- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
List of Rajput clans of Jalandhar Division
- List of Rajput clans of Jalandhar Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division and
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Jat_clans_of_Lahore_Division
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Rajput_clans_of_Rawalpindi_Division
As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 27 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Carbuncle Awards
- Carbuncle Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Award is more tongue in cheek than a serious award The Banner talk 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- In that case delete the 'Golden Raspberry Awards' and the 'Carbuncle Cup' for starters. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be serious. Mmberney (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. Beside that, a quick look revealed that the Carbuncle Cup has about 267,000 Google hits. The Carbuncle Prize 7450. The Banner talk 14:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. "Tongue in cheek" is not a reason for deletion. This is covered extensively in the media. Examples easily seen in Google searches, such as [1][2][3][4][5], etc., etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- It covered so extensive in the media that Google only comes to 190 unique hits. Brilliant, but not really convincing. The Banner talk 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- 'Carbuncle Awards' has 110,000 Google hits in the UK and as Arxiloxos says they are covered by different media outlets. Perhaps if these were also included as references then the article would be considered more 'credible'? Mmberney (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps when you search on "Carbuncle" and "Awards". But "Carbuncle Awards" gives far less. The Banner talk 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Further references have been added to the article, from sources such as the BBC and The Guardian Mmberney (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above - "Tongue in cheek" is not a reason for deletion. This article meets basic guidelines. Bdboyc (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that it fails WP:GNG. The comment "Tongue in cheek" refers to the fact that this is not a serious award for a serious achievement. The Banner talk 09:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - the first sentence of WP:GNG. Moreover, the Carbuncle Awards started six years before, and inspired, the Carbuncle Cup in the UK, an equally "tongue in cheek" award which also garners significant coverage in the media. Would WP suffer any detriment for including the former? I was surprised it didn't have an article when searching for the Carbuncle Cup, hence its addition Mmberney (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable. I happen to be adding a reference from The Scotsman. --doncram 21:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I just created redirects to Carbuncle Awards from each of its three award types: Plook on the Plinth Award, Pock Mark Award, and Zit Building Award. Any coverage of each of these is relevant to the notability. So, please also consider:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- as relevant for coverage supporting the Carbuncle Awards article. --doncram 22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how this fails GNG. It meets all the points. I'm not sure it needs the exhaustive listing of nominations, but that's another issue. Dalliance (talk) 11:57, 16 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sister Beatrice Jefferson-Brown
- Sister Beatrice Jefferson-Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe that this person is notable. She is simply one of many nuns. Fails GNG, a simple Google search returns nothing Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, undoubtedly a good person who did good works, but there isn't the third party coverage required to meet WP:BIO here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:34, 13 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Landon Ray
- Landon Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability. Received one NYT mention in 1998. Blackguard 17:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Several more sources added. Shall the dozens of interviews and guest appearances on podcasts be added? Newwikiguy00 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete He got some coverage during the 1990s as an exemplar of a day trader, but otherwise not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 11 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Please ask if anyone wants it userfying. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Julie Vu
- Julie Vu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article that has been deleted several times (all by this user) but under different names such as one being Julie Van Vu. Wgolf (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - A7 - Both should also be recreation protected, Anyway per nom no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed-I just felt like also it was time to get a AFD up for this once and for all! Wgolf (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, salt this one, and salt Julie Van Vu. No evidence of notability. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep with sources here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC) That said, the article needs revamping; if the community decides to keep it, then I'll try to get the article shipshape.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Userfy. The problem here is that she's only known for making a pilot episode of a TV series that hasn't yet officially started running. OutTV did run the pilot episode, but a full season has not yet run and the coverage isn't really about Vu, but about the TV show/pilot episode. I think that we could probably rationalize a page for the TV series/pilot, but right now a page on Vu is a little bit WP:TOOSOON. None of the coverage given by User:Tomwsulcer shows a depth of coverage for Vu specifically, as three of the sources talks about the show (and one is just a picture) and the last one is a news story where Vu is only mentioned in passing. The general rule of thumb when it comes to stuff like this is that if someone is only known for one role and hasn't received any coverage for themselves (and again, the news articles are predominantly about the show), then we would redirect to that show/film's article. I'll try to bang one out and once I do, I'll post it and change this to a redirect. Until then, this is just too soon. Once the show releases there's a chance that she'll gain more coverage, so if all else fails this should probably be userfied or moved to the draftspace and watched. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly recognize the potential for her to become sufficiently notable in the future, if and when the show actually gets a formal pickup announcement and coverage of it and her increase — in point of fact, as a Canadian who's actively involved in LGBT-related coverage I've had this show on my radar as a possible future article topic ever since it first started as a web series last year. Actual shooting on the television series isn't slated to begin until next year, so it's not there yet in terms of coverage, but my eye's certainly been and will continue to be on it. Similarly, the coverage of Julie Vu isn't there yet — Tomwsulcer's sources aren't really substantive coverage of her, but passing mentions of her name in coverage of the show's pilot — but she is likely to qualify once the show is closer to actually airing. I agree with Tokyogirl — sandbox in draft or user space for the time being. I'd even be willing to hang onto it in my sandbox if need be. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- The source articles are more about the pilot than the person. The page should be saved but I think it's a little too soon for a dedicated article. Orasis (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I've created an article for the show here, but I'm slightly concerned about it. I'm tempted to put it in the mainspace since the pilot episode *did* air and that technically does fulfill the claims in the article, but I'd like a little more coverage just to be safe. If anyone thinks it's good enough (@Bearcat:, @MichaelQSchmidt:, @Orasis:, @Wgolf:) then I'm fine with it getting moved and Vu's article redirecting there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm Tokyogirl, why didn't you ask for my opinion? A quick examination of your article Switch suggests it is ready for mainspace (enough sources to meet the GNG) but I still continue to think Julie Vu is notable as a subject. So keep both articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't see enough substantive coverage of her in reliable sources for that — as noted by more than one user above, the sources you provided in this discussion are about the pilot, not about the person. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty damn good, but what would make the determinative difference for me between sandbox and articlespace is the announcement of a firm broadcast date for the actual series. A lot can happen between the commissioning of a pilot and the actual airing of a full series — minor or major rewrites and/or casting changes; the channel could decide that the new episodes aren't living up to the pilot's potential and so it's not going to air them at all; the channel could go entirely bankrupt and leave the air permanently. I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in North American television even getting a series order is not an absolute guarantee that the series will ever actually air for real. So with rare exceptions, Wikipedia doesn't normally create articles about series pilots — we wait until the broadcaster has officially announced at an upfronts presentation that the airing of the full series is no longer just tentatively planned, but has actually been confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm Tokyogirl, why didn't you ask for my opinion? A quick examination of your article Switch suggests it is ready for mainspace (enough sources to meet the GNG) but I still continue to think Julie Vu is notable as a subject. So keep both articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, but.... WP:NACTOR would seem to indicate that an entertainer needs multiple roles to pass. Vu, as far as I can see, is only known for a single television programme. Normally, I'd say that the article should be merged to the one on the series, but there is no article yet for the series. If/when one is created, this should be redirected there, unless Vu does other things. I would not object to userification in the meantime. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:09, 28 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Gave it a relist, but realised that taking the first AfD into account, this has effectively been listed for over a month with three delete votes and no keeps. No point letting this hang around for another week. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
VNIIS Exemption Letter
- VNIIS Exemption Letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Incomprehensible, and probably not notable. No comments at the first afd probably because nobody could understand it DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The article may or may not be notable, but it is so completely incomprehensible that it would be simpler to rewrite it from scratch than improve it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing -- will fix DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
American College Personnel Association
- American College Personnel Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probably notable, but promotional beyond the point of fixability, especially because almost everything is a copyvio or very close paraphrasefrom various portions of their website. I made a try at it, but it would take doing over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable and AfD is not cleanup. Can be reduced to a stub easily enough if necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I think I see how to do it--and even add a reference. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 18 September 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 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 Bethenny (TV series). Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sirens of Soho
- Sirens of Soho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per criterion #10 of WP:MUSIC: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)"
This band's only claim to notability is having performed the theme song for the talk show Bethenny. There's no other third-party independent sources I could find for this group. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
While you may not know of the group, it meets criterion #10, and the song is available on iTunes. Don Williams (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- So the group should redirect to the Bethenny TV show article instead. Just because a song is available on iTunes doesn't make a band notable. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and merge, per nom. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:15, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Michael Houlton
- Michael Houlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful two-time candidate in a political party's leadership elections, so poorly covered in reliable sources that the article doesn't say anything substantive about his career outside of the candidacies — and, for that matter, so poorly covered that it's impossible to even determine whether it's actually a WP:BLP or not. Note also the redirect from Michael Houlton-Charette, present even though this article explicitly states that we don't know whether that was the same person or not — that will also need to be deleted. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I am Michael John Houlton-Charette. I was born in Toronto 65 years ago. My Mother remarried after my father's death and I adopted my Step-father's surname in 1979. The article in question is accurate although incomplete. I first ran for office in the 1972 Federal election as an Independent candidate for Peel South at age 21 and twice in Ottawa as Leader of The Canadian Alternative Party, also in Mississauga South as an Independent in 1980. As President of Can-Ad, a loose-knit 30,000 strong "All-Canadian" business lobby, I have been featured in numerous earlier articles across Canada and in recent publications, known more readily as "Michael John Charette", and yes I was the candidate for Mayor of Toronto under my full name of Houlton-Charette. Although I have been in hiatus recently due to the illness of my parents, my career is well documented and rather than be deleted, I would like to expand this article in the near future with dates and published articles of corroboration. Thanks Wikipedia for your kind consideration! Michael J. Houlton-Charette — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Being a candidate in any election, in and of itself, doesn't entitle a person to a Wikipedia article. You would have to (a) either win election to a notable office, or (b) already have established enough notability for other things to get past a different inclusion rule. But merely running for office doesn't make you someone who warrants permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Can't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources under any of his names. Tiller54 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the opportunity to add and clarify points made by our fellow users in this debate. As a Wiki-Greenhorn and subject of this article up for deletion I would like to refer to myself as "The Subject" to avoid sounding too personal. Firstly, the matter of reliable sources must consider archived material specific to Canada, Ottawa and particularly Toronto. The Toronto Daily Star (TheStar.com) which is the largest circulating newspaper in Canada, has 39 articles listed (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/results.htmlst=advanced&QryTxt=Michael+Houlton&publications=ALL&type=current&datetype=6&frommonth=01&fromday=01&fromyear=1971&tomonth=01&today=02&toyear=1981&sortby=CHRON) - for The Subject's birthname Houlton, starting on March 16th 1971 with the headline "How Young Ideas Often Crack Up Against The Dollar Barrier" and stating that The Subject's problem of raising investment dollars for a good idea in Canada was "as Canadian as the Mounties!" The "idea" is an All-Canadian AC Registered Trade Mark to give some recognition to Canadian-Owned business, as the red maple leaf was almost exclusively used by larger multinational corporations with massive ad budgets that virtually overwhelmed Canadian identity in business. Canada's flag was only five years old and epic political battles over language, French, English and Canadian identity were looming, culminating in two referenda in 1980 and 1995. The Subject was a familiar voice throughout these emotional public debates. Support from the over 30,000 strong business lobby Can-Ad and thousands more patriotic citizens, led to the creation of The Canadian Alternative Party (C.A.P.) and the only fully debated and covered constitutional proposal detailed and distributed since 1977. An article appeared in 1978 on the front page of The (Ottawa) Citizen (Ottawa Citizen Oct. 14th 1978) featuring a picture of The Subject with Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau on stage before a high school assembly as a C.A.P. candidate in the Ottawa Centre bi-election. The students had asked to debate The Subject's proposed constitution entitled "The Canadian Declaration of Independence". Many more intriguing nuances and details must be left to further postings.
Sticking to the most reliable source, The Star (The Toronto Star May 23 1982) ran a full page article in the Business section on The Subject, explaining the change of surname from Houlton to to Charette. It started with "Mike Charette is surely the most determined lobbyist in Canada." Subsequent articles are numerous and notable such as The Star's front page picture and text (The Toronto Star June 2nd 1987) reprinted also on the front page of virtually every major Canadian paper. (The Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun etc. etc. on June 2 1987) The Subject pictured being restrained on the floor of the House of Commons in Ottawa is challenging the impromptu constitutional proposal put forward in haste and dictated by only 11 First Ministers, called The Meech Lake Accord, as being tantamount to treason. After placing former PM Trudeau's damning critique "On The Table", and with hands upon the Mace, symbol of parliamentary authority, The Subject orated these words..."I Protest This Treason!!!...I use these words both strongly and advisedly! The country of Canada is under attack from within!" Subsequently charged with causing a disturbance and facing a maximum of seven years imprisonment The Subject led a 2yr. coast-to-coast campaign, reported through every media in all Canadian cities. Helped by a growing number of academics, lawyers, politicians, pundits and citizenry, the court case was won, The Meech Lake Accord died, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney resigned and the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced from a super-majority, to holding only two seats in the House after the '93 election. The author of the article up for deletion who introduced the subject as a "political activist" must have been aware of some of these facts upon which for now, an adjournment is in order, given the length of this part of the discussion. To bring us more up to date, this letter by The Subject, was recently published in The Star on Sept. 12th 2014 (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2014/09/12/pm_confused_about_cartier.html) detailing Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most recent constitutional error. Thank you for your kind consideration!MiJoH-C (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- In all of this rambling, you still have yet to provide one single credible reason why you would qualify for an encyclopedia article. Running as a candidate in a by-election that you didn't win counts for nothing; our inclusion rules for politicians only cover people who won election and thereby actually held a notable office, and do not grant a presumption of notability to every single person who ever ran in an election. Founding a minor political party that never actually won a seat counts for nothing. Writing letters to the editor counts for nothing (I've had letters to the editor published, for heaven's sake). And I can assure you that you had far less substantive effect on the failure of the Meech Lake Accord or the results of the Canadian federal election, 1993 than you seem to think you did (they were both foregone conclusions quite independently of you). And on and so forth — none of this constitutes a reason why you would belong in an encyclopedia under any of our notability rules, and all of it constitutes a reason why you need to read our conflict of interest rules pronto monto. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The dubious distinction of dispelling the myth that all Canadians are polite is duly noted and more worthy of the title Bearscat! Your misconstrued chronology and erroneous use of fact is not as easily dismissed. "Michael Houlton" is an article titled in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It has been an article since Feb. 13th 2007! I, Michael John Houlton-Charette, have never ever requested such an article be created! A conflict of interest is not even possible under this circumstance, "pronto" or "monto". We are not even remotely in the process of discussing what constitutes the creation or acceptance of an article! The accredited article has been revised 11 times since it was created and accepted and 5 times in the first year. The 5th revision was conducted by an editor named "Bearcat"! The 3rd revision was to include a four letter expletive which is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy. To be clear, the subject of this article has never ever uttered an expletive in public, print, or otherwise given cause for such a statement! It was endured for over three years before a wise editor had the decency to remove it as I had expected and hoped might happen even without my intervention someday. The Bearcat revision seemed to overlook this infraction and that too is duly noted.
Now, if I may continue, let us logically and without prejudice examine the motion put forward by editor and administrator Bearcat to delete the article entitled Michael Houlton.MiJoH-C (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
— MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wikipedia has different standards for notability and the use of reliable sourcing than it did in 2007; a lot of articles that were created back then don't meet our standards as they exist today, and cannot be kept anymore. In particular, we used to have a rule that anybody who led a political party automatically qualified for an article, even if the sourcing was weak — but that rule no longer applies, and a person does not qualify for an article on that basis anymore. We've had to get a lot stricter about what's keepable and what isn't than we were seven to ten years ago, because we've learned some very hard lessons about what can happen, both to us and to you as an article topic, if we don't insist on much more solid sourcing than we used to.
- And we regularly catch a lot of articles that never actually met our inclusion standards, but have slipped through the cracks just because there's so much stuff to deal with — so the amount of time that an article has existed is never, in and of itself, a valid reason for keeping an article. If it doesn't meet our inclusion and sourcing standards as written, then the fact that it's seven years old rather than seven minutes doesn't matter one whit.
- And incidentally, conflict of interest doesn't just apply to whether you created the article or not; even your responses in this discussion are straining the limits of that policy. Having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement that you're allowed to demand for yourself, and not having one is not an attack on you as an individual — it's simply a reflection of the fact that the reliable source coverage isn't there to demonstrate that you pass any of our notability rules. Don't take it personally — heck, I don't pass any notability rules either. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia Quotes Clarifying Two Previously Presumed Facts:
The Canadian federal election of 1993 was not a foregone conclusion!
"An election had to be called in the fall of 1993, since Parliament's term would expire some time in September. By the end of the summer, Campbell's personal popularity was far ahead of that of Chrétien. Support for the Progressive Conservative Party had also increased after Campbell won the leadership, and they were only a few points behind the Liberals, while Reform had been reduced to single digits."
The Meech Lake Accord was also not a forgone conclusion!
"Opposition leaders generally agreed to the accord. Liberal Party leader John Turner was put into a tough position, considering the popularity of the agreement in Quebec (a traditional Liberal stronghold until Trudeau's patriation of the constitution in 1982) and the Trudeau ideal of federal power within the Federation. He soon agreed to the accord, causing a rift in his party.[1] New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent also agreed with the accord.[3] Preston Manning of the Reform Party opposed it, saying it gave Quebec unequal status among provinces.[1] The Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, made a rare foray into political matters when she publicly expressed on 22 and 23 October 1987 her personal support for the Meech Lake Accord, for which she received criticism from its opponents.[4]"MiJoH-C (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oh, really? Keep in mind that the overall course of the campaign, as it unfolds, has as much effect on whether something is a "foregone conclusion" or not as the initial starting position does. The 1993 election wasn't a foregone conclusion because the Tories were already toast before the writ was even dropped; it was a foregone conclusion because Kim Campbell's campaign skills during the campaign were abysmal, and the party's decisions during the election campaign were bad ones that alienated a lot of their initial supporters. Not a single media source on the planet credits you with singlehandedly shooting down the party's chances of winning that election, the way you claim above; they lay that at the feet of Campbell herself. And Meech became a foregone conclusion because of events that took place during the course of the ratification process. Not a single media source on the planet credits you as being the person who turned the tide on it, the way you claim above; they accord that status to Elijah Harper and Clyde Wells. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
My plea for civility is merely a request to deal with the facts! Bearcat's "Oh Really?" - "Not a single media source on the planet credits you with singlehandedly shooting down the party's chances of winning that election, the way you claim above;" is puerile emotion that should remain in the sandbox.
There is no claim by me in any part of this discussion to "singlehandedly" accomplishing anything!
I saw only one "forgone conclusion", that Bearcat would answer with another grossly exaggerated emotional diatribe when confronted with Wikipedia articles as a notable source. His quote "And Meech became a foregone conclusion because of events that took place during the course of the ratification process." - a 3 yr. process, with an 11th Hour emergency First Ministers Meeting is not a "forgone conclusion". According to the poll referenced by Wikipedia - It was a cliff-hanger to the very end going right down to the wire or I should say feather, raised by Elijah Harper. Only "By June 1990, the same polls showed that a majority now rejected the accord.[5]"
You can't argue it both ways! It injures the logical mind and misuses the phrase, as linked by this Wikipedia reference as an appeal to ridicule.
Appeal to ridicule or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration. ... 1 KB (186 words) - 08:46, 28 May 2014
The only use by Wikipedia of a political "forgone conclusion" is when the field is vacant of a majority of opposition candidates, a political leader concedes defeat before the vote or in the case of a virtual dictatorship.
Exempli Gratia: Manitoba general election, 1941 The coalition's victory was a foregone conclusion: in most constituencies, there were no anti-coalition candidates. The opposition came mostly from anti-coalition dissidents in the governing parties. These candidates did not run a coordinated campaign, and did not seriously threaten the government.
New South Wales state election campaign, 2007 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Main article: New South Wales state election, 2007 Flag of New South Wales.svg Election campaign, 2007 An election campaign was held ahead of a general election for the 54th Parliament of New South Wales on Saturday, 24 March 2007. The result—a win for the social-democratic Australian Labor Party and its new leader Morris Iemma—was widely perceived as a foregone conclusion, with opposition leader Peter Debnam conceding as much the week before the poll.
That being stated, a further attempt to deal strictly with the subject matter of this motion to delete is fully in order.MiJoH-C (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:CS.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak/Delete When using the subject's previous name I was able to dig up many articles and quite a few of them were not simple mentions but articles mostly dedicated to the person in question so I see some notability here but we must contrast that against 'politician.' A person does not necessarily need to win an election to become part of the 'enduring political history' of a city or nation (Emperor Norton for example) but I see none of that in this particular case. Orasis (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks For this. "Some notability" as stated above has come a long long way from none! It starts to peel off only the very first layer of the onion skin of what the Wikipedia article "Michael Houlton" states in its opening sentence. "Michael Houlton was a Canadian political activist." and consider that in addition as a citizen, I, Michael John Houlton-Charette, more commonly known as Michael John Charette, am still a Canadian political activist!
The Wikipedia article "Activism" states that "Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis. Various forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning" "Activists are also public watchdogs and whistle blowers, attempting to understand all the actions of every form of government that acts in the name of the people: all government must be accountable to oversight and transparency. Activism is an engaged citizenry." It goes on to include that activists "lobby" .
The first sentence of the motion to delete this article (below) is quite incomplete.
"Biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for municipal office, and as the leader of an unregistered political party which never actually contested a partisan election and doesn't have a Wikipedia article to redirect him to."
The complete list of my Wikipedia linked electoral political activism is as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga_South "Canadian Federal Election, 1972 held on October 30, Michael Houlton" "Canadian federal election, 1980 held on February 18, Michael John Charette" "Canadian Federal Election, 1993 held on October 25, Michael John Charette"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Centre "By-election on October 16, 1978 Michael John Houlton" "Canadian federal election, 1979 held on May 22, Michael John Charette"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_municipal_election, held on November 13_1978 "Capital Ward, Michael John Houlton"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_5_(Mississauga) "External Link 1994 - pdf" Mississauga Municipal Election November 14th, 1994, Candidate for Mayor, Michael John Charette placed 4th of 7 candidates with 1,373 votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_municipal_election,_1997 (held November 10) Candidate "for Mayor, City of Toronto" - Michael John Houlton-Charette
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Liberal_Party_leadership_elections "1973 leadership convention (Held on October 28, 1973.) Michael Houlton" "1976 leadership convention (Held on January 25, 1976.) Michael Houlton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_1977 Ottawa-South (held on June 9th) Michael Houlton
MiJoH-C (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Fails wp:politician. Has been an unsuccessful candidate in a few elections, as listed above. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/few Although indefinite in nature, a few is usually more than two (two often being referred to as "a couple of"), and less than "several". Few is grammatically affirmative but semantically negative...
To be kind, your first edit on record (less than a few, one to be exact, this one) is a very shallow type of put down. It may have involved checking out a "few" of the political campaigns listed above, but examining all 11 would be quite an in depth undertaking. In just two Ontario Liberal Leadership campaigns, I attended, addressed and received coverage at over 50 all-candidates meetings across an area the size of the U.K. that culminated with a 25 minute continuous direct unedited nationally televised CBC broadcast, each. They are all archived! In 1973 I received a standing ovation from some 3,000 people in the ballroom of the Royal York Hotel that caused such a buzz that Robert Nixon, the winner and future Treasurer of Ontario, spent the first 5 minutes of his keynote convention speech addressing "Michael John Houlton" and this ideological and persistent point from my campaign. "There are opponents, there are political opponents...but, they're not enemies... and he's right!" MiJoH-C (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It doesn't matter whether you ran in a "few" elections or a hundred. As I've already explained above, our inclusion rules for politicians only grant an entitlement to keep an article on here to people who have won an election and thereby held a notable office — a person does not qualify for an article on here for simply running in elections that they didn't win. Nor does a person qualify for an article on here for merely being a candidate for the leadership of a political party — if you cannot properly source that they already passed our inclusion rules before they became a candidate (e.g. by already being a sitting MP or MPP), then they would have to win the leadership, not just run for it, to become a valid article topic on here. (And even that only applies to major political parties which have actually held seats in a legislative body — it does not apply to small "fringe" parties that only run a few candidates and don't win anywhere.)
- You still have yet to provide any substantive evidence, consistent with our content and inclusion rules, of why you would qualify for an encyclopedia article. You appear, rather, to be taking this discussion as a personal affront to your self-image, which is not helpful and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content and inclusion rules. We don't keep articles just because the subject wants to have an article on Wikipedia — we keep articles that are properly compliant with our inclusion and sourcing and content rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia does not require election for notability in regards to politicians "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Also... "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." --This person has had press coverage from 1980 until 2013. 33 years of non-trivial coverage may be notable. We have Political activist BLP's with far, far less press coverage. We also must remember that notability is not temporary. I am now on the fence. Orasis (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strong delete Lacks the significant coverage required for GNG and doesn't meet the notability requirements for politicians. Merely running for office is not enough to show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Not so! You have an article about an unelected independent candidate whose distinction appears to be only that he's run in so many elections and though "unelected" is listed in all of these categories Categories: Living people Independent candidates in the 1979 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1980 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1984 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1988 Canadian federal election Abolitionist Party of Canada candidates in the 1993 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1997 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 2000 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 2006 Canadian federal election Canadian political party leaders Carleton University alumni Canadian social crediters People from Rouyn-Noranda Politicians from Ottawa 1951 births Independent candidates in Ontario provincial elections Canadian cannabis activists Canadian gamblers
Now when the category of "Poltical Activist" is searched for Canada and virtually every other open democratic society, well over 50% of the people who appear on my Wikipedia searches have never been elected, some never have even run for political office, yet they have an article, like for myself, that describes them as "political activists".
Deductive reasoning contends that you cannot author so many inaccurate personal affronts laden with some rather unusually caustic sarcasm in you earlier postings and because I must insist on facts, and back them up in my defense of you, that I'm taking it as some kind of "a personal affront to your (read my) self-image." by simply responding.
Friendly banter aside, I do very much appreciate you taking your time and energy to help direct us in this discussion. As a Canadian and an unabashed "homer" I admire your work and position within the annals of Wikipedia, but as an archived activist in some very key areas in the landscape of Canada's political spectrum, I see your effort as an affront to my value as an active catalyst to Canada's recent evolution. E.G. Front Page Picture in Le Devoir November 23 1994, On the 22nd, I confronted Premier Jacques Parizeau with a pointed question in his Royal York Canadian Club press conference about "The next referendum..."
"What about the last referendum!" I challenged, "Don't you trust the will of the Québec people! Is it not good enough for you!" He completely silenced himself, stormed out of the room and was heard wailing for a week, all the way from The National Assembly. I finished his press conference for him to the very last journalist. With constitution in hand, I extolled the masterpiece of Sir George-Étienne Cartier's "Indivisible Federation" as opposed to Canada's dangerously all too often egregiously misstated, supposed Confederation. Je me souviens! MiJoH-C (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I somewhat agree. After researching into this person I do believe that he meets the general notability guideline criteria but not the criteria for politicians. As a politician is this person notable? No. As a Political activist I do believe that it is highly probable and I have read BLP's (again) that have received, far, far less non-trivial media coverage from reliable sources. That said I think the article needs to be improved. Orasis (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, you're still missing the key distinction here. The candidate you're talking about, John Turmel, does not have an article because he ran as an election candidate and lost — he has an article because he's listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the person who has run the largest number of non-winning election campaigns in the entirety of recorded human history. Getting an article because an international media source has singled out his 82 non-winning electoral campaigns as a unique accomplishment is a "special case" situation that's unique to him alone, not a precedent which would allow everybody who ever ran as a non-winning candidate to claim entitlement to keep a poorly sourced Wikipedia article — it's the holding of a recognized world record, not the fact that his name has been on a ballot, that gets him over the bar.
- And apart from him, every single person in any of those "candidates" categories you mention is somebody who was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for something else (e.g. having previously served in a provincial legislature, being a notable writer or athlete or lawyer, etc.) separately from also happening to have been an unsuccessful federal election candidate. None of them has an article because they ran in a federal election and lost — they have articles because they attained notability for other things independently of being federal election candidates. The candidacy is merely a minor extra detail about a person who already qualified for an article for some other reason, and does not constitute evidence that any unelected candidate is entitled to keep an article on here just for having been a candidate. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And if you find anybody who doesn't fit that criterion, and is claiming notability solely for having been an unelected candidate in a federal election without any other evidence of notability for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then they're completely eligible for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this User:Orasis and of course I totally concur with your assessment of a somewhat sticky situation. It allows me to take in a rather deep intellectual breath of the fresh air of intelligence that you have provided. What is really amazing is that my minor edit of punctuation was briefly interrupted at exactly the same moment as your welcome offering.MiJoH-C (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Kindly note that "agrees with me" is not the definition of "intelligence", and "disagrees with me" is not the definition of its lack. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Noted, also in kind, is that "agree with me" is a quote totally invented by User:Bearcat and does not nearly reflect my comment on the previous posting. What I did post was that "I totally concur" with the subjective assessment by fellow editor, User:Orasis, who appears to have done a great deal of research into the subject of this article. If you would like a personal quote from me that reflects some kind of collective intelligence, try "Criticism is the polish of excellence!"
I don't see what good it does to surplant your comment, User:Bearcat, in a different chronological order than it occurred. Most of the archived publications have absolutely nothing to do with elections at all. When combined together with those researched under Michael Houlton 1971-1980; plus those researched under Michael John Charette and Michael John Houlton-Charette 1980-2014, it ads up to 43 years of continuous notability, only keystrokes away.MiJoH-C (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comments in Wikipedia discussion pages are not threaded in purely chronological order; if comment C is in response to comment A, rather than a new discussion, then it goes directly after Comment A even if an entirely unrelated Comment B was posted before it. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Duly noted and appreciated! Considering changing my User name to Grasshopper but it's sure to be already taken.
Please allow me to link you directly to the Canadian Library of Parliament's pre-eminent archive of record, Hansard, Nov. 26 1973, The 29th Parliament, 1st Session, Volume 8, Question No. 2177 on The Order Paper, page 8111 bottom right and page 8112 top left, where a half page question and its dubious answer, documents a three year effort to make a single application to Industry Canada for help to give recognition to Canadian-Owned business. Notable coverage for the subject Michael J. Houlton was focused on the fact that in all of the government agencies under the watchful eye of Members of Parliament and the media, no application was permitted. When question #2177 is coupled with a previous question #1891, Hansard May 9th 1973, Order Paper, it became perfectly clear that I was being systematically lied to by my own government both on record and for the record. Once question No. 2177 was printed in early June/73 I decided to take my case directly onto the floor of the House of Commons on June 21st. "I demand Freedom of Speech! I've got something to say, and I'm going to say it!" This protest was covered the next day on the front page of The Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Journal, throughout the wire service and the rest of the electronic media.
http://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_08/3?r=0&s=1
That being just the beginning! MiJoH-C (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 00:20, 27 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Cisco Unified Communications Manager
- Cisco Unified Communications Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be an occupation of which is not notable outside of Cisco. Most sources are not independent and almost all the content is promotional. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The topic of this article is in fact a software system for processing VoIP phone calls. It has nothing to do with the human occupation of management. --Mark viking (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Seven! interwiki articles! --95.158.58.33 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment 1) As stated before, nominator has no clue about the topic. It is software and not occupation. 2) Article has many external links unrelated to Cisco. --Ilya (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Nom, I believe, is confusing human management with this page about software. Orasis (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Cisco sources make up most of the refs, and are not independent. The rest are blogs and how-to sites which do not meet the standards of significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. As noted above, this is not about a human job, it's about a piece of software. That being said, I don't think this topic meets WP:GNG. There's lots of references, but they're all internal cisco pages, or various blogs and tutorial sites that don't meet WP:RS. This is a well-known enough product that my gut feeling is that there could be reliable sources out there which talk about it in encyclopedic way, but the collection we have here aren't it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 28 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Symons Type
- Symons Type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, or even that it exists outside one person's farm. No references, no hits on G-books, only relevant hit on Scholar is a c.v. for one Lynton Barry Symons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 September 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 deckertalk 00:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete It just seems like a well developed credibility campaign. --Michael (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Could be a really lame hoax for all we know. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It really doesn't help that the one external link on the page consists entirely of 2 links to seemingly unrelated sites. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:59, 29 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The Twisted Road to Kosovo
- The Twisted Road to Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book, I believe it fails WP:GNG. There is no substance or content to the article. Also the article lacks references too, most likely because there isn't any sources which suggests lack of coverage in the media. IJA (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails the notability guideline, because it's about a single article from a non-notable journal. Our only source is a blog. bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Peter Gowan. I can't really find anything to truly show that this really merits a separate article from Gowan's page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Title will be found with a word search. Nothing indicates that this should have its own entry. Also note that this is an issue within a periodical, not a book per se. The periodical is Labour Focus on Eastern Europe ISSN 0141-7746; it is held in US libraries; some issues have multiple authors - this one had a single author. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there any reason why the effort of "relisting" a discussion is worthwhile after three different editors have said that we need to get rid of an article, and none have expressed any reason to keep it? What does "relisting" achieve apart from a fourth editor finding time to agree with the previous three? If AfD were supposed to consider which articles to keep and which to delete, that has already been achieved. On the other hand, if AfD is just a way of consuming volunteers' time, then feel free to click the "relist" button again. bobrayner (talk) 22:20, 28 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
List of Mega Man Battle Network characters
- List of Mega Man Battle Network characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fancruft. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge into Mega Man Battle Network and trim heavily - Some information about the characters can and should be found in the franchise article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 30 August 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) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge (and trim) - per Salvidrim. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The merge target Mega Man Battle Network is also fully un-sourced and likely fails WP:GNG. I do not see any notability in the sources used in the characters article and so what is there to merge? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're just looking at a poorly written "series" page, Knowledgekid87 - The individual games are definitely notable. The first game in the series is a 60 source GA, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think information like that should be sourced as well then, the information can be merged over while the AfD is in process btw. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, it should be sourced, not arguing with you on that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that it's highly unlikely that there are not enough sources to establish the notability of the Battle Network series since it is a spinoff of the well known Megaman series. I am not saying that notability is guaranteed though I think it's far more likely that the article is simply badly written and it should not be too hard to fix up.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, it should be sourced, not arguing with you on that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think information like that should be sourced as well then, the information can be merged over while the AfD is in process btw. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're just looking at a poorly written "series" page, Knowledgekid87 - The individual games are definitely notable. The first game in the series is a 60 source GA, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There are six notable games, plus an anime and manga and a board game, that use these characters. Even ones also found in the main series, are notably different here in this alternate series. They need their own list article, it too much to shove in each of the existing articles for the series. Dream Focus 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge the more important characters (based on their coverage in reliable sources, not anyone's personal opinion) to Mega Man Battle Network. Reads as endless (unencyclopedic and unsourced) video game trivia right now. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The vast majority of the terms in the article had no or next to no coverage in a WP:VG/RS search and are therefore best elaborated in a place outside Wikipedia (i.e., megaman.wikia.com). czar ♔ 16:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Brian Ernest Maitland Prophet
- Brian Ernest Maitland Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Army officer of no notability. No reason, according to Wikipedia's own military notability guidelines, why he should be included in Wikipedia: too junior, as commissioned officers go, to meet requirement for notability, and no other cited reason for notability. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Prophet was an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for his service to charity and a Deputy Lieutenant for Bedfordshire
- Neither of which confers notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject does not meet notability requirements. WP:GNG is not met; neither is WP:SOLDIER. OBEs are not sufficient for notability, and niether is being a deputy lieutenant. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is a little disappointing that such a significant contributor to a major charity should not be considered notable by wikipedia (itself a charitable endeavour). His service to charity was recognised by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom through an OBE, he was a Deputy Lieutenant of Bedfordshire (a notable award, despite the view expressed above) and he was a senior officer in the Territorial Army for which he was also decorated -- MJT21 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
*Delete: to reiterate what was stated very clearly above, does not meet notability requirements. WP:GNG is not met; neither is WP:SOLDIER. OBEs are not sufficient for notability, and neither is being a deputy lieutenant. Yes, he was head of Beds SSAFA, but that's not sufficient either. Delete. - Bristolbottom Talk 19:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep While an OBE by and of itself should not ensure notability, the reasons behind an OBE may. In this case he was awarded the OBE for his work with the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Family Association. As most of that work was prior to the creation of the Internet, its expression is to be found in paper records. --Bejnar (talk) 08:00, 22 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Jelu Jayaraj
- Jelu Jayaraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like just 3 albums with nothing of importance or little is known about them is all this guy has done. Wgolf (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The article does not meets the general notability guidelines and fails WP:PEOPLE. CutestPenguin discuss 05:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- comment-yeah some of these articles sometimes sound like "they are famous...in there own mind" type. Its amazing how many of these older articles have fallen through the cracks all these years later. Wgolf (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Wgolf:...still to dig a lot on Wikipedia . CutestPenguin discuss 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Needs to be more thorough.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:36, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. First, I do recognize the expansion and sources that have been added to the article since its initial nomination more than a month ago, however since that addition there hasn't been much in the way of discussion debating if that is enough to bring the article up to the standard as required per the general notability guidelines, just a weak keep and a suggestion to check the Wayback Machine. So the question remains, does a handful (or two handsful) of articles about a Catholic music week in The Catholic Herald constitute significant coverage. There is no argument here that it unequivocally does, however there is a lot of arguments that the article should be retained by virtue of it being a charity, it existing, its age, or that an encyclopedia should be all inclusive. These arguments are blatantly incorrect as per what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore there is the conflict of interest issue, while COI does not preclude people from editing, it does mean that their arguments must be taken with a grain of salt, especially when the arguments are in favour of retaining an article by virtue of the subject being a charity, it existing, etc. So in summary of the discussion, we have two people saying delete, this doesn't meet the standard, a few COI and SPAs saying keep based on no existing Wikipedia criteria and one person saying maybe the article could be improved and expanded and another saying have a look here. So, for today we delete, however given the potential sources, I offer to restore (personally, and upon request) the article and move it to the draft space, where it can be developed, sourced, and notability established prior to moving back into article space. kelapstick(bainuu) 12:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Spode Music Week
- Spode Music Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:ORG or WP:GNG. WP:COI creator removed WP:PROD, wanting to know what is needed for improvement. To me, the complete lack of sources and evidence of notability, especially after having been tagged for notability, show that this should be deleted. I always hope, especially with worthy organisations, to be proved wrong. Boleyn (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The trouble with all you editors at wikipedia is that you assume we are all computer savvy enough to understand how these things work. I've spent ages (years) trying to understand your objections and how to respond to them. No-one can simply send me an email and ask can you? - no, you have to use a load of technical terms and bury things on pages I don't know how to access. No-one has responded in previous years when I have asked after a tag has been added. A friend in America had to help me get here. Spode Music Week has been going for 61 years. We have sung live from the week on Radio 3 (albeit back in the 1960's). There is a book "Hawkesyard to Hengrave" published about the week on the 50th anniversary and just this year it was the subject of an article in "The Catholic Herald" Newspaper. Why are these not considered sources that illustrate the week is real? Spode Music Week is a registered charity and listed on the Charity Commission webpage. We wouldn't be there if we weren't a proper organisation. If the objection is the fact that I have a connection to the week, please explain the problem with that. Many wikipedia pages are written by someone with a close knowledge of the subject they are writing about. Why would it make sense for the article to be written by someone who didn't have? Finally, please explain what harm the page is doing here? It's not an advert. It doesn't proselytise. It tells people about an event with a 60 year history. You have articles on other events that don't have such a history. It tells people about a registered charity. You have other articles on registered charities. FatClone (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I copied the above comment by @FatClone: from Talk:Spode Music Week to here. FatClone, you may want to add either the word keep or comment at the start of it. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Response FatClone, I'll answer some of your questions as best I can. The links I've given in my nomination show the most relevant parts of WP:NOTABILITY for an article on a charity - WP:ORG and WP:GNG. These show you the criteria for an article on an organisation such as this. This is an encyclopaedia, and we do not include every charity or organisation, and decisions are made on whether they meet the notability criteria, not on whether they are worthy and simply being a registered charity and listed on the Charity Commission website does not establish that it is an organisation which would be included in an encyclopaedia. Whether 'Hawkesyard to Hengrave' is considered a reliable source or not, I can't tell, but if you look at WP:SOURCE, it will help you. If it is self-published or published by the charity, it would be a WP:PRIMARY source.
As for your conflict of interests, please see the links I gave in my nomination, WP:COI and WP:SPA. People involved with an organisation are not banned as such from creating an example on them, but this is an encyclopaedia. WP:COI says that: COI editing is strongly discouraged. It defines conflict of interests as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. The conflict of interests is not a reason for deleting the article, but it is a concern.
No one has tagged this article as an advert. I find it hard to understand how you would feel it is completely unclear why this article's notability has been questioned - the article has had an 'unreferenced' tag on it for over six years - it actually has a reference at the bottom, so that tag is no longer strictly too, but it still is lacking in sources to prove notability. WP:SOURCE can help you get an idea of what sources are accepted on Wikipedia. You discuss proof that the week is 'real'. This isn't our focus is an encyclopaedia - it is whether it is WP:NOTABLE. The Catholic Herald article sounds like a
As for other editors not sending you an e-mail about an article, people often wouldn't do that. That is because the creator does not WP:OWN the article - it is a contribution to an encyclopaedia, and any editors would judge it and edit it based on it being an encyclopaedia article. They would be judging it objectively - they would not be emotionally involved as you are, one of the reasons why editing on organisations you are involved in is strongly discouraged. Of course, if you have, historically, left messages on people's talk pages (I don't know if you have), then it would be polite of them to respond. However, not every editor edits all the time, and they are all volunteers. I also see from your own talk page, that there are clear instructions right at the top for accessing the 'help me' section.
You also talk about the fact that there are other articles on charities and other articles which you see as of similar worth. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument on whether this article is notable. As you have been having difficulty understanding what the notability criteria of Wikipedia is, it is also likely that many of these articles do meet the criteria. However, the 'Spode Music Week' article has been tagged for notability for over six years - there has been plenty of opportunity and time given for the article to develop or its notability to be established, not just by you, but by anyone. I hope I've answered your questions in detail and that this has been of some help to you. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - the one reference that might constitute significant coverage is the book by Sherlaw-Johnson who's family successively held the position of secretary since the event's inception until 2012 (according to the article). We require independent sources and someone writing about their own family's event obviously isn't independent enough by our standards. The largest ever group was 126 people and that was almost 40 years ago. That's the size of a (very) small business conference or school camp. Those sorts of things just don't get significant coverage in mainstream press and the available sources confirm that here. St★lwart111 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I asked for help ( a few times) when the article was first tagged six years ago as I did not know what (or how) to do anything about that then). I probably didn't ask in the right place, as despite your assertion that these things are easy to understand, they weren't to me. No response was forthcoming to any of my queries and so I left the page as it was. I didn't understand what was wanted, no-one was answering my points and the page remained (albeit with the annoying tag). Thats why it remained as it did for 6 years. You mention in your response the Catholic Herald article, but that ends in an unfinished sentence. Could you please explain? FatClone (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Can I just butt in here? The point of an encyclopaedia is that it tells you everything. This means that any topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There shouldn't be a rule about 'it's not important enough'. Also, the way I see it, if it's a registered charity, it should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a place that people go to when they want to find out about stuff, and that includes details of registered charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.73.244 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that's decidedly not the way Wikipedia works. There are clearly defined policies relating to notability, verifiability and sourcing. You're allowed to disagree but an opinion in a deletion discussion that amounts to "I don't think Wikipedia should be what it is" won't go very far. St★lwart111 12:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing encyclopaedias with search engines. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC
- No I am not. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge. Fro Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to contain the knowledge. Therefore, 'being a registered charity' is sufficient for an article in Wikipedia. Also, since Wikipedia is crowdsourced, 'being interesting enough that somebody wrote an article and put it on Wikipedia' is also good enough.
- I think you are confusing encyclopaedias with search engines. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC
- Unfortunately, that's decidedly not the way Wikipedia works. There are clearly defined policies relating to notability, verifiability and sourcing. You're allowed to disagree but an opinion in a deletion discussion that amounts to "I don't think Wikipedia should be what it is" won't go very far. St★lwart111 12:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I made significant changes to Spode Music Week between 4-6 September 2014, with the aim of addressing the concerns raised regarding notability and sources. Have those concerns been fully addressed now? If so, can the entry no longer be earmarked for deletion? Carlolingian (talk) 08:08, 13
September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to work on the article, but nothing has been found that establishes notability. Which WP:NOTABILITY criteria do you feel it might meet? Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has a Wikipedia entry and associated with several organisations which have entries I find it extraordinary that Spode Music Week should be questioned on grounds of notability. This was a leading organisation in the Catholic world where George Malcolm (qv) Robert Sherlaw Johnson, Noelle Barker and other leading artists were regular teachers. It should be reinstated. Nicholas Kenyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyon01 (talk • contribs)
- @Kenyon01:, (the WP:SPA commenting above), which aspect of WP:NOTABILITY do you feel it meets, and is this WP:V verifiable? Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Boleyn, I am very surprised that you still have not found anything in the revised article which establishes notability. With reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I would consider the reference sources "The Tablet", "The Catholic Herald" and "English Heritage" in particular to be external sources which: 1) provide "significant coverage"; 2) are "reliable"; 3) are "secondary sources", and 4) sufficiently "independent of the subject". I have only cited a selection of extracts from these sources. Many other existing Wikipedia articles do not provide as many relevant and reliable references or external links as this article does. You have so far not been very specific about what you object to. Carlolingian (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I suspect the sources from The Catholic Herald may be significant enough to qualify here, unfortunately their archive is currently inaccessible and won't be back until "November". The article has been up for years already, I don't see the harm in waiting another couple of months so we can take a look at those sources and see if they're significant enough to keep this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
- Comment At least some of the Catholic Herald Archive is itself archived at the Internet Archive, e.g., [6]. I recommend people give the Wayback Machine a shot. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 30 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Central Coast Baseball Association
- Central Coast Baseball Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability since 2008, lets make a decision either way. I don't believe that this Association is notable. Their one team, the Marlins, might be as it played in the Major league. Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As this article does not even really explain what the Association is or why it should be considered notable. It seems to be an amateur league. It is unclear even what the status of the NSW Major League is as it doesnt seem to be professional either, though since the link for it doesnt seem to work i cant check. In any event, this league doesnt belong.Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- delete not an actual team but seems to represent only amateur teams. No third party sources. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable Australian amateur baseball league. Insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:17, 13 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Tamas Nadas
- Tamas Nadas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability in question. Articles original claims to World and European championships in Karate did not hold up until after a bit of searching they were for a particular style of Karate - I am unsure if that could be considered notable or not. I did fix up the links but my inclination is not. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. The USKA "world championship" is not really a world event and its members only status makes it even less significant (as does dividing black belts into multiple divisions based on their dan). The coverage amounts to a USKA result listing, a local feature (which is normally determined to not show notability), appearing in an article by his employer featuring his help feeding some hungry people (a good deed, but not WP notable), and his own web page. There's no mention of him at the European Gojo-Ryu Federation website (http://www.egkf.net/) and I think it's strange that the article says his European titles were won in 1998 when the EGKF holds their championships in odd numbered years. Unless he wasn't competing as an adult, because youth events are held in even numbered years--in which case that doesn't show notability since youth events fail WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The U.S. Karate Alliance championship is not enough to show notability on its own and there's nothing else to show he meets WP:MANOTE. The coverage is nowhere near enough to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. Couldn't find a way to fit him in under WP:ATHLETE. WP:MANOTE is just an essay but if we I use it as a guideline, I come up short again. Great person, but the subject matter just doesn't meet current community standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Neil916 (Talk) 08:29, 15 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. GB fan 12:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Zhana Yaneva
- Zhana Yaneva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Effectively unsourced BLP. Strange enough do external links count as sources when you use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, but usually not in a normal AfD-procedure. Subject also fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BEFORE - she appears to be a notable model. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- A simple Google Test gave less than 8000 hits, that is not very convincing. The Banner talk 21:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. I added just a few more sources, there are plenty more to choose from. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. Trackinfo (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Another obvious keep. Banner, the problem with your Google search prior to nomination (and 8,000 hits is not enough to think she may be notable?), is that you aren't searching under the native names of these contestants. This one's name was a little tricky to find because Miss Bulgaria and Miss Universe Bulgaria split up this year, not to mention that her first name can be translated different ways into English. But a little knowledge of Cyrillic goes a long way. Her name is Жана Янева; with that knowledge I was easily able to find sources and leave many more untouched. I will request that you withdraw this nomination. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:15, 13 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Paheena
- Paheena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Okay originally I thought this was about a actual group until looking into it and even the name of the person that made this page makes this seem suspicious. Wgolf (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax or not, I can't find any sourcing relating to this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: If you are one of the editors who got a notification that you were mentioned on this page, even though you aren't, it seems that it was due to an editor accidentally transcluding a talk page here, which resulted in everyone mentioned on that talk page being notified. The talk page has now been de-transcluded. Please ignore the notification. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't pass WP:NOTE and WP:CS.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:34, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete - five attempts and still no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Suiside inferno
- Suiside inferno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A singer with no info at all-the website just goes toa music site and not about the singer. Also on another note-looks like Suiside Inferno has been deleted a lot. (I couldn't put a prod on it since the website would still count as a ref) Wgolf (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - page has been moved to Suiside Inferno (apparently the correct captialization). Ansh666 20:08, 11 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hameed Razi
- Hameed Razi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wow dang this has a lot of tags! Anyway has been tagged for over 5 years now and can't find anything that can say this guy is notable. Wgolf (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:31, 11 September 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 deckertalk 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I could not find anything that would make this person even slightly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:14, 26 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Speedy close: G5 deletion, added to the SNOW delete below the panda ₯’ 10:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Marlind Nuriu
- Marlind Nuriu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keeps on getting the prod removed by potential sock puppets-and player has not played full yet. Wgolf (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. WP:G5 may also still apply as there is an ongoing SPI into the article's creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 06:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not played in a WP:FPL. I can't see significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Btw Sir Sputnik and Wgolf, per WP:PROD you should have directly taken it here instead of tagging prod for a second time. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Jim Carter - Public: You may want read up on your policies before suggesting that other users have done something wrong. WP:PROD specifically says that it "may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed." Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Sputnik No no.. you haven't done anything wrong but I can see one inline and another source in the article so per WP:BLPPROD adding Blpprod when the article have sources (doesn't matter if unreliable) is not a good idea. But maybe it is possible that after adding Prod someone has added sources. So, no worries. Thanks for your reply. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Jim Carter - Public: You're point is well taken, but my basic point still stands as well. Please get your facts straight when offering criticism. When Wgolf tagged the article for BLPPROD, it was unsourced, and the subsequent PROD was completely in line with policy as I've already explained. However well intentioned your comment may be, I resent having to defend a deletion process that was done entirely by the book. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Jim Carter - Public: You may want read up on your policies before suggesting that other users have done something wrong. WP:PROD specifically says that it "may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed." Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:29, 11 September 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) 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sandeep Sikand
- Sandeep Sikand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor with just 3 non notable roles. Wgolf (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 11 September 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 deckertalk 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR, or otherwise indicate notability. —innotata 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:17, 26 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as now meets GNG & AUTHOR thanks to Tomwsulcer. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Morgan Downey
- Morgan Downey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article survived a speedy upon creation, but still is suspicious. The sources are scarce and basically confirm newspapers sometimes quote him. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that article creator Happydaysyes (talk · contribs) afterwards spammed numerous other articles gives this a fishy smell (single-purpose account?). bender235 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not think that if an article is created by an WP:SPA but has been edited by many people and does not resemble the original article,[7] that this is a grounds for deletion. It does look like it was a WP:SPA but we do not know that for sure, and I do not think that even that is a grounds for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. If you try to Google Morgan Downey, it is hard to look through the results, because of another person with the same name who has gone into a lot of publicity for himself. It seems that his article, Richard Morgan Downey which is linked from this article and which has no sources and which content was created entirely by two seeming SPAs MorDowney (talk · contribs) and MorgDowney (talk · contribs) would be a better candidate to nominate instead of this one, so I am not sure I see why this one, which does have some sources, was nominated and that one was not. KickThe (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep although the article was in bad shape, with references not conforming to Wikipedia standards, but these problems have hopefully been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN. Clearly he's a top notch financial player, head of an information service for investors, an acknowledged authority on the oil industry since he was quoted here and here and here and here and here. There is in-depth focus on him when appointed CEO here and another one here. He moderated an industry panel here. Plus his Oil 101 book was well-received, a bestseller, positively reviewed here, he got a rave review here, another positive review here. Clearly he meets the WP:GNG for multiple, independent, nontrivial reviews, possibly passes WP:AUTHOR as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:NOTE and WP:CS. Not too excited about the format though.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:31, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Graham Kosakoski
- Graham Kosakoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
does not meet WP:BIO Aerodynex (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 11 September 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 deckertalk 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep – perhaps meets WP:GNG with at least three articles about him in the newspaper The Kamloops Daily News; I've added the citations just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- delete I think he may be notable in his town (Kamloops) but unless we can find sources outside of his local newspaper I would not consider him to be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.Orasis (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR here — if you go to the article on Da Vinci's Inquest, the series that's claimed as his most notable role, it doesn't even list him as a "recurring" cast member at all (and IMDb gives him all of three episodes.) So what we have here is an actor who, to date, has only had supporting or guest roles and has not yet graduated to the more prominent roles that would be necessary to meet NACTOR — and a couple of articles in his own hometown newspaper, which aren't enough to confer encyclopedic notability. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually meets an inclusion standard, but right now I have to go with the delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 1 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Britt Nichols
- Britt Nichols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A director with just one film. He worked on the Blair Witch Project but just as a audition assistant. His film he directed is unotable. And this article is over 10 years old and nothing has happened. Wgolf (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. One obscure film isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Periklis Panagopoulos
- Periklis Panagopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been tagged for 5 and a half years now. The ref is to a dead link which this seems to just be something that was a minor news story from the look of it. Now i will admit that this does sound interesting-but nothing else is written bout it! Wgolf (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I found one source but gotto go... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Nothing notable in English; appears to be significant in Greek maritine industry given the stated size of his financial transactions, probably notable w/ Greek sources.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Shipping magnate(Google translation) Founded Royal Cruise Line.
SBaker43 (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - That there are dead links are not a reason for deletion. On the other hand it seems to have been a minor story. Anyway, what I can find online points to notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I added 9 sources, mostly from HighBeam. The important points these sources reveal was first that the kidnapping received international attention and second, it extended over considerable time. It was in the news at least from 2009 to 2012, when at the end of the trial, the Greek prosecutor's home was bombed. I believe that there is enough in-depth detail to turn this stub into a nice article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- -Thanks for finding sources, I think the problem was the article seemed to have well too many issues. Wgolf (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn-Thanks to I am One of Many for finding refs, this afd saved this article from disappearing IMO, really though thanks and its nice to finally see something has happened. Wgolf (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sources, in general, just don't show up on Google. I wish all the regular editors here could have access to HighBeam, it would be a lot easier to determine notability for people and events that were in the news 3 or more years ago. I think your nomination was very reasonable since you didn't have access to sources behind paid sites. I am One of Many (talk) 05:31, 25 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Days of The Klondike
- Days of The Klondike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. I have failed to identify substantial secondary, reliable sources to support notability. Cult of Green (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:15, 11 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Chris Carmichael (musician)
- Chris Carmichael (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently the AllMusic reference with over 600 credits makes this subject notable. I'm not so sure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – The musician is notable. The references provided are now clear. [8][9]. --Bdboyc (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
References updated (Now correctly lead to citation Website pages. 1. [10] 2. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Chris Carmichael (musician) is a notable musician according to Wikipedia guidelines
In his list of credits at Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/artist/chris-carmichael-mn0000124778/credits) - (a reliable source for verifiability) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources - he is listed as having performed strings on the movie "The Sapphires" He is also listed at IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1674427/ for this film (with arranging credit in addition to the performance) and other films. Article 10 of satisfying the requirements of musical notability states... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) 10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." The Sapphires film has won 20 International awards (notable) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sapphires_(film) Many other examples could be made by accessing the external links provided on the Chris Carmichael (musician) page. ````Magoobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Meets another requirement of notability
Article 1 of Criteria for Musicians and ensembles for notability states...
"Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. (note) 3. "The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Chris Carmichael (musician) performed on the soundtrack of Shrek 2 , the highest grossing film of 2004 - reference this press release from Highbeam Music Trades <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119739915.html" title="Super-sensitive has supporting role in Shrek.(Products News) | HighBeam Research">Super-sensitive has supporting role in Shrek.(Products News)</a> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- So now you're saying that everyone who performed on the soundtrack should have an article? It's self-promotion and doesn't appear in the IMDB article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that the musician satisfies another requirement per Wikipedia's guidelines. Magoobin (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin
- Also, the reference is not "self promotion" - it is promotion from an industry trade about the subject you nominated for deletion. Since your nomination, the Allmusic database has grown by another 10 credits. Now getting very close to 700 recording credits - http://www.allmusic.com/artist/chris-carmichael-mn0000124778/credits Magoobin (talk)! Magoobin
- You're creating a precedent using that trivial entry. It's really not clear what the subject's role in relation to that film's soundtrack is based on that short article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the subject's role is made very clear - here is the quote from Highbeam: "Chris Carmichael, a long-time Super-Sensitive Musical String Co. endorser, performs a string arrangement of the David Bowie song "Changes," which is played in its entirety in the movie." Whatever your beef is with this musician, all of your protestations do not detract from his notability nor from the fact that he fulfills notability requirements.Magoobin (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin
- What does "performs a string arrangement" mean? Was he the viola player? Did he conduct the strings section? Did he play the entire string arrangement on a keyboard that was connected to a synthesizer or sound bank that emulated the sound of a string section? It's not clear to me at least. If you ever state that I have a bias against this subject again I will be forced to report you for making a personal attack. I'm tired of your commentary and suggestion that I have a bias when the material you're offing in weak and I'm simply seeking clarification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good sir, it is not my intention to quibble with you, rather to help provide you with clarity; and if by doing so you become annoyed, I'm sorry. The answer to your question is provided in one of the subject's provided references and states..."
- What does "performs a string arrangement" mean? Was he the viola player? Did he conduct the strings section? Did he play the entire string arrangement on a keyboard that was connected to a synthesizer or sound bank that emulated the sound of a string section? It's not clear to me at least. If you ever state that I have a bias against this subject again I will be forced to report you for making a personal attack. I'm tired of your commentary and suggestion that I have a bias when the material you're offing in weak and I'm simply seeking clarification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the subject's role is made very clear - here is the quote from Highbeam: "Chris Carmichael, a long-time Super-Sensitive Musical String Co. endorser, performs a string arrangement of the David Bowie song "Changes," which is played in its entirety in the movie." Whatever your beef is with this musician, all of your protestations do not detract from his notability nor from the fact that he fulfills notability requirements.Magoobin (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin
- You're creating a precedent using that trivial entry. It's really not clear what the subject's role in relation to that film's soundtrack is based on that short article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
..."Utilizing modern technology, much of Carmichael’s work is done in his home studio and provided to collaborators via the internet. He has contributed arrangements and performances to several Grammy winning records including Steve Earle’s The Revolution Starts Now and Beautiful Dreamer: The Songs of Stephen Foster...In addition, his arrangements and performances can be heard on songs in major motion pictures such as The Rookie, Shrek II and Role Models as well as throughout Edward Norton’s Down In The Valley. Carmichael’s arrangements and performances have appeared on live television with Tim McGraw and Def Leppard. And he has written orchestral arrangements that have been performed by top tier organizations like the Boston Pops.
- According to Chris, “My primary role these days is as an arranger who happens to be able to flesh out his own arrangements to create authentic sounding large ensembles"...
- A quick check of his Allmusic credits demonstrates that he performs his arrangements with real instruments - violins, violas and cellos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what question it is that you're answering, but it's not the one I asked. I'll assume that it's my fault. The source provided to support his involvement in the Shrek 2 soundtrack is poor because it doesn't answer the questions. As for http://www.allmusic.com/artist/chris-carmichael-mn0000124778/credits, and the remainder of the AllMusic material, it doesn't demonstrate that he performs his arrangements with real instruments as arrangements are not usually performed by a single musician. Also arrangers don't usually perform the music: they simply arrange the music. It does show individual instrument names in some instances. However the Shrek 2 reference doesn't discuss that at all. It's two sentences long and goes into no detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Chris Carmichael (musician) satisfies yet another requirement for notability
- Article 1. of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles states…
"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries..."
The following newspaper articles (also appearing online) on the subject satisfy the requirement for notability.
http://www.bgamplifier.com/music/chris-carmichael/article_fd64bd42-7042-5b11-9779-0376fbbf6d13.html
http://www.bgamplifier.com/music/revisitations-chris-carmichael/article_eee92e2e-57c5-54ef-9053-ee4d6999e0a6.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment They're not clearly independent of the subject. Not sure that bgamplifier.com is sufficiently reliable either. The first is non-trivial, but the second doesn't really reach that mark. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I see the last two links as clearly independent and non trivial as they are devoted entirely to the subject as opposed to trivial mentions such as these from Pop Matters on the records of others. (Josh Rouse) http://www.popmatters.com/review/rousejosh-nashville/
(Steve Ward) http://www.popmatters.com/review/wardsteve-seeandbeseen/ Magoobin (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin
- Comments about the subject indeed being the performer of his arrangements as per the statements by Walter Görlitz
- The following links illustrate that the subject does indeed perform his own arrangements - which I agree with Mr. Görlitz, is highly unusual.
http://www.thebluesblast.com/Archive/BluesBlasts/2009/BluesBlast10_28_09.htm Featured Blues Review 4 of 5 regarding Seth Walker clearly states..."He is backed by a solid group that includes award-winning Canadian guitarist Colin Linden and Kevin McKendree on keyboards. Several tracks feature a string section with all the parts played and arranged by Chris Carmichael."
- This, from the magazine No Depression http://archives.nodepression.com/2008/01/jennifer-niceley-luminous/ also sheds some light...
'She draws on the blues for personal strength, and on string sections — meticulously and soulfully arranged and performed by Chris Carmichael — for grace. Those strings turn Bobby Blue Bland’s “Blind Man” into “Blind Woman”, and along with Niceley’s darting and lingering phrasing, transform the song into a drama that both Bobbie Gentry and Nina Simone would recognize."
This article from Pure Music is very detailed about the process... http://www.puremusic.com/swandive6.html
This also explains that the subject arranges, performs and records his work - in this instance for the 6x platinum record "Speak Now" by Taylor Swift... http://m.bgamplifier.com/music/taylor-swift-album-features-local-talent-chris-carmichael/article_1efadb28-505f-50c9-b3ec-a627aa4c3a28.html?mode=jqm "the track Enchanted, originally slated as the title cut, features Carmichael's arrangment as well as his performance on violins, violas and cellos. In fact, twenty individual instrument tracks he created are featured in the song. Each track was recorded in his Bowling Green studio."
An internet search produced this picture of his instruments in the studio where he is referred to as a "One Man Orchestra". http://twitpic.com/1xwdca Magoobin (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin
- I'm not sure if English is not your first language or if you simply have comprehension problems. I don't care one bit about whether he uses real instruments or sound libraries. The issue is that http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119739915.html, without signing up for a full account, you don't get sufficient context to know anything. Try signing out or using a private/in cognito browsing mode to view the link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Görlitz, that is why I went to the effort of providing more links to help you gain a wider perspective. My comprehension is fine. I find it interesting that you accuse me of "personal attacks" when I clearly did not - yet you find it acceptable to insult me pointedly.Magoobin (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help but you've missed the point. I don't care about the subject but about that one reference. As for personal attacks, read WP:NPA for full details on what it means in Wikipedia's context. You have implied (or simply stated) at least twice (it depends on how you count the material that you first posted to my talk page and then to several other locations on Wikipedia) that I have some sort of vendetta toward or inordinate concern to the subject, which is unfounded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the Genesis of all of this was when I added Chris Carmichael (musician) 's credits to a page that you very closely monitor, namely, the Thousand Foot Krutch page (which you undid) with the comment, "String arrangers aren't usually listed like this, but thanks." Perhaps you did not realize that he performed the arrangements in addition to arranging and recording them - or perhaps that does not matter to you - but it may matter to someone else. Here is what Trevor McNevan of Thousand Foot Krutch said about working with the subject of this page... http://www.crosswalk.com/11608129/ "We worked with Chris Carmichael on the strings for the first time; he was phenomenal." -T.M. Perhaps you now understand that he is not merely an arranger but the performer and engineer of his arrangements appearing on many of music's finer recordings.
- I actually saw your edit on The Midsummer Station first, but a string arranger, even if they perform all of the strings, are not session members. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the Genesis of all of this was when I added Chris Carmichael (musician) 's credits to a page that you very closely monitor, namely, the Thousand Foot Krutch page (which you undid) with the comment, "String arrangers aren't usually listed like this, but thanks." Perhaps you did not realize that he performed the arrangements in addition to arranging and recording them - or perhaps that does not matter to you - but it may matter to someone else. Here is what Trevor McNevan of Thousand Foot Krutch said about working with the subject of this page... http://www.crosswalk.com/11608129/ "We worked with Chris Carmichael on the strings for the first time; he was phenomenal." -T.M. Perhaps you now understand that he is not merely an arranger but the performer and engineer of his arrangements appearing on many of music's finer recordings.
- Thanks for your help but you've missed the point. I don't care about the subject but about that one reference. As for personal attacks, read WP:NPA for full details on what it means in Wikipedia's context. You have implied (or simply stated) at least twice (it depends on how you count the material that you first posted to my talk page and then to several other locations on Wikipedia) that I have some sort of vendetta toward or inordinate concern to the subject, which is unfounded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Görlitz, that is why I went to the effort of providing more links to help you gain a wider perspective. My comprehension is fine. I find it interesting that you accuse me of "personal attacks" when I clearly did not - yet you find it acceptable to insult me pointedly.Magoobin (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs) 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I believe that you do an excellent job on Wikipedia and have learned a good deal on proper protocol from you. I would like to thank you for imparting your knowledge. Sincerely, 21:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Magoobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoobin (talk • contribs)
- Glad to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - while the sources could be improved, due to touring and soundtracks, this musician makes the cut. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 29 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Steven Lehar
- Steven Lehar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject not notable, self promotion Daniel.mcconnell (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. As I wrote when seconding a prod on this article a year ago by Rschwieb (talk · contribs), "Per WP:FRINGE, fringe subjects need reliable mainstream sources allowing us to describe their ideas from a neutral point of view. No such sources are evident in this case." —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete : The page continues to fly in the face of our content guidelines, virtually without change since the last PROD. It is essentially a mirror of the subject's personal website and personal views. Rschwieb (talk) 15:19, 11 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Marko Kostić
- Marko Kostić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
a director who has only done a couple non notable films. Wgolf (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Marko Kostić has so far made two movies: Paper Prince, short movie and Paper Prince full movie. Both movies has won on some festivals and he is semiknown director in former Yu countries. Still, no matter how good the movie is, he is way to unknown still to have a page here. I fully suport the nom. Stepojevac (talk) 23:18, 14 September 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 deckertalk 00:10, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 06:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Goniec Polski
- Goniec Polski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In three years since the notability template was added, no further information suggesting this newspaper (company) is notable was added. As written, it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies) and Wikipedia:Notability (media). Was deprodded few months ago by User:Adamt with an edit summary "It is very important for the Polish community magazine" which is nothing but WP:ASSERTN. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- You have submitted an article in the Polish language Wikipedia, where articles remained. The magazine is a permanent part of the cultural of the Polish community in the UK. Your next application falls under WP: POINT--Adamt (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that the Polish Wikipedia voted to keep the article is irrelevant here. Polish Wikipedia has very loose rules about what is notable and for better and worse is much more inclusionary. There, an unreferenced argument about importance is often enough to result in a keep. English Wikipedia has many more rules and is stricter at observing them. Among others, it's not enough to say that something is important. You have to show that it is notable, and those are not the same thing. See also WP:ASSERTN and WP:VALINFO - I see those arguments often on pl wiki, but on en wiki they are explicitly NOT VALID. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:03, 27 September 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 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 List of typefaces#Sans-serif. Rational for a redirect is compelling but also consensus that the material here is unsourced so deleting prior to redirect.... Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sherbrooke (typeface)
- Sherbrooke (typeface) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a self-promo article of a non-notable font. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 11 September, 2014; 04:07 04:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources are download sites and a blog, not RS. A search turned up no RS coverage of this font.Dialectric (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see lack of many independent sources (with a couple secondary sources included) a threat to this specific article's integrity, verifiability, or accuracy. As the article subject is also not for sale either, I'm inclined to suggest that we keep it. --Gryllida (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is not one of accuracy, but notability. Per WP:GNG, to be included, subjects need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. And per WP:RS and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard download sites are not independent and do not contribute to establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of typefaces#Sans-serif, cannot find significant coverage sufficient for individual notability. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, no redirect lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't even think that it deserves a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of typefaces#Sans-serif. The sources in the article are insufficient to meet WP:GNG so it doesn't justify its own page. However, per WP:BEFORE, we should look for alternatives to deletion and I see no policy reason to delete when a redirect would be just fine. Subjects redirected do not require notability or even merit; what is required is that the redirect should not be harmful and should take the reader somewhere relevant. In this case this would be a valid redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:46, 5 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
History of Sky television idents
- History of Sky television idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though the channel might be notable, there is no indication for why we need a unique article for a history of this channel's logos. Article is mostly unsourced, and has at least twice been the playground of sockpuppet operator HoshiNoKaabii2000/Unorginal (specifically Spendcute and SweetToof). Content likely doesn't meet WP:V How does one verify when these changes occurred and why they occurred, as in this sentence: "On 1 September 1993, the new Sky corporate look was introduced to coincide with the launch of Sky Multichannels." I would otherwise recommend merging to Sky's main article, except none of this content is sourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge to the main article of the channel due to notability concerns. Logo changes should be easily verifiable at least with primary sources, because that is one front-facing image of the channel. However I don't see how independent reliable sources would devote to the logos themselves any more than passing mentions. Keepers, feel free to produce such sources to prove otherwise. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 06:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how we would use primary sources to verify when a logo first appeared. Interestitials? News broadcasts? At least news broadcasts might mention a date, but it seems like it would be WP:OR for us to observe "Ah, on 31 December, the logo was X and on 1 January, the logo changed." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I am under the impression that logo changes, being one key identifier of a company, are important enough that companies would do press releases on them. But I could be wrong and is happy to be shown otherwise. And yes I agree that your example would be OR (without third party reliable sources support). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how we would use primary sources to verify when a logo first appeared. Interestitials? News broadcasts? At least news broadcasts might mention a date, but it seems like it would be WP:OR for us to observe "Ah, on 31 December, the logo was X and on 1 January, the logo changed." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There are many other sites like TVArk that have this information already. The way we have it isn't very descriptive, unsourced 'type what I see/knew' recaps, and is full of little-interest cruft. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - If there were logos next to the section I perhaps would've !voted keep .... but there's not as such, Anyway barely sourced and unlikely to be improved... –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- They were probably deleted for being an unnecessary gallery with no clear academic purpose. Whatever content accompanied them was probably unsourced just as this article is. Instead of calling the deleters "dickheads", you might have a word with the sloppy editors who think unsourced cruft is appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Even if merged, the content is still unsourced and will likely be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge lacks necessary reliable sources, and Sky logos can be covered in the articles about their respective channels.-- danntm T C 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - It can be expanded with YouTube and TVARK sources. Merge - If it cannot, so we can at least look back at it in the history. 90.196.75.203 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note that this IP was recently blocked for disruption, and is likely a sock of HoshiNoKaabii2000/Unorginal or one of the socks who behave similarly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Completely pointless article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Merge into Sky 1. Forgave (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)- On what basis? Consensus is not a vote. (Clerk, please note the above account was created today.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sure we could spend a while looking for sources in the internet. Forgave (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)- (Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoshiNoKaabii2000.) Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
- On what basis? Consensus is not a vote. (Clerk, please note the above account was created today.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 22 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Child advocacy 360
- Child advocacy 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An organization with a laudable purpose that never appears to have gone anywhere. - Richfife (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:16, 11 September 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 deckertalk 00:15, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem
- The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially an essay on an "obscure" (per article creator[12]) theory. Secret Mark is notable. The Synoptic problem is notable. This shotgun wedding of the two, however, does not produce a legitimately notable topic. Of the sources in the article, only Koester (the theory's originator) directly addresses the topic. SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - given that Morton Smith's hoax is covered already in a separate article there is no need for a fork. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Synthesis, original research, a combined topic that isn't uniquely notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable fork, any useful contents can be merged. "This article will analyse" = original research. JMK (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete — Too little notability to merit its own article. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 04:29, 15 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted. (A9) (non-admin closure) — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Vaendaam Madhu Vaendaam
- Vaendaam Madhu Vaendaam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A song that was just released and only link goes to Youtube. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Very short article showing now significance while failing WP:N and WP:V. CutestPenguinHangout 02:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per A9. Artist page has been deleted. —teb728 t c 06:00, 11 September 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 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 List of Left Behind characters. j⚛e deckertalk 05:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hattie Durham
- Hattie Durham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be worst deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete A check of the reliable sourcing reveals no notability for the character which is independent of the book series. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking any reliable sourcing for verification or notability. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect this, and the whole lot of other articles for the individual characters, to List of Left Behind characters as its tower of proposed merge banners suggests. Very little actual merging is required. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Viv Ivins
- Viv Ivins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 11 September 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 deckertalk 00:16, 19 September 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Left Behind characters. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Raymie Steele
- Raymie Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be worst deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:51, 11 September 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 deckertalk 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Left Behind characters. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or merge if there's anything useful here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 2 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Dark Shadows characters. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Carolyn Stoddard
- Carolyn Stoddard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be worst deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 September 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 deckertalk 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Dark Shadows characters. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:32, 27 September 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.