Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 27

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 27 (Fri) September 26 (Thu) September 25 (Wed) More...

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

< 26 October	28 October >

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 Redirect to 1996 Romanian Open. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

1996 Open Romania

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

Duplicate article with 1996 Romanian Open. Wolbo (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to 1996 Romanian Open. It's a likely search term for visitors from Romania and there are many incoming links to this title. The official website listed is called bcopenromania.ro. The page has value as a redirect. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect - Same article, with 1996 Romanian Open as best English title and oldest article. They can be merged and 1996 Open Romania is a good redirect as per Oleaster. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Just redirect it. Jared Preston (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2014 (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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Set U Free (Planet Soul song)

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

I like your article, but it doesn't contain references that establishe notability. All you need to find is one reference that supports your statement that the song was included on the Billboard hot 100. The reference that you have in the article now doesn't link to anything. With a little more work. I'm sure your article can be kept. There's nothing seriously wrong with it. As long as you find the reference that you need, I'll come back and withdraw my nomination for deletion. Good luck. Bfpage |leave a message 23:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a new source, directly from the Billboard Hot 100 itself on Google Books. - ArtistsCry13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistsCry13 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Billboard has a chart archive, and it's quicker to search through that than it is to start an AfD discussion. WP:SOFIXIT would be a good essay for the nominator to read. Reference for the chart placing is here. Not averse to redirecting to a parent article (ie, the artiste or an album) if others feel that there isn't enough info for a standalone article, but the references already in the article might just be enough. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! I am very glad to withdraw the nomination for the deletion of this article. You found some other references to demonstrate the song indeed appeared on the top 100 billboard hits. I must apologize for my ignorance of the existence of the Billboard chart archive, but I am glad that you know about it. Good job. I look forward to seeing even more articles created by you, ArtstsCry13. Best regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 00:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Greg Lambert (wrestling)

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

Greg Lambert fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ATH, WP:ENT

Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify this article have failed. Becky Sayles (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

delete Referencing? We've heard of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley - your formatting had an error. starship.paint ~ regal 02:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - only wrestled 1 recorded match per Wrestlingdata. I searched reliable sources and found 15 results. Removing the "thanks to Greg Lambert" - who sent in results of his own shows - takes away 7 results, leaving 8 results. Of these, 5 of them are republishing of press releases by wrestling promotions. Only 3 are "real" coverage from the reliable secondary sources: One, Two and Three. To summarise these three sources: 1) He talked on a podcast. 2) He wrote a book and was booker for the FWA for 2 years. 3) He appeared at a wrestling event, starship.paint ~ regal 02:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - as per my proof above, he has only three instances of "real" coverage (instead of parroting of press releases) by secondary sources. None of these were very detailed or focused on him. So, he fails WP:GNG. starship.paint ~ regal 02:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GNG - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. - Taketa (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

All information contained in this Knowledge entry is true. Many secondary sources of the matches referred to on the internet do not refer to Greg Lambert because role as manager/ring announcer/commentator is often less high profile that of the wrestlers who appeared on the shows. There is a video of of Greg Lambert performing at an FWA event in 2004 on the internet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drs4mzlmADk and appearing at FWA in 2010 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnJEeY7K120 and also appears in an FWA music video in 2004 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O79ftoKTVlQ . There are numerous positive reviews of the Holy Grail book which can be found on line including here http://www.lep.co.uk/what-s-on/holy-grail-the-true-story-of-british-wrestling-s-revival-1-5629053 and here http://www.pwmania.com/sheds-review-holy-grail-true-story-british-wrestlings-revival. The PCW website has a profile of Greg Lambert here http://www.prestoncitywrestling.com/wrestlers/greg-lambert . An interview with Wrestling Eye podcast includes Greg Lambert talking about his writing career with Power Slam here http://wrestlingeye.libsyn.com/ Further sources can be produced if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregthetruthlambert (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gregthetruthlambert, of all the sources you mentioned, only LEP passes the test for a reliable secondary source. Secondary means that they are not affliated with you so prestoncitywrestling or FWA does not count. Please provide more sources like the LEP (media publications) since it's obvious to me from my own search that the wrestling sites have not covered you in much detail at all. Even if your article were to survive, it needs a massive trim due to a lack of WP:Verifiability. starship.paint ~ regal 07:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.LM2000 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If this does survive AfD the article will undergo quite a cleanup transformation and WP:COI issues will likely have to be addressed.LM2000 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. As Dennis remarks, WP:BROADCAST is only an essay and even that does not claim that all TV channels are notable. There are no sources in the article or in the older version linked to by EBY) and none of the participants seems to have found significant coverage. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Liquidation Channel

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

Highly promotional article with no apparent support from independent sources. Whilst there might be enough out there to warrant a page about this company, it would make more sense to delete and start over than to work from this advert masquerading as an article. Yunshui _水 08:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is a very low-notability shopping channel, but this version of the article can't be rescued. Should be focused on the channel's history, not how many mines it leases products from and its shipping policies. Sadly, this version of the article from 2011 is the most neutral version that can be found. Finally, every edit since May 2014 looks like it's been made by a walled garden of possible WP:COI accounts that's gone unnoticed since most WP:TV editors usually don't edit shopping/infomercial channel articles. Nate • (chatter) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 22:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Television channels are presumed notable according to WP:BROADCAST, and WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Since when did we not enforce COI?! We have a user named Vaibhavhitesh (talk · contribs) editing the article with promotional information who just happens to be part of a company called Vaibhav Global Limited, which owns the network. That's my concern, that it's become a mission statement for VGL rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Actually read my rationale for deletion, please; we don't keep blatant ads for companies here. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep , Just because it's perceived to be a "low-notability" shopping channel doesn't mean it's not article-worthy. It's carried on the two major satellite providers in the United States as well as most cable systems. If other low-tier shopping channels merit a listing, so should the Liquidation Channel. Nemalki (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Again, if it was the neutral version I linked to from 2011, it would be an easy keep. This barely talks about the channel itself, but a bunch of websites, blogs and 'who cares' information about how the company gets their product. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete I would remind folks that WP:BROADCAST isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. It is an essay. While essays are often useful, and I don't doubt that most of the time this essay is, at the end of the day, we assume nothing, including notability. In this case, we have a minor channel that is literally one big commercial. This is the type of channel that cables companies don't have to pay for, the channel pays the cable companies to be included. Short of rock solid references, that fact lets us apply WP:COMMONSENSE, which trumps all policies, and say that without proper references, we can't say it passes our criteria for inclusion. I'm guessing, and hoping, that this will get relisted so more eyes can look at it. Dennis - 2¢ 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert & Keep.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

American Luxury Limousine

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Appears an attempt at using Knowledge for free advertising. No depth of coverage in independent sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep It's been widely covered in local newspapers. It's no reason to delete the largest limo company in the second largest U.S. city. I'm willing to remove the gallery or clean it up if necessary. Bazzy11 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Bazzy11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See WP:CORP. Local coverage is not sufficient for establishing notability. We need sources of national or at least regional scope. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely keep This article should change, but it shouldn't be deleted all together. Someone needs to find better sources. $\mathbb {N}$ iceley 23:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Niceley: That would be a reasonable argument if better sources could be found. I tried and could not find anything more than local coverage. Have you? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge:But there must be sources! If you can find them, do share. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 00:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely delete due to lack of evidence of notability as required by WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV, but willing to change my view if someone can find a couple of good sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with deletion - Trivial or incidental coverage so far from sources that reprint press releases or other industry promotion. Nothing notable about this company. They do not supply a street address. They appear to be in the City of Thousand Oaks portion of Westlake Village (neighborhood) and not in the City of Westlake Village. Fettlemap (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. There doesn't seem to be anything out there other than ads, listings, and their own press releases. Nothing that comes close to satisfying WP:GNG. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 00:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GNG - Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, I consider 18 employees and 1.2 million revenue on the low side, so I really want to see more reliable sources for this particular topic. - Taketa (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOTPROMO. Furthermore I have not found significant coverage of the subject in multiple non-primary or secondary reliable sources. Therefore the subject also fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

John Bytheway

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

Fails WP:BIO. Popcornduff (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete No independent sources and doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment It's hard to say what is a "third party source" or a "reliable source" in this case, because LDS is a particular community and all of the sources are within that LDS silo. I can find plenty of LDS publications that talk about him and his work, but I doubt there would ever be coverage of him in a non-LDS "mainstream" publication. If this article is kept, there are many more sources that can be added from within the LDS community. LaMona (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete The subject has many YouTube videos and much LDS promotional material but it strikes me as WP:SPIP - there are no reliable sources from people independent of the topic himself (as another editor called it "the LDS silo") that regard Bytheway as notable. EBY (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - did a highbeam search, which gave about 50 mentions in Deseret News, which I do not consider neutral in this case, since he is a Deseret books employee. Also a mention in Knight Ridder 12 jan 2003 Standard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah, Business People Column, a tip from his book was in Rocky Mountain News , and his name is mentioned in US State News . One short mention, a tip and a name mention, in my opinion not enough reliable coverage. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete (Non-admin closure). — sparklism 14:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dawn ODG (Rapper)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Contents of the article were copied directly from Sarkodie. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete - see Dawn ODG, DaWn ODG and Dawn ODG discography - deleted 7 times in the past month already, due to complete lack of reliable secondary sources in the article. All links are to personal blog pages. Also notice the name of the author, and specially his talk page. Explicit advertisement. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Almost everyone agrees that there's no independent notability here, but there's roughly equal support for deleting and for redirecting. Either has the effect of removing the article from view, so there's little practical difference between the options. Since, however, there may well be BLP problems in the article's history, deleting seems the more prudent course. If anyone wants to create a redirect from this title to Gamergate controversy#GameJournoPros, he or she is free to do so. Deor (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - When you had marked the page for speedy deletion, admin East718 ruled on the article's notability on the revision history. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GameJournoPros&action=history ArtemisiaPoppycock (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Marking something as "...makes assertion of notability..." is different than actually having notability. The article fails to provide notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The Ars Technica piece does cover the topic in detail as do the Breitbart articles. The other articles are much more focused on the GamerGate connection. Ars Technica is an RS, but as far as I know Breitbart is not. The minimum inclusion criteria (WP:GNG) requires multiple RSes covering the topic in significant depth. My first impression is that I only see one... At a minimum, however, this should clearly be redirected to (if not merged into) GamerGate rather than simply deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I'd love to see that, but I don't see that as feasible in the near future, given that the Wiki page on the Gamergate controversy is embroiled in an edit war, and any mention of the GJP groups is continually deleted. The GameJournoPros leaks are a noteworthy event, having been verified and commented on by its own members, and the information should be available to Wiki readers interested in the ongoing controversy.

According to the General Notability Guidelines you linked, there are five criteria that a topic must meet to be suitable for a standalone article.

Significant coverage: the GJP is more than a trivial mention in all of these sources (excluding Re/code, which is a glossary-like piece), and the guidelines state that it need not be the main topic (Gamergate) of the source material.
Reliable: Forbes is a reliable source, and the Editor's statements from Ars Technica, Polygon and GamePolitics regarding GJP, along with Usher's interview, are also reliable, as they are first-hand accounts from members (and in Orland's case, creator) of the Google Group. Breitbart is obviously a slanted news source, but all the leaked lists and email dumps have been verified by Orland, Grant, Fudge, and Usher, and Wiki policy states that reliable sources are not required to neutral or unbiased (WP:Bias). Also, Breitbart has been cited in its specific involvement in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, so there is a precedent.
Sources and independence from the subject are a bit a up in the air, as Orland, Grant and Fudge's articles could arguably be considered too "close" to the subject matter. I used the precedent set in the JournoList page, which featured official statements from J-list members defending their involvement.
Presumed: I think this one is clear. ArtemisiaPoppycock (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem for me really centers on the lack of significant coverage. We have Ars Technica kind of going into the history of the group and presenting context, but then all of the other article just cover the GamerGate related leaks. Even if it met GNG (and I think that's debatable) I'm having a difficult time imagining that the article could ever be more than a stub. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, such an outcome is not really an attractive option. Anyway it's not like there are no sources, the topic just seems more like an element of another topic to me. -Thibbs (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Gamergate controversy. As mentioned by Thibbs, all but one source are about its relation to other events, mostly Gamergate but also JournoList. Woodroar (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete: Definitely not notable and WP:BLP issues up the wazoo. This was expressly excluded from the Gamergate controversy article for these reasons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Gamergate controversy — essentially a WP:POVFORK attempt. Also, Breitbart is in no way acceptable as a reliable source for claims about what living people may or may not have done, and I have removed all information allegedly sourced to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete, Non-notable. This looks like nothing more than a flimsy excuse to cite Breitbart conspiracy theories on Knowledge. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

*Redirect to Gamergate controversy Needs only a mention (preferably more but we aren't allowed to support gg in any way shape or form) more in the main article, not enough notability to have its own article Retartist (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Gamergate controversy not enough notability to have its own article Retartist (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Since it was specifically rejected by Gamergate controversy, it seems improper to redirect it there. I agree that this seems like a POV fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:NOTINHERITED. The mailing list itself not notable in the slightest, the only link to notability is via its very minor role in the Gamergate controversy. I'm not even sure it is worth as redirect. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge with Gamergate controversy The mailing list is notable, sourced, and relevant enough to be mentioned in the Gamergate article. And it should be.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect - Most sources are about other events. However, I consider it a likely search term and a redirect would fill that need. Taketa (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect per above. The list is not notable, but because of the furor of Gamergate, it is a very viable search term tied to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge and redirect Q 17:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep it's certainly a part of the Gamergate controversy and not independently notable, but it's a significant part and the article in question is getting quite long. (Dunno wiki policy on when it becomes too long, so I'm eyeballing it - by all means merge if it's not near the limit and we can cover this in detail in that article) Its existence has been confirmed by all parties involved and although a Breitbart reporter leaked its existence it is not the only outlet discussing it. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Existing does not denote independent notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you know what "not" means? 209.6.166.24 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I also know that it's not independently notable from Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
And my post agrees on that count, making a different argument for inclusion, so why did you feel the need to respond with that point? 209.6.166.24 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So if it's not independently notable from Gamergate, then it should not be kept. Your rationale does not match the proper way things are done on the English Knowledge.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SPINOUT. I believe that's the issue and not WP:GNG Dreadstar ☥ 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete No independent notability. 97.90.153.202 (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Not as notable, merging with gamergate controversy could be a good idea but I don't see any hope. Noteswork (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to GamerGate controversy even though it's a big part of GamerGate's foundation, I don't think it has been covered enough, and suspiciously, not at all by more mainstream media. Still I find the info on GPS on the GamerGate article lacking Loganmac (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is not notable enough for an article or even a redirect. Stesmo (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Notability isn't a requirement for redirects. If it was notable then why would anyone redirect it? This is a closely related word so per WP:POFRED there is good reason to use it as a redirect. The goal of redirects is simple: to assist readers. If the term gets close to 40k GHITS then it's clearly an important search term. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to GamerGate controversy, which allows future potential for a quality improvement project, and maintains history, and redirects are cheap. — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Vance Miller

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

I was advised by Bearian to send this to AfD rather than proposed deletion on my talk page due to it being controversial. My rationale, which I stand by, is "Almost entirely negative NPOV-violating BLP. Newspapers are generally accepted as being unacceptable sources for BLPs and this relies almost completely on them, save for: one Amazon reference; one Government website; his website. I say we bin this per WP:TNT." Laun chba ller 20:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I am unsure, but I am glad that we'll have a chance to look at this. It does look like a bit of a hatchet job. However, the sources look good: BBC, national newspapers, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep He's been the subject of coverage in a specific BBC program, "The second programme in the Notorious series which lifts the lid on four of Britain's most controversial entreprenuers" and no end of newspaper coverage. "Almost entirely negative" is no reason to delete, and this article seems to source every claim it makes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep - I agree that the article reads a bit negatively, however it is well sourced and makes no false claims. Any part of the article can be re-evaluated to either be kept or removed, but the subject as a whole is relevant and well sourced and should not be deleted. - -Taketa (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep. The article isn't NPOV, it says he's unsavoury because he is. Perhaps he should do some charity work and redress the balance!!! Szzuk (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was snow close. While not necessarily a hoax because the article was not claiming that a game would be made (actually claiming the opposite), there's nothing to show that we particularly need an article on this at this point in time. On a side note if the article's creator checks this, please understand that the one sentence stub you created could potentially be seen as an attack page by some, so please exercise more caution in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Roller coaster tycoon 5

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

As far as I can tell this article technically doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. However, it consists entirely of one sentence of unverifiable speculation. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete I believe WP:CRYSTALBALL still applies here even though it's saying something probably won't be made instead of saying it probably will. A bunch of other stuff applies too, obviously. --AmaryllisGardener 20:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete It is a poorly written article with one sentence, no categories, and is not of Knowledge standards. --DrDevilFX (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete The article qualifies for speedy deletion as a chat-like comment (WP:CSD#A3). Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete A11 - Subject made up by creator (a hypothetical non-game) and no claim of significance. --— Rhododendrites \\ 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

playing devils advocate here- rollercoaster tycoon world will soon be released following the release of rollercoaster tycoon 4 mobile - 4 as in for, not four- and it cna give the wrong impresion that rtc world will be rtc 5 to someone (while really it'll be rtc 4), so it's not invented (and rtc are a real game series too, i think theres a good chance well see rtc 5 and even 6, the sales werent as bad as the guy says... imo the article is just too soon created maybe redirect it to rtc world for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.104.221 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Snow Delete An unsourced, non-notable stub article in clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the justification given by Gene93k for speedy deletion doesn't work, I think it should still be deleted early since there is no way this article is going to be kept in any form. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete db-A3. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Not a stitch of reliable sourcing. Only 31k Ghits in total. Clear example of WP:CRYSTAL. Even if it were eligible for retaining we would lose nothing of value by deleting it in its current state. -Thibbs (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment added after close: In response to queries on my talk page, I am adding the following rationale: After checking all of the references that were present in the article, it would appear that one (astrazeneca.com) does not mention NOAV and one other is from NOAV itself. Neither can contribute to establish notability. All other references are brief reports of one single event (i.e., not significant coverage) that occurred very recently (apparently the article was created within 3 days of the newspaper reporting). Concerning the arguments presented in the discussion: The nom does not (as argued lower) state that the article should be deleted because of SPA, SOAPBOX, or ONEEVENT concerns. It is perfectly normal to give a short description of an article's history before presenting the deletion argument, which indeed follows immediately. In what follows, whereas the "delete" arguments are solidly policy-based (especially WP:NOTNEWS), the "keep" arguments resort to wikilawyering ("NOAV is a smaller grassroots animal rights group", "a period of time is any period of time", etc). Together, I found the "keep" arguments unconvincing and agree that creating an article for this organization is too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

National Operation Anti-Vivisection

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

Article created by WP:SPA apparently for WP:SOAPBOX around WP:ONEEVENT. Organization literally just started in October 2014. Secondary source coverage is less than I can count on one hand. — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not established. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTNEWS. Organization just established, attracted a little attention for one event, but not seeing enough about anything else. --— Rhododendrites \\ 22:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete WP:PROMO WP:NOTNEWS --Jersey92 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep WP:ORGSIG "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." As NOAV is a smaller grassroots animal rights group mention in national newspapers it does make NOAV notable in the context of the type of group it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.143.93 (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're applying that quote in nearly the opposite way it's intended. What it means is that big organizations and small organizations should be treated equally, in a way that doesn't measure their importance by their size. For example, we wouldn't have a standard for a minimum number of members, minimum annual donations/revenue, etc. The only thing Knowledge cares about is whether the organization has received significant, in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources for more than one event. Could be one person or a million -- the sources are there or they're not. What that quote doesn't mean is that a smaller organization should be held to a lower standard because it's smaller. --— Rhododendrites \\ 05:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Several appropriate sources are provided. The Daily Mail, Varsity, The Mirror, and The Tab are sufficient to establish notability. Axl ¤ 12:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Article created by WP:SPA apparently for WP:SOAPBOX around WP:ONEEVENT." The author of the article is irrelevant to AfD. The article has the appropriate encyclopedic tone. It is not a soapbox. Even if it was, that would be an indication for clean-up, not deletion. WP:ONEEVENT is explicitly about biographies. The article is about an organization, not an individual person.

"Organization literally just started in October 2014." So what?

"Secondary source coverage is less than I can count on one hand." WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." How many secondary sources have you counted? How many sources would you like to see for this article? Axl ¤ 12:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Axl: People often use WP:ONEEVENT mistakenly when they mean either WP:NOTNEWS or WP:GNG, the latter of which begins with the nutshell Knowledge articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Knowledge. "over a period of time" being the key idea here. ONEEVENT and NOTNEWS are different applications of the same basic idea -- that notability extends beyond an event or events in a short timeframe. Hence WP:TOOSOON, because this organization will likely be notable in the future, but isn't now. --— Rhododendrites \\ 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" NOAV meets this "sufficiently significant attention" ie national newspapers, has been in mentioned in High Court: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antivivisection-group-offers-cash-to-name-cambridge-animal-testing-lab-workers-9821900.html and "over a period of time" a period of time is any period of time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.31.117 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

says the contributor from Cambridge. 86.6.31.117, if you are affiliated with the organization then you should disclose that conflict of interest, please. And if you have commented here under a signed-in account, please disclose that as well. thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

and "over a period of time" a period of time is any period of time -- Well, of course that's not what that statement means or it would be meaningless. These policy pages peppered throughout this discussion stem from core Knowledge/encyclopedia principles, so it's not like a court of law where the letter of the law can win a case (not that you were necessarily trying to do so). --— Rhododendrites \\ 21:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete WP:TOOSOON. may never be notable for a period of time, or may be. we have no WP:CRYSTALBALL. But not now. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep: The relevant guideline at WP:ORG says A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. The article appears to meet this standard. In contrast, the three sentences in the nomination fail to make a convincing case for the articles deletion: WP:SPA is an essay that does not recommend automatic deletion of articles written by newcomers (it actually references the guideline WP:BITE instead), age of the organization is not mentioned as a criterion at WP:ORG, and a minimum source count of five is not supported by our notability guidelines. VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was userfy. Moving article to User:Captain Assassin!/Kennedi Clements. Deor (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kennedi Clements

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

Fails WP:ENT (does not have two substantial roles in notable productions), fails WP:GNG (lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep or Move as actress has played several notable roles in the films and television But if it still fails, then move it to draft until the release of "Poltergeist", in which she is playing one of the lead roles. --Captain Assassin! 14:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What are the "several notable roles"? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Userfy - WP:ENT, WP:UFY - Single substantial role in a noteworthy movie and as such fails WP:ENT. However a second movie is very probable at this point. Since the text is not objectionable it can be moved to the user namespace, also since it is requested above by the author. It can be improved and moved back to the article namespace in due time. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Acklin

AfDs for this article:

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

Flash-in-the-pan never-elected local politician - see WP:BLP1E. While there was coverage of the guy during his candidacy, that's it. He's resumed a staff job and is now occasionally quoted but no in-depth coverage outside of losing that race. Failed AFD 5 years ago, but his notability fails the test of time, and he remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. The Dissident Aggressor 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge's sourcing and notability standards are much stricter now than they were five years ago. The first AFD hinged on the idea that he had generated sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NPOL #3 — but that criterion was never meant to cover people who only garnered WP:ROUTINE coverage in the context of a single candidacy for an office they didn't win. All candidates in all elections always garner local media coverage — so if that was all it took, it would be impossible to maintain any standards for politicians' notability at all. I'm sure he's a good guy, but nothing here makes him a person who warrants coverage in an encyclopedia — he's just a WP:BLP1E whose only substantive claim of notability is coming in third in an election where even the second place finisher doesn't have an article despite garnering at least as much coverage as this guy got. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, notability standards have actually stagnated and ossified over the last several years. I don't think there has been much change, one way or the other, since 2007, apart from a few new SNG dealing with small numbers of edge cases. James500 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Badly fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:N. BritainD (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Keep. IMHO, this should have been closed as "speedy keep", given that the previous AfD was already a "keep" and closed just 17 (seventeen!!) days before this one was opened. Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Hunter

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't mean to sound like a broken record but I'd really like to get this retried for AfD without the opinion of any socks, as TheVerge24601 was a sock and Fan of the Dames is most likely a sock, just hasn't been blocked yet. These were the arguments from the last AfD:

"Has substantial other edits" & "article appears to have significant edits by others" - yes the majority of them are socks.
These were also the sources listed (by a sock) that were considered "significant coverage"
- Just lists Hunter as the director, article is about the play, not her. mere mention.
- again, it's about the play, not her. Her name is mentioned ONCE. mere mention
- She is mentioned once also in the article just mentioning she does the vocals. mere mention
- AGAIN her name is only mentioned once, only adding that she adds the vocals.

She isn't notable. She fails WP:ENTERTAINER, as it requires

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. She hasn't
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. She doesn't
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She hasn't

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG - doesn't have significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong keep. Numerous references, award winner, easily meets WP:GNG. Socks not a factor in previous AfD discussion. If there is insufficient coverage in any one source, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability as the WP:BASIC rule says, and there are 14 of these sources now (more possible if one includes coverage of her high-profile dating of actor Benedict Cumberbatch. Her views have been quoted in major publications. That she's directed critically-reviewed plays, acted, is a vocalist -- clearly she's notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Socks not a factor in previous AfD discussion"? TheVerge24601, the user you agreed with was a sock. Now blocked. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sock. Neither is SNUGGUMS nor Wikicology nor Hullaballoo. Closing admin weighed arguments and decided it was a clear keep.

I'm not calling you, snug, wiki or Hulla a sock? You stated that socks weren't a factor in previous AfD when in fact there was sock in the discussion and you agreed with (not knowing they were a sock). LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

- A single award win doesn't make her notable. Mere mentions don't count as significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What is notable is the huge pattern of her career, directing critically-reviewed plays, theater and film acting, music -- check out the sheer body of her work which you, yourself, expanded in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I expanded what I could after the first nomination result was keep. I figured I might as well make the article look presentable but the more I do the more I am still certain that her notability is weak if not at all. I think if she continues on this path then she'll be more notable but I don't find are all that notable or anything she's done so far notable yet. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, how does one explain huge numbers of pageviews? While of course pageviews is not an official reason for keeping or deleting, in my experience there have been very few articles deleted which get so much attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the number of page views means nothing to me in terms of notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong keep more or less per TomWS. Directing a production of a play that's reviewed in major national media like The New York Times is at least a strong indicator of notability. The number of times the director's name may be used (which, btw, the nom miscounts) isn't a key point, and, in the context or a review discussing, inter alia, the director's creative work, categorically cannot be dismissed as "mere mentions". She's won a notable theatrical award, an indication of notability under ANYBIO. She apparently does pass WP:ENTERTAINER for multiple significant roles in notable stage productions. An ongoing jihad to purge Knowledge of content related to a sockmaster's obsessions may not be as disruptive as the sockmaster's activity, but it can still approach the disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's your argument then make an article about the play but not about her. The most of the articles about her aren't about her but about the play. And yes the number of time she's mentioned (sorry if I miscounted, didn't mean to) does count because if the whole article is about her, then it's significant, if it's just a mere mention then it isn't, which fails significant coverage. And again, winning one award doesn't make her notable. How does she pass WP:ENTERTAINER when the majority of her roles are minor if not just extras? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's simply wrong to argue that coverage of a creative professional's creative work does not contribute to their notability. The number of times the creator's name is dropped is really minimally significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep The previous discussion was closed only two weeks ago and I fail to see a valid reason for its reopening as Sophie Hunter is clearly just as notable now as she was then. I completely agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in that pursuing content deletion solely because it had been contributed by a user subsequently ejected from the project is counterproductive. As for "getting this retried for AfD without the opinion of any socks," I'd like to point out that an opinion neither gains nor loses any validity based on who expresses it. TheVerge24601 might be blocked now, but he certainly contributed positively to the previous discussion, and I don't see why that contribution should be discounted. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

List of hills of Porto Alegre

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

I don't see how this list is notable nor encyclopaedic, none of the list entries are notable, and there is no evidence of significant coverage of this topic. LibStar (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Seven hills of Rome, fine. Seven hills of Seattle, maybe. But the hills of Porto Alegre are not exactly world renowned. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: WP:GEOLAND states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." ~~The hills in this list apparently do not meet the requirements for notability.~~ I actually just did a search on the first 16 of the individual hills using +"name of a hill" +morro +"porto alegre" and of the 16, 10 have additional information about them so this list technically is worthy of a keep if refs are found for each, or at least the majority, of these hills, which seems likely. Although fairly uninteresting content for outsiders, it could actually meet the requirements for WP:LIST. Having seen images, some of these hills are very beautiful and much more imposing than one would think, judging from their heights. Some are also nature reserves and observation peaks. - Takeaway (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep - I agree that named and sourced geographical features are pretty much always considered notable. Not only is it acceptable, it is core to the goal of building an encyclopedia. Dennis - 2¢ 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Going through 16 of the hills mentioned, I found 10 reliable sources. It would seem that for many of the remaining hills sources can also be found, which makes it eligible for a keep under WP:LIST. - Takeaway (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep per the arguments of Dennis and Takeaway. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 00:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia of Ball Juggling

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

Not enough secondary sourcing, no claim of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

delete primary sources only provided. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

delete Does not meet notability requirements for books... --Lfrankblam 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - gave searching for sources a good try, but not finding even one reliable, independent one that goes beyond a brief mention. --— Rhododendrites \\ 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The page creator, Icosahedron, looks to have spent a good amount of effort on this (it was even a DYK back in 2007). Given also that it seems to get a lot of mentions from unreliable juggling-related community sites, it may be a good candidate for userfication. --— Rhododendrites \\ 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GNG, WP:UFY - Lack of reliable secondary sources. Content is not objectionable, and could be moved to the user namespace in theory, as suggested by Rhododendrites, however the article would serve no future purpose and for that reason could not be kept in the user namespace indefinitely. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design

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

Contested PROD. No indication that the subject meets WP:NBOOK. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep. After cleaning out the various unusable sources and some serious digging for usable ones, I've found just enough to where this would squeak by notability guidelines. I'm not entirely certain about the Builder Online source (although it does appear to have an editorial board) and I know that the award nomination contributes nothing since it didn't win (only wins give notability), but the other sources are usable to show notability. There's not a lot out there and I had to do some serious searching, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep In 726 WorldCat libraries, quite high for any serious non-fiction. Tho not determinative by itself, this complements the information from the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep - in addition to those already cited, I found the sources below: --— Rhododendrites \\ 22:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- review of the book: Sokol D. Beauty That's More Than Skin Deep. Architectural Record . February 2013;201(2):40. Available from: Art & Architecture Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 27, 2014. (this is a review of the book, not a paper that mentions it)
- another review: Green and beautiful. (2012). Planning, 78(9), 46.
- also found out the book was specifically the topic of the author's invited keynote at SXSW (this source appears to have at least begun with a SXSW press release, so doesn't itself count as coverage, but evidence of the keynote, anyway): SXSW eco; SXSW eco 2012 -- final keynote speaker announced, startup showcase semifinalists announced, event schedule now available. (2012). Food Weekly Focus, , 257.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 00:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin the Musical

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

Unremarkable play. It was performed in a notable theatre, but not one that seems to be sufficiently notable to confer significance to the play. The only other claim to fame is that it received a brief mention in a list of holiday activities published by the tabloid Daily Mail. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Found only one mention in a reliable source in this daily mail article (94). Fails WP:NSONGS or WP:NTOUR. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 22:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You call that a reliable source? :) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean Dailymail is not reliable, I have no idea. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 04:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Neo

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

Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO. There are no real claims to significance using the criteria there. The article creator has linked his songs and his albums, none of which exist on Knowledge, or else are songs or albums of different artists. The references don't really do the article any justice since they back up nothing credible. I'm using AfD since my PROD was removed. st170e 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

delete Fails WP:GNG as he scores just 196 unique google hist as "Dennis Neo" and 138 as "DJ Neo". The Banner talk 18:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete – no indication that the topic satisfies the general notability guideline in this case. C 679 12:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Per Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cakra Khan. Articles should have been bundled in one nomination, or subarticles such as this one should have been nominated after the parent was deleted rather than concurrently. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Cakra Khan

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

Unreferenced; main article is also up for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Cakra Khan. References can be found at least for Anugerah awards, which cover a region beyond Indonesia:, , One of his YouTube videos has had 16M views (I know that's not grounds for a 'keep', but seems to show he's quite big in that part of the world): Noyster (talk), 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of cities claimed to be built on seven hills

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

this article is full of POV and original research, mainly because of the use of "claimed" in article name. Several of the cities mentioned such as Sydney and turku have zero mention of seven hills in their respective articles. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 06:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep There's particular interest in the number of hills because of the prophecy of Revelation in the Bible - see here, for example. And there's no shortage of sources out there, e.g. 'Lynchburg: A City Set on Seven Hills. Andrew (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Is fixable; there is enough material here to allow something more encyclopedic to be made out of it - pending cleanup and pruning etc. --Mervyn (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Merge to University of Ottawa#Facilities. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

100 Laurier

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

Article about a building on a university campus, without any real reliable sourcing to actually attest to the notability of the building as a topic in its own right — four of the five sources here are primary sources, and the one acceptable source (#3) has as its subject not the building, but the university department that happens to be located in the building. Which means that nothing here actually demonstrates that the building is notable as a topic in its own right — and furthermore, even the content is much more about the department than the building itself, which makes this very nearly a WP:COATRACK. (And, for the record, I did my undergrad at this very university, so I'm quite familiar with the building in question. It's certainly not impossible that it could be notable enough for an article, but I can also think of at least three other buildings on campus — Tabaret Hall, surely — that would rank higher on the priority list than this one. And regardless, the sourcing would have to be a lot better than this.) I'm willing to withdraw this if properly reliable sourcing that actually has the building as its subject can be added, but I'd politely suggest to the creator that they're better off shooting for an article about the Department of Fine Arts itself. In this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Selective merge to University of Ottawa – Facilities. The topic has received some coverage in reliable sources, such as this article from L'Express (link translated into English), but source searches are not providing additional significant coverage. Source searches under the building's original name, "Juniorat du Sacré-Coeur" are likewise not providing significant coverage except for the same L'Express article. There is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify a standalone article. NorthAmerica 05:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

seconding a Selective merge to University of Ottawa – Facilities. This article mostly seems to be making note of the recent renovations and info about the department contained in it. The building doesn't seem to be architecturally notable on its own based on what is in the article currently. Hustlecat (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Bottom (TV series). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bum Notes

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

Are they even a real band? Seems likely they were assembled specifically to provide the theme music for the TV series Bottom. No sources are provided, and the material can be merged with the Bottom (TV series) article. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to either Ade Edmondson or Bottom (TV series), both of which cover this group in approximately the same detail as this article. Definitely not worth a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Here's a source that confirms that the band existed and performed the Bottom theme. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Ade_Edmondson#Music_career. As that article says, the Bum Notes were exclusively formed to provide the Bottom theme music. I suppose it's a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap, so let's do that. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
OK we have consensus for a redirect. Only question is whether to redirect to Ade Edmondson or Bottom (TV series). Personally I vote for Bottom, because in the minds of the general public the "band"/music is more closely associated with Bottom than with Edmondson himself. Until I read the article I didn't know Edmondson was involved in the musical production, I didn't even know he was a musician. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete and redirect to Vicki Fowler. Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Leigh Martin

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

In my opinion this clearly fails WP:ENT as EastEnders appears to be the only role she has had. I have just googled her and cannot find anything so looks like she's not been credited in anything for nearly 20 years. I am suggesting that the article is either deleted or redirected to Vicki Fowler 5 albert square (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete only based on a cursory sweep of British press, didn't check out other sources so I am willing to change my view if they are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 18:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete and redirect Does not meet GNG or NACTOR but who knows maybe someone will search for this name and the redirect would cover that. Cowlibob (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ireland (1937-1949)

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

Contested speedy, article poorly duplicates information in Republic of Ireland also article title is against the outcome of the discussion on island v state article naming. Murry1975 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Murry1975 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Not needed, already covered by History of the Republic of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment -- This could be a legitimate article, as we can have a hierarchy of articles going from the general to the detailed, usually lined by "main" templates. However that means that the detailed article needs to be more detailed than the general one. In this case it is less so. I note that the article cited by Snappy has its section break at 1939, not 1937 where the constitutional break falls. I would recommend that the headings be changed accordingly. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason for 1939 in History of the Republic of Ireland is for World War II, which is important given Ireland's neutrality. This article however has been created for pov reasons, and should be considered a pov fork. It contains nothing that can't be added to History of the Republic of Ireland. It also tries to create the impression that a new state came into being in 1949. Ireland left the British Commonwealth in that year, the 1937 Constitution of Ireland did not change, an Act of the Oireachtas was passed, so one country left an organisation of countries, no new state was created. This article is factually incorrect as the infobox says Ireland (1937-1949) was succeeded by the Republic of Ireland. This is wrong, Ireland (or Eire, or whatever you want to call it) came into being in 1937 and has remained in existence since then. Snappy (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - could/should have been speedy deleted as per arb ruling here: Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names -- HighKing 18:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment an admin turned down the speedy, arb outcome was linked on talkpage at that stage. Murry1975 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bahari iBaadat

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Beauty titles are minor in nature. Article borders on self-promotion. reddogsix (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Really no evidence she passes GNG in any way, or even approaches it. Mabalu (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Require reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines, I am not sure if the references are available in local language. — CutestPenguin 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GNG - Lack of significant secondary sources in the article. I did a google search and it stopped at page 5 with 44 results, not a single reliable source. Any significant modern subject would return more hits on google. - Taketa (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - http://www.iexaminer.org/2014/10/record-number-of-pan-asian-contestants-in-miss-washington-usa-miss-washington-teen-usa-competitions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:4200:CD1:D12:4061:582C:A2D3 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, it is a reliable secondary source, though it does not make her very noteworthy because it is only a short mention in a large list, not an in dept coverage focusing on the subject. If you could provide multiple of these sources and at least one in dept, then I will reconsider. - Taketa (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=792745630767018&set=a.334884789886440.70978.100000947651422&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/RealBahariibaadat?ref=hl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.101.211 (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable secondary source. - Taketa (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Buriram United F.C. Reserves and Academy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Also worth mentioning that WP:NFOOTY is about player notability, not club notability, so doesn't apply here... Giant Snowman 10:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - No evidence of notability, reserve team club that does not play in a national level of the Thai football pyramid. Fenix down (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Snow delete. Mkdw 02:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fraser Hobday

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

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

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

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

Contested PROD. Not a notable footballer. Has never played in a fully professional league, and fails WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I've stubbed the article for various reasons given in the edit summaries. @Ilikeeatingwaffles: The Highland Football League is not a fully professional league? --NeilN 14:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm fairly confident that it's not fully professional. I note that it's not included in the list at WP:FPL. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely not fully professional, even Scottish League Two is not fully pro, and the HFL is at a lower level than that. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete Thanks Ilikeeatingwaffles. Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. I see other sources have caught on. --NeilN 15:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - not enough coverage to meet GNG. Jeremy112233 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete, has not played in a fully professional league and does not meet WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener 20:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as described by others above. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete per reasons above. Not played in a professional game (though is still young and potentially could!) — foxj 15:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY - Has not played in a fully professional league, has not played in a senior international match. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY - Has not played in a fully professional league, has not played in a senior international match. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY - Article strongly recommended for deletion. Is an amateur player who has not played a professional game in his life. This article is wholly self-written by an unimportant party and so fails Knowledge's speedy deletion guideline: {{Db-a7}}, {{Db-person}} No indication of importance (individuals). Jdbepono — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbepono (talk • contribs)
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment There is media coverage of this article and the deletion debate in the Daily Mail, Mirror and Metro.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The Highland League is a Professional Senior League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froyomofo (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — Froyomofo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It is not a fully professional league. This player, for example, works as a trainee chef "by day"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Strong delete. Seems like a clear case of WP:SNOW - I suggest someone end this sooner rather than later. (And yes, I've read the full 22,000 character version before it was stubbed; I particularly enjoyed the sentence, in the lead section, "He is best known for editing this page himself.") -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment I strongly object to blanking the article the way NeilN did. It's much better to give time for people involved to add their sources by adding {{fact}} where needed. I would vote for keeping the article, but I doubt anyone is interested in actually helping the author save the article by adding sources to it. In that case it's always better to delete, drive the author away from Knowledge and forget the whole issue. Right? //Halibutt 13:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Halibutt: I am astonished that a spokesperson for a chapter of Wikimedia Foundation would ignore WP:BLP, a policy strongly influenced by the WMF, and wanting to vote keep without providing any evidence the subject is notable. --NeilN 13:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I always add sources when a subject is noteworthy and an article only needs to display more sources (Example). The problem here however is notability. When there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it cannot be added. I did a highbeam search which gave a single result, which was a mere name mention. Please do not imply that people are not doing their best for this article and for everyone involved. If you think we should add sources, consider doing it yourself. Don't worry if an article is blanked, just add sources here. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  - @NeilN and Taketa: First of all, I edit as an ordinary editor, and not as a spokesperson. And secondly, I did not comment about notability because it's impossible to establish notability when there are no sources in the article. Also, I pointed to the fact that the AfD on your "abridged" version is not really the same as voting on the original.
  - Don't get me wrong, I meant no harm. I merely wanted to point out that a more fair solution would be to try to fix the article *before* deleting most of it and then nominating the sub-stub leftovers for deletion. And the talk page or the article's history do not mention any attempts at fixing the article, which is why I wrote what I did. AAMoF I encountered a very similar case not long ago and nominated it for deletion myself, but only after I tried to work things out with the author and did my best at trying to source it. Sure, not everyone has the time to do this, but IMO that's a safer way, as it doesn't drive people away from the project.
  - To make it 100% clear, I know very little about sports and even less about Scottish football. I don't claim this article's subject is notable (well, he might be - now that the article was picked up by the mainstream media :D), or that the author is actually worth keeping, or that the article is salvageable. But I believe we as a community should have tried. Which is what I meant above. And which is why I didn't vote either way, merely commented on the procedure. Peace to all. //Halibu tt 14:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
An interesting read. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. There just isn't the reliable sources out there to pass WP:MUSICBIO or the other criteria at the moment. I am willing to userfy the article if requested.}} Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cash L3wis

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

I can't find any reliable source material for this at all. Searches for "cash lewis", "cash lewis" rapper, etc., turn up nothing other than blogs and some self-published material. (Note that Google will automatically recognize "L3wis" as synonymous with "Lewis".) I therefore see no indication of notability. Seraphimblade 14:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a little bit confused with the article too. But after research, a lover of hip-hop music (see my user page) and a Knowledge contributor, I found this appropriate to a Knowledge Article. I did some research and found that it has 10,000+ hits just of his name. I think it's good (not notable) but passable, when the article has charted one song (but did not received recognition nor coverage) and gaining mainstream recognition with over 350,000 views (I am not saying this marks his notability) just passable. Karlhard 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it's a common mistake. Indeed, thinking number of Google hits matters toward that is so common that it got written about. It doesn't, though, and there's no space between being notable and being passable as an article subject. (iTunes is not a national chart, by the way, as Apple is not a nation.) What's ultimately required for notability is that the subject have been reasonably extensively noted, by reliable sources not having an interest in doing so. That means more than a name drop or passing mention like the one listed below, it means coverage in some depth. Since article material must be verifiable via reliable sources, if that's not the case, we just don't have enough to write an article from. If he's covered more extensively in the future, the article can always be started at that time, but we always follow that source material coming about, not try to predict its future availability. Seraphimblade 05:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the Google Search do not clarify his notability. In the process I found an article about Wiz Khalifa and Amber Rose that mentions Cash L3wis, I'm gonna still providing references as the conversation goes on - I know this doesn't prove the notability but somehow collaborate with the process. The iTunes (US) chart, is actually a chart, not because iTunes is not a country or Apple a nation but to US (United States) actually is. Karlhard 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This might be case of WP:B2B, not lack of notability - yet. Karlhard 00:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Google does not sees "L3WIS" and "LEWIS" as synonymous. The name is stylized for a reason. The search results are completely different. Karlhard 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep - I understand the situation, but it someway meets WP:MUSICBIO (2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart), it charted on the iTunes' Charts but not received coverage yet. Just please flag this as refimprove and give me 2 months to complete it. Karlhard 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was looking in Google and found: this and I don't know if this is good enough. Will be updating this over time. Thanks Karlhard 16:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment The EOTM awards do not appear to be notable awards. I can't determine what they even are. Their site doesn't even say what "EOTM" stands for! It might be "Entrepreneurs On The Move", but then again that may be another group entirely (a different blog with another logo). Looks suspiciously like a PR site though. — Gwalla | Talk 18:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I know it looks suspicious, but after doing some research, it's actually held, nominates attend to a venue and they celebrate and give physical awards the winner - that doesn't stabilize their notability either, but it's covered by news, paparazzis, recorded and transmitted via local TV. I made a Google Search query and found photos, you can see them here and here. And also found an introduction to the same subject here. Tell me if I am wrong. Karlhard 00:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Karlhard (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: We need more contributors to collaborate

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Karlhard (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I found an article from HYPE Magazine from one of their past webpage. HYPE Magazine is the #1 Digital/Print Magazine Outlet Since 2002. The link previously listed is an interview for Cash L3wis. As I see no further details/comments from any other contributors; means that there are no arguments. Karlhard 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete in spite of a lot of chatter and blog posts and obscure awards, what I don't see is a clear path passing the criteria for inclusion. There simply isn't enough meat on this bone. Dennis - 2¢ 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remain civil. The awards are not obscure. Just because you don't know about it, it doesn't makes it obscure Karlhard 21:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I can only guess you have no clue what "civil" means. Calling an award obscure is an observation as to its widespread influence, or lack thereof. I can't be "incivil" to an award, it isn't a human, so your statement makes absolutely no sense. Dennis - 2¢ 21:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Per WP:MUSICBIO, the claim of a single on the iTunes chart indicates that the subject may be notable. In this case, however, there is a lack of reliable sources discussing the subject; I seriously question whether "Hype Magazine" (hosted by Blogspot), which is mentioned by the keep !voter, qualifies as one. There isn't enough out there to justify a WP:BLP article. I do not believe the award nomination mentioned in the article is an indicator of notability, either. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu /_c 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My bad, this is the official article from the OFFICIAL WEBSITE. Of the most notable music blog. Which can claim WP:GNG. Karlhard 21:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the correct link. However, I still see no evidence that this is "the most notable music blog" other than a claim made in the banner ad at top of their website that they are #1. Indeed, in their Twitter bio, they refer to themselves as "Full Service Marketing & PR Company". Hmm. --Kinu /_c 18:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - to admin or non admin, please don't close this discussion. I am getting more references in order to make this notable. Karlhard 21:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia in the Gulf War

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

non-notable intersection, equivalent articles do not exist. Any useful referenced information may be merged to Czechoslovak Army. C 679 12:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep Notable topic, passes WP:GNG, per sources: e.g. , , . No doubt that Czech and Slovakian sources must exist too.--cyclopia 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep, of course they exist, Cyclopia, see (Czech Television), (Mladá fronta DNES), (Czech Radio) etc etc etc. Jaroslav Kmenta, a notable Czech investigative journalist, focused in his first book "Pouštní horečka" (Desert Fever, 1999) on mysterious diseases of Czech veterans returning from the Gulf War. There is also an (unreferenced) article on the topic at Czech Knowledge, see Československý protichemický prapor v Perském zálivu 1990-1991. A notable and interesting topic. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment – sorry, there is one equivalent article actually. Australian contribution to the 1991 Gulf War exists. But wouldn't any info be best placed at the army page until such time as a separate article is called for by size constraints? C 679 16:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't see any problems with this separate article. It is unreferenced but I would say it is a decent overview. No need to merge. The topic has potential and Knowledge is a work in progress. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep, while I am not finding significant coverage from multiple American English language reliable sources, there are sufficient mentions in multiple reliable sources to show some notability in order to verify sufficient content in order to create an article. Furthermore, showing the Czech language sources found by other editors in this AfD, there are clearly sufficient reliable sources about the subject of this AfD to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep Highly likely to be notable given the sources identified above (it would be nice if the editors who could read them could use them to expand this short article though!) Nick-D (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep Theme is definitely notable Czech language sources. --Jklamo (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Domagoj Ostojić

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

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet either WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. He has fails WP:NMMA since he had no top tier fights and he's not notable as a kickboxer since he fails WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete He doesn't meet GNG because of a lack of significant coverage, NMMA since he has no top tier fights (only 5 total), and KICK since he doesn't meet any of its criteria for kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nitin Sukhija

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

WP:NOTRESUME VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete spammy CV Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete: No evidence that any of the subject's jobs are of biographical notability for an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Simply not notable, little to no information available. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 10:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete Does not GNG. Only source is subject's website so no indication of importance potentially speedy under A7. Written in a promotional tone like a CV. Cowlibob (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete No notability. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. No participation means no support for deletion, and per WP:ATD "doesn't appear long enough" is a rationale for merging anything verifiable to the parent article, not deletion. Please proceed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Reza Rahadian

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

No references. Doesn't appear long enough to be a stand-alone list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner 08:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ushaa Eswaran

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

No Indication of notability to be included as an encylcopedic page. Clearly fails WP:BIO too Ireneshih (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:N and WP:V. Searching for sources proving notability fails to provide any third-party sources to support it. ~Oshwah~ 07:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Not particularly notable. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Existence ab

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

non notable band/musician. see WP:NMUSIC *Annas* (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't find any sigificant coverage in reliable sources that would demonstrate that this band has reached the required notability threshold. Too soon, perhaps. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:N, specifically WP:MUSIC. Searching for any third-party reliable sources (news, newspaper, books, third-party pages) didn't come back with anything (except some twitter pages). I found nothing that I can use to prove that this article should be kept. ~Oshwah~ 07:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete all. I don't see evidence of re-creation and the other ones seem to have been deleted without problems but if any are recreated, I'll protect redirects. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music 23 (N.Z. series)

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

Non-notable compilation albums. Some of these charted in this very small market, but I'm not seeing any in-depth of the ones that did. The missing numbers from the sequence have been deleted at AfD, see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music 14 (N.Z. series), Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music 18 (N.Z. series), Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music 19 (N.Z. series), etc. Redirect to Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_discography#New_Zealand a possibility. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Searching for news references (see here) comes back with nothing. But searching for web references with Knowledge articles filtered out (see here) reveals some sources, but mostly about the series in general. Nothing that would establish the need for every single album to have each have their own Knowledge article. If someone asserts a good argument against deletion, merge all of this into one article about the series. ~Oshwah~ 08:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete All the aforementioned entries exist for the sole purpose for the marketing of products. As such I believe these entries represent a misuse of Knowledge. --Lfrankblam 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete As covered above and previous nominations of this sort. These are non-notable albums failing SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Given the on-going history of IP-based recreation (see related article, etc), could the closing admin please consider salting (or protecting redirects, if that's the way it goes)? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and consensus/rationale in previous AfDs of similar titles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete and move Fear of Music (album) to this title. Deor (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fear of Music

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

There were previously 3 items on this page. However the band was deleted for failing the GNG and the term was deleted for being a non-scientific and non-notable neologism. With the album as the only page left, this is no longer needed (and I guess the album can then be made the primary topic). Yaksar (let's chat) 05:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Fear of Music (album), as per the guideline at Knowledge:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6._Technical_deletions (see footnote.3). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dylanfromthenorth, since the album would end up redirecting to here, would this page not have to be deleted first?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No I meant change the content of the disambiguation page so that it redirects to the album page (and leave the album page at Fear of Music (album)) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, why would we do that? We have no other page at the title, so there's no reason it wouldn't be the primary topic?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it's the simplest way of doing it; because it negates the need for a deletion discussion; because that's the guideline. It still would be the primary topic - anyone who types/clicks Fear of Music gets redirected to the album page, and anyone who types/clicks Fear of Music (album) gets taken to the album page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, ok. Our disambiguation guidelines would then have us move the page to the current name and have the disambiguated version redirect to it. I thought it would make sense to just ask the closing admin to do it in one go, but I guess if you'd prefer I could make it a separate RM after though? Seems a bit inefficient however.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RM? The guideline in the footnote I linked to above clearly says that situations like this should be solved by turning the disambiguation page into a redirect. It's not inefficient; it's really straightforward... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, WP:RM as in requested move. The footnote in that guideline is correct but is a bit different than this situation. It's designed more for situations where, say, George Bush has only 1 notable link on its page (pretend for the sake of example). At this point, it could then be redirected to George H. W. Bush rather than deleted since it is a perfectly valid redirect, but a page like George H. W. Bush (disambiguation) would not be a logical redirect to a specific article so it could then be deleted. In this case, our only topic is a disambiguated version of the same name, but, since there is nothing to disambiguate from, according to Knowledge:Disambiguation it should just exist at this title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Modify page to hard-redirect users to Fear of Music (album) - Since the other article listed in the page (Fear of Music (band)) doesn't exist, this page should be modified to simply re-direct users to the Fear of Music (album) page. ~Oshwah~ 08:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason that page shouldn't redirect to this title?--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think this needed to come to AfD. Disambigs with two links are rare to begin with, but this one should only have 1. The band article was deleted and there are no incoming links to it (I just removed the only two links in lists), so it should just be removed from the disambig. That leaves only the album. It doesn't make sense to redirect to an article with a parenthetical description, so delete this one in order to clear the way for a move of Fear of Music (album) → Fear of Music. --— Rhododendrites \\ 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete and Move Fear of Music (album) to Fear of Music. If there's nothing else to disambiguate, then we don't need the "(album)" suffix at all (in other words, what Rhododendrites said). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete and move album to base name - ie as per Gyrofrog and Rhododendrites. PamD 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete and move album to base name. Only one entry which has an article, or meets MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION; now the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC after the AfD deletion of Fear of Music (band). Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tawals

AfDs for this article:

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

No such thing and no proof since the first nom in 2005. -No.Altenmann >t

Delete - Seems like complete fiction. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 11:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
delete Searching shows some hits on this but they don't seem to trace back to anything substantial (e.g. a couple of 19th century book hits which say exactly what our article says, with no documentation). I get nothing in recent scholarly literature. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect as a plausible search term, along with Datan (mythology) and Lawkapatim, to List of Slavic mythological figures. I did find a few modern references(e.g. , , , ), but they are trivial mentions and might be reiterating what was in the 19th century books. (Disclosure: Followed Mangoe here from a related Afd.) - Location (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete Stub reads as a definition thus not eligible for inclusion --Lfrankblam 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete as hoax/OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment -- My preference would be to redirect this (and other minor gods) to a list article such as Polish mythology. However, that article only lists the names, not ther attributes of the god. I have no knowledge of how much is known about what the pagan Poles believed about such deities, but if nothing is known more than the stub in the article, merging back to the list is probably the best solution. However this would need to be done generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sudz

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

No evidence such thing exists in polish mythology -No.Altenmann >t 05:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

speedy delete as copyvio of . I note that the god there is named "Sud", not "Sudz". Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete Maybe I'm missing it, but I am finding nothing in reliable sources - the only places I see anything about this are on random websites. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete per Mangoe's link. I added the CSD tag as unambiguous copyright infringement (as this has been since 2003) isn't something that should wait for AfD to run its course. --— Rhododendrites \\ 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to Marija Gimbutas. Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorrowful God

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

No evidence such thing exists in polish mythology -No.Altenmann >t 05:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: This verision was nominated for deletion, not the current text about ideas of Gimbutas. -No.Altenmann >t 06:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete. First I heard of it. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

comment This is some notion of Marija Gimbutas (see ), but I don't know offhand whether it has any traction, and I don't know how Poland has anything to do with this, since we're talking neolithic era speculations. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Marija Gimbutas as a plausible search term. The article states clearly that this is a modern neologism that originated with Gimbutas, but I guess the question is whether or not it is notable enough for a stand-alone article. I don't think so. A very brief reference to it is cited by Thorkild Jacobsen in a book edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura and other academic sources (e.g. Miriam Robbins Dexter, Vassos Karageorghis, Anthropological Quarterly, proceedings of a Thracology conference ). There appears to be reference to it in The Journal of Prehistoric Religion, which appears to be an academic source(see ) but I can't say for sure. Incidentally, there is a reference to this in Pensive Christ. Hamangia culture does not currently mention it, but it appears to be connected. (Disclosure: I am responding due to a notice placed on WP:FTN.) - Location (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect this should have been nipped in the bud five years ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect per above. And though it's not reason to delete in itself, that this doesn't have an article on plwiki does suggest this isn't just a linguistic issue on enwiki. --— Rhododendrites \\ 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. I question the value of a redir, but don't object if that is the consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gogi Pipia

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an unsupported claim that the article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Is the Georgian League fully professional? The Football WikiProject page doesn't mention Georgia at all, but the league is listed at List of professional sports leagues. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. lavender||lambast 03:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender||lambast 03:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Honeynet Project

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

In its current state, the article repeatedly uses a promotional tone, and all its references are to its subject's website. MopSeeker (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep Tone of the article is a reason to cleanup the article. See: Knowledge:Deletion is not cleanup Numerous google books references (see links above.. Also a few Google News article (also, see above). The project also appears to have or had numerous chapters around the world (see link on the article page). Also, the reference section currently lists an article in tech magazine which is not a refence to the subject's website. (also on the article page). —Gaff 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep Here's Bruce Schneier talking about it. Ends with a bunch of links to other articles. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
snowball keep verifiable notability. -No.Altenmann >t 05:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep - Article needs work for sure, but passes GNG as far as I can see. --— Rhododendrites \\ 14:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Notable. Has WP:RS. The article needs editing, but that is not a reason to delete it. See WP:DINC. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Donationcoin

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

As with the other two articles created by this editor for very similar subjects Guldencoin and Sterlingcoin I really am not seeing anything on a quick search to evidence that they are notable subjects.. All three articles are extremely promotional, unsourced, and read like PR/conflict of interest copy promoting these very new digital currencies. Although not hard evidence I was surprised that Google Search's autocomplete function didn't recognise any of the three terms at the time I nominated these (this may change as people start searching for them, but as signs go that doesn't look good.)

At best it seems far too soon. Mabalu (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

delete. no evidence of notability. -No.Altenmann >t 05:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. No sign of notability, this form of digital currency is not widely used (yet). As per Mabalu, WP:TOOSOON. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 10:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete This entry has been covered are adequately covered in Cryptocurrency , if this entry was of merit it would be listed there.Lfrankbalm (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Delete Per Lfrankbalm above --Jersey92 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete but permit recreation if/when it gets notable. Not even a single source in the article anywho. Tutelary (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 15:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sterlingcoin

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

As with the other two articles created by this editor for very similar subjects Guldencoin and Donationcoin I really am not seeing they are notable yet.. All three articles are extremely promotional, unsourced, and read like PR/conflict of interest copy promoting these very new digital currencies. At best it seems far too soon. Mabalu (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

delete. no evidence of notability. -No.Altenmann >t 05:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence found to indicate that this recently-launched altcoin has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete This entry has been covered are adequately covered in Cryptocurrency , if this entry was of merit it would be listed there. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk)

Delete Per Lfrankbalm above. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Guldencoin

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

I really am not seeing that this is notable yet. The editor has created two other similar articles with the same problems. All three articles are extremely promotional, unsourced, and read like PR/conflict of interest copy promoting these very new digital currencies. At best it seems far too soon. Mabalu (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

delete. no evidence of notability. -No.Altenmann >t 05:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence found to indicate that this altcoin has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: See the article creator's comments on Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/Guldencoin. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete This entry has been covered are adequately covered in Cryptocurrency , if this entry was of merit it would be listed there.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Delete Per Lfrankbalm above. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete - WP:GNG - Lack of reliable secondary sources in the article. No indication why the subject is notable. - Taketa (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Shiver and Fears

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

No RSs in article nor could I find any through Google, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. PROD contested by author. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The series doesn't meet any of the criteria set out at the notability guidelines for books; the author isn't (yet) notable enough for a Knowledge let alone the books. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. There just isn't any coverage out there for this series. I can see where the author has tried to drum up coverage, but not where this succeeded (ie, received the coverage). Also, while most book blogs would fall under WP:SPS and would be unusable for Knowledge's purposes, I can't see where the general book blogging world has taken any notice of this author, which is actually quite telling. I'm sorry Mr. Hard, but the basic book and mainstream world seem to have taken no notice of your work. Knowledge is not here to make up the difference and while your work exists (WP:ITEXISTS), existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability and may even qualify for Speedy Delete db-promo. Only reference is an Amazon link. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)