". Just having your name on the ballot is not enough but then you're likely to be the subject of significant coverage just for being listed. In this case, she has received significant endorsements from various unions and has (related to those endorsement and independent of those endorsements) been the subject of coverage. As far as I'm concerned, she meets criteria 2 and 3 of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Any reason to think otherwise? Stalwart111 06:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Keywords being multiple and reliable, right? I'm still learning here. I'm disinclined to consider CathyGuerriero.com a reliable source. I'm also wary of the consistently positive profiles she receives from Staten Island Live -- she is not explicitly endorsed by them, but she previously worked as a sports writer for the Staten Island Advance, the paper that owns that site. I'm not even accusing these sources of bias, but wouldn't we differentiate between independent coverage and the machinations of her campaign? * Ben 07:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For educational purposes, can you explain what this page looks like if it is neither merged nor deleted? It needs significant revision for neutral tone and superfluous detail.* Ben 07:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

First part - yes and yes we would. But don't forget we're not just looking at what is in the article right now, but what could be in the article per WP:BEFORE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, like this, this, this and this. Plus this article and this one, both of which are already in the article. Even with a couple removed because of a potential bias, there's still quite a bit there.

Second part - it needs paring back to only those claims that can be verified by reliable sources. With the sources above, that should be a little easier. Needing "significant revision for neutral tone and superfluous detail" is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem, of course, not a reason for deletion. Stalwart111 07:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And this and this. Stalwart111 07:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely not trying to dump this article, forgive me if it seems that way, I'm just trying to understand. Most of those articles aren't neutral sources; they're all either from sources of potential bias or positions of definite advocacy for her campaign. What is "reliable" in this situation? And wouldn't a pared-down version be an almost completely empty article? Even after some searching, I have found no record (online or otherwise) of her time with the archdiocese or as a business strategist, let alone her position managing logistics for the '08 papal visit. I don't doubt that these things are /true/ but verifiable seems unlikely, right? At present, all we seem to be able to say is that she exists, and she's running, and she's got some endorsements. I can't even corroborate details via sources like ballotpedia or followthemoney.com because she's not listed on either of those sites. If there is enough substance available to fill out this article, then I am all for it, but I don't know where that would be found. I defer to your experience, of course, but I'm concerned that giving the article benefit-of-the-doubt won't have the desired effect of laying the groundwork for a more successful page. * Ben 07:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneuronak (talk • contribs)

No, not at all, nor am I particularly zealous about keeping it (and haven't even lodged a proper "keep vote" yet). Always good to talk these things through in cases where there are questions and I'm glad reddogsix brought here for discussion. I've added some of those sources. I suppose the issue is that in any election campaign, sources might be biased and there's always an extent to which coverage of a campaign might come across as advocacy for that campaign. There are certainly a couple in that list that read more like media endorsements than matter-of-fact reporting. But in the US, media outlets routinely endorse one candidate or another (something alien to many other countries around the world). If we nixed all articles from outlets that endorsed candidates, we'd end up not covering US politics at all - most of the major papers end up endorsing someone, as I understand it. I'm from Australia where we don't even have elected "Public Advocate" positions so even that is alien to me. All I can go on is WP:GNG. Stalwart111 09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right that media endorsements are a little strange, but I think it's worth noting the difference between The New York Times endorsing Barack Obama a week before the election, and single-purpose "news blogs" advocating for a candidate three months out. Here is an article about endorsements in the public advocate election that does a much better job of remaining neutral. I would feel more comfortable with this if the other sources resembled that. I am probably reaching the end of the meaningful contributions I can make on this particular aspect of the discussion, so I will leave further source questions for someone else. * Ben 13:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My position: the sources we have are inadequate to back up anything but the shallowest claims; "Cathy Guerriero has received x, y, and z endorsements from the community". The remainder of the page is largely superfluous, unsourced information, and I think the page could arguably be condensed to two paragraphs: the lead, and a short description of the ongoing election. At that point, I think it's worth merging, because the Election page contains very little useful information and could benefit from what we have here. I think it's especially useful because Guerriero definitely does not pass WP:GNG if she doesn't win the election, and nor, probably, does her opponent Reshma Saujani, but information about them will always remain relevant to the Election page. * Ben 13:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, since I haven't gotten an answer: what sources would be adequate? The NYTimes might be more trustworthy than the Daily News or Staten Island Advance or various other smaller news sources, but I don't see why there's a reason to doubt them in this case. Msrpotus (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't strongly disagree with any of that. I'm still not convinced to the point where I think this should be kept, but I might wait to see if anyone has a view on my 1E question. Good chat! Stalwart111 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed! :-) (My sense of the 1E question is that it hinges on her involvement with the archdiocese/papal visit. Her academic career seems to have been limited to a single senior adjunct position, which is to say that she has taught classes; I have not found any scholarly work by her. Her business consultancy also seems to be campaign window-dressing; I have not found a website or any record beyond a two-year engagement working in pharmaceutical development. If independent reference or record can be found to support the claim that she oversaw a portion of the 2008 papal visit to the US, then it's definitely worth consideration by someone better versed than me in notability within the Catholic church.)

Thanks for working with me here. I consider this a case of WP:ENCOURAGE. * Ben 14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have found sources from both of the schools the article claims she teaches at. Teacher's College and NYU Stonehengee (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll weigh in at this point. I'm uncomfortable with how ready Ben is to disregard various news agencies as untrustworthy. Granted SI Live could be seen as not neutral, though I'd hardly argue that that makes them a bad source. The world isn't neutral, much less the news, and yet in no academic field I'm aware of is a source with an opinion on the subject deemed inherently unreliable. Unreliability seems to rely on the organization and its general reputation, not its having of opinions. However, even if we were to put SI Live aside, as Stalwart has pointed out a cursory Google search provides a plethora of reliable sources corroborating every important point in the article. Now, where they got that information and whether or not they corroborated it with sources outside the campaign is impossible to know. However, is Knowledge (XXG) in the business of judging the fact checkers at the NY Daily News and others? Because as far as I understand it, the Daily News has never come under serious scrutiny for its reliability. Yet to say there are no reliable sources backing up the previously mentioned parts of the article is to throw suspicion on not just SI Live but a laundry list of local news agencies. My point: reliable sources exist to back up every important point in the article.Stonehengee (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still learning the ropes here but what would be a reliable enough source for these claims? I live in New York and thought it was odd she didn't have a page (especially since I think there are a lot of other politicians who have done even less who do have pages) so I created it, but if there are other, more reliable sources needed, I'm happy to look for them. Msrpotus (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So at this point, what do we do? Seems like there are at least some people (myself included) who think Cathy Guerriero is a legitimate subject and meets the criteria. Msrpotus (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect- To New York City Public Advocate election, 2013 unless included coverage shows WP:GNG is met. Discrete search term, and already appropriately included in the election article. Dru of Id (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Redirect- To New York City Public Advocate election, 2013. A short section on the subject's campaign (and career) could be included there. Enos733 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was userfy to User:Andise1/Shooting of Jordan Davis, per consensus, WP:GNG and possible future WP:EFFECT. There seems little point in keeping this discussion open. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Shooting of Jordan Davis

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

Non notable biography. Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. Kumioko (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Userfy. So far the coverage for this is very light, too light to really qualify for an article at this point in time. There has been some comparison to the Treyvon Martin case and the "stand your ground" law, so there is the potential for more. However, we can't guarantee that the upcoming September trial will garner that coverage. Since there is the potential for more coverage, I recommend userfying the information if anyone is interested. If more comes in the future then we'll have an article ready to go. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Userfy – well put (as always) by Tokyogirl. Dea db eef 06:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Userfy - good call by Tokyogirl79. At first glance my reaction was "Delete", but the lengthy Rolling Stone news article shows the murder has received significant national attention and comparisons made to the Trayvon Martin case. I would be teetering on "Weak keep" if someone was to flesh out the article on this basis. Sionk (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. The nominator is requesting a merge. This is not the place to request a merge (even if that leaves a redirect behind). Please take the discussion to the talk page or be bold and do it yourself. (non-admin closure) Dusti 05:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Rectors of the University of New South Wales

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

In and of itself not notable. This information more appropriately belongs on the University of New South Wales page, where there is also context. Qwerty Binary (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So...you want this merged? Why didn't you just do that instead of starting an AFD? Please read WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, and then let us know if you have any further thoughts to add here. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- No if that merge creates a needless redirect (no one searches for List of Rectors of the University of New South Wales). However, if that's merge and delete, then yes, I do suggest a merge (which has sort of been done). Thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cotswold Green

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable bus company - Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Atbus

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

non-notable bus company - Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP Davey2010 Talk 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010 Talk! 01:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Davey2010Talk!→ 01:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010Talk! 01:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010Talk! 01:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I see no real reason to keep it - no real references, a quick search of Google only supplies website and wiki article. Tom the Tomato Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 10:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete -- anotehr NN coach operator. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was PROCEDURAL CLOSE. Merging all related discussions at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Coronation Street characters (1967) per WP:MULTI. Diego Moya (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Coronation Street characters (1970)

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

This article is far too short on its own. I mean, there is only one character listed here, and thats it. I really don't see why this list should even exist, nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have notified WikiProject Coronation Street and WikiProject Fictional Characters of this debate. –anemone projectors– 09:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep or merge. 1) I think this would have been best handled under a single nomination, since five similar articles have been nominated for deletion. 2) I don't think it's right to delete them just because there aren't many characters listed. I think it's possible to improve on them, but also they could probably be merged with adjoining years. I don't understand the comment "nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article", and as for Clarityfiend's comment (on the AFD for the 1967 list) that List of Coronation Street characters is in chronological order, that only lists the present characters, and List of past Coronation Street characters is in alphabetical order. –anemone projectors– 09:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Coronation Street characters (1976)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have notified WikiProject Coronation Street and WikiProject Fictional Characters of this debate. –anemone projectors– 09:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep or merge. 1) I think this would have been best handled under a single nomination, since five similar articles have been nominated for deletion. 2) I don't think it's right to delete them just because there aren't many characters listed. I think it's possible to improve on them, but also they could probably be merged with adjoining years. I don't understand the comment "nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article", and as for Clarityfiend's comment (on the AFD for the 1967 list) that List of Coronation Street characters is in chronological order, that only lists the present characters, and List of past Coronation Street characters is in alphabetical order. –anemone projectors– 09:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Coronation Street characters (1977)

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

This article is far too short on its own. I mean, there are only two characters listed here, and thats it. I really don't see why this list should even exist, nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have notified WikiProject Coronation Street and WikiProject Fictional Characters of this debate. –anemone projectors– 09:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep or merge. 1) I think this would have been best handled under a single nomination, since five similar articles have been nominated for deletion. 2) I don't think it's right to delete them just because there aren't many characters listed. I think it's possible to improve on them, but also they could probably be merged with adjoining years. I don't understand the comment "nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article", and as for Clarityfiend's comment (on the AFD for the 1967 list) that List of Coronation Street characters is in chronological order, that only lists the present characters, and List of past Coronation Street characters is in alphabetical order. –anemone projectors– 09:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Coronation Street characters (1975)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have notified WikiProject Coronation Street and WikiProject Fictional Characters of this debate. –anemone projectors– 09:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep or merge. 1) I think this would have been best handled under a single nomination, since five similar articles have been nominated for deletion. 2) I don't think it's right to delete them just because there aren't many characters listed. I think it's possible to improve on them, but also they could probably be merged with adjoining years. I don't understand the comment "nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article", and as for Clarityfiend's comment (on the AFD for the 1967 list) that List of Coronation Street characters is in chronological order, that only lists the present characters, and List of past Coronation Street characters is in alphabetical order. –anemone projectors– 09:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanderful Media

AfDs for this article:

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

Userfy. Or, alternatively, delete and protect from re-creation.

The article still primarily serves to promote the company and its product. The subject is an unusually small company, with only 75 employees. The article was deleted a few weeks ago. (One user made a flawed argument to keep it, but three users made cogent arguments to delete it.) The creator has recreated it.

The company has bought iCircular from the AP. I've removed a citation to an AP story, and a Huffington Post AP story, which therefore presumably fail WP:INDY. I've also removed a citation to Greg Sterling's website "Screenwerk". As well, I've removed some refs which read like press release churnalism: the Mashable, internetretailer.com, TechCrunch, and Publishing Executive refs. There's only one ref left. The article lacks sufficient sourcing.

If we delete the article again, the original creator will probably recreate it and add more churnalistic sources. So, in this case, it should be userfied; the creator may later contact the closing admin and request deuserfication. Or, alternatively, the article may be deleted, but only if it is protected from re-creation.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The deletion has been contested citing the following guidelines:

1. Content is not identical to a previously deleted page, but was completely re-written to comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for pages that describe an organization. This was publicly noted when the new page was posted.

2. The new page addresses previous comments, and adds required third party sources to meet the following guideline:

The most reliable method of convincing people that an article should be kept is to provide a list of multiple independent, third-party reliable sources that describe the subject in detail, such as newspaper articles or critical reviews. Sources do not have to be available online or for free, but they must say more than one or two sentences about the company or product, and they must not have been written by your own company.

3. The page does not link to the company directly with the exception of the website (allowed per Knowledge (XXG) guidelines).

4. Additional marketing material was added by another party and subsequently deleted.

5. Please provide any additional feedback or direction. This page was written to comply with all Wiki guidelines for formatting and content.

In addition, the new page was constructed within all Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for organizations and addressed the previous deletion, citing lack of sources. No direct company sources were present, and there were originally nine reliable, third party independent references cited. Another user has removed them.

AP coverage does not appear to represent a conflict of interest based on Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for citing sources.

Additional comments on the talk page state that companies under 350 employees are automatically deleted as a Knowledge (XXG) policy. This seems to be in some contradiction to to notability guidelines.

If the article creator is working within Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and a page meets community notability and reference requirements, the page (and user) should not be blocked. Would appreciate additional direction to bring this page into alignment. Please do not delete all cited third party references that were previously approved by Knowledge (XXG) editors. KF330 (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — KF330 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete and salt - to start with, I'll try to address some of the concerns raised above. 1. this is not speedy deletion, it's Articles for Deletion so you should probably read up on that before commenting further. Similarity toi previous version is irrelevant. 2. We need reliable independent coverage. For what might be considered "reliable", please see WP:RS. Routine business announcements are rarely considered significant coverage. 3. That's great but it doesn't really impact on anything here. If the tone of the article is promotional, that's a bigger problem. 4. Good, but it doesn't resolve the notability issues. 5. The content and style might adhere to WP:MOS but the subject itself still needs to be notable to be included. That's the issue here. 6? Nobody has been blocked (from what I can tell) but the article has been deleted in the past and you really need to demonstrate why consensus might have changed. Really, you should have gone to WP:DRV before ignoring the community and recreating your article. Stalwart111 02:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Delete - Non-notable, main section reads like a resume, and the cited information all seems to come from the company. Caffeyw (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And salt, to stop the author from creating the page a third time? (I have sent you a {{talkback}} template to point you here.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 13:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete I would point out that a common mistake made by newer editors is to assume that things are 'approved' by Knowledge (XXG) editors (or admins). An editor can give an opinion that something looks good, or looks bad, but there is no actual official approval involved. The editor giving the opinion might well be considered wrong by a lot of other editors. As to this case, as it stands, I can see no notability. It's a company, and it does something. (I'm not quite sure what, but that doesn't matter.) The one reference that is currently up that I could consider in the notability proving line is too brief and looks rather as if it's based on company supplied info. The other that could be an RS is a mention in a list of companies obtaining funding. This isn't notable (outside the company itself). The other two are at Crunchbase, which is not regarded as a reliable independent sourc any more than PRWire is. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

And salt, to stop the author from creating the page a third time? (I have sent you a {{talkback}} template to point you here.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the article and I had substantial difficulty determining just what the company does. (I'm still not 100% sure.) OSborn _contribs.

Added new citations and third party sources as suggested. Removed 'advertising company' - this is not accurate and has been removed previously (and cited). Wanderful Media is not an advertising company - but previous overview language was removed. Added company backers as a relevant and indisputable fact (the company is funded and formed by media companies, similar to early cars.com and classifieds.com efforts by the media industry). Open to additional feedback to improve page and entry notability. KF330 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What does "Wanderful Media is an independent Silicon Valley company that owns and operates the Find&Save brand." even mean? Are they just an IP holding company? They 'operate' the brand, but what does that mean? What does the brand represent? What does this company do?? OSborn _contribs. 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
And you can't really "improve notability" except perhaps by lobbying the New York Times to give the company more coverage. The company is either notable or it isn't. You can improve the way the article establishes the notability of the company by adding available sources. But if independent reliable sources aren't available, then it may well be that the company isn't notable. For the record, the "sources" you added were from a press release and a company blog - neither is likely to be considered a reliable source. Stalwart111 06:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment The fact that the notable companies mentioned have put in what must really be peanuts these days in terms of corporate investment into a venture doesn't in any way mean that the venture itself is notable. There are a lot of businesses that don't pass WP:CORP despite being much bigger than this one appears to be. Find&Save seems to be a web-based lister of local 'deals', and I quote: "Our high level goal is to create an immersive and local shopping experience," said Dave Thomsen, Wanderful's executive vice president of product and design." That is from the fiercemobile site - I have removed the advert that seems to attach itself to text copied from there, and am wondering how they do it. (I wonder if he talks like that all the time...) In time, this may become notable. It may be the brand that gets notable before the company, as is often the case. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete and possibly salt. This company has simply not received the necessary independent reliable coverage to pass WP:CORP. And its brand, Find&Save, does not pass WP:GNG based on searching. I did go back and look at some of the previous versions, since there have been significant deletions since the article was created, but the deleted material does not affect notability. (BTW the article really doesn't read like an advertisement; in fact it hardly reads like anything at all.) I did find out one thing: I now know (based on a Google search) what the company does. It reproduces local advertising circulars online; here is the page for my locality . However, it does not appear to have attracted much in the way of independent notice, and without such notice it does not qualify for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I couldn't see it taking off where I live - I and quite a few of my neighbours have notices on our letter boxes telling people not to deliver those circulars. (Doesn't always work - many of the deliverers appear to be foreign. The stuff goes straight into recycling, though.) We definitely wouldn't be accessing this online. The people of the USA may take a friendlier view of advertising. Peridon (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We get a ton of such circulars included with the newspaper, particularly the Sunday paper, as well as in the mail. As you say, they go straight to recycling at my house. This company appears to think people WANT those circulars, but not in a dead-tree version. So far it seems their business model hasn't attracted much attention. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete (and salt) per Melanie's and Peridon's valid rationales. Just providing multiple sources does not necessarily establish notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

St. George Serbian Orthodox Church

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. I don't know why the soccer club FC Niagara Falls Srbija is mentioned in the article. It has nothing to do with this church. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I couldn't find anything by way of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The soccer club, from what I can tell, is a church-based football team that did/does play in a local amateur league. The "club" and the congregation are one in the same. See articles like Leicestershire Church Football League (though that article has serious notability issues too). Stalwart111 02:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete I also couldn't find notable and reliable sources. After four years one would have hoped to see a single reliable reference. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Yeager (18 July 2013). "Howard council members look for balance". The Baltimore Sun.