Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 18: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:36, 18 September 2014 editDavey2010 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,537 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gemma J ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:39, 18 September 2014 edit undoDavey2010 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,537 edits RM 1 as accidently rel'd wrong 1Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->		<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gemma J}}<!--Relisted-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anugraha Narayan Tiwari}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anugraha Narayan Tiwari}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/G. Krishna Babu}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/G. Krishna Babu}}

Revision as of 03:39, 18 September 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 8 (Wed) January 7 (Tue) January 6 (Mon) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 17 September	19 September >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Central Information Commission. Although there may be sufficient notability here, I agree with The Bushranger that the current "article" is unsalvagable. Therefore I think deletion (and a redirect as suggested by Abecedare) is the best solution, but without prejudice to recreation if sufficient sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Anugraha Narayan Tiwari

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

there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources. lifelong bureaucrat not in a high profile job except for the last two months before retirement, there looks to be little genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio Ohc 03:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Very senior civil servant at a level which should give him automatic notability (and certainly would do if he was at this level in the USA or UK). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep Mess of an article, but he had significant roles at a high enough level to establish his notability, per Necrothesp. —innotata 04:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to recreation per WP:TNT - while he does appear to be notable the article as it stands is unsalvagable; it would be best to WP:BLOWITUP and start over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Central Information Commission The current article is a huge mess, but I could see it being reduced to a one liner in the form of "is a Indian Civil Service officer who served as the Chief Information Commissioner of India's Central Information Commission from Sep-Dec 2010" (note that that final post is the highest post held by the subject). However when one notes that the relevant source glosses this as, "Information Commissioner A. N. Tiwari will take over as the new Chief Information Commissioner on Thursday, succeeding Wajahat Habibullah. He will, however, hold the job only till December 19 this year when he is due to retire, and this is, therefore, virtually a stop-gap arrangement", even this one liner seems excessive, and a redirect should suffice. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 7 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 result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

G. Krishna Babu

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

there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio Ohc 03:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

delete The sources are not intellectually separate and even then the articles themselves do not give him any sort of notability. Orasis (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required by GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 14:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Maqsudul Alam

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

there is an assertion of notability, but it's impossible to discern how important his work is with the cv masquerading as an article. Ohc 02:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep. The article is very poorly written (I mean only the lede, everything else is copy paste from some CV). But there are significant enough references in the article. Dr. Alam is (strongly) notable in national scope for his contributions in government backed genome projects of jute etc. and passes WP:ANYBIO. As of now, the article should be stripped down to a stub cleaning up all CV like text. – nafSadh did say 20:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete Has put out some genome papers but during a kind of "gold-rush" era where any sequenced genome with minimal analysis was rewarded with a high-impact publication. Additionally, Nature papers alone do not a notable academic make — in my view, the subject does not hit any of the prof test criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. benmoore 14:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think ANYBIO is the criteria that we shall consider. His notability stems from national perspective. – nafSadh did say 17:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  - That's a far higher bar than the academic specific list, unclear why you're insisting it's the most relevant (generally when considering professors the best port of call is WP:PROF). Please provide the tertiary sources documenting this professor's contribution to the enduring historical record of the field, I have searched and found none. benmoore 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    - Found one now (in Bengali): http://archive.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2010-06-19/news/72004. Most sources, I think I came to read about him, were on national Bengali media (print and TV) - which are hard to find on internet, and hard for me locate them as I am not in the country now. That being said, I was never sure why he gets that much media coverage in Bangladesh; all he did was leading some genome sequencing projects for the government. I can't however deny the fame he attained there. – nafSadh did say 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:PROF, sources , . --Zayeem 17:29, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete Notability isn't clear based on WP:PROF - I couldn't find any good sources in English (I see WP:NONENG is ok with non-English sources, though). If the consensus is to keep in the end, the article needs to be cut down to the bare minimum - as it is, it's mostly just copied and pasted from Alam's homepage. The Bengali wiki page might be a good starting point for this, but I can't tell. Amkilpatrick (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep Articles that get very high citations when the subject is just one of many co-workers on a very large project doesn't count for much, even when publishedin Nature or PNAS, but he seems to bethe responsible senior investigator for a whole string of mpapers on anaerobic bacteria by his group in Hawaii. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker 05:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Malone (actor)

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

Delete: as non-notable under WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete as fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. SNOW KEEP ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Pepsiman (video game)

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

NN video game. It hasn't garnered the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG - it seems also to have no realworld significance outside of the advertising campaign it was associated with well covered at Pepsiman. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The sources in the article alone are probably enough for a weak keep, but I remember reading about this game in print magazines on the 1990s too. I'll do some digging, but I'm fairly certain this one has the necessary coverage. (Ironically, there's another reliable source - IGN - at the main PM article mentioned in the nomination - http://m.ign.com/articles/1999/03/10/pepsiman-playstations-strangest-moment) Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This GamesRadar article and this GameSpot one might help to establish its notability. Tezero (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep - appears to have enough independent sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek, demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime all of these AfDs ought to be pulled as obvious failures of WP:BEFORE. Ravenswing 09:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep per everyone & sources above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:32, 18 September 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) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. slakr 10:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Heaven's Dawn

(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) (in Chinese)

Disputed prod. NN video game. Article's creator claims its hard to source, perhaps because it never achieved significant coverage in reliable independent sources - there are 618 articles in Category:1995 video games, so presumably notable games will be sourceable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 18 September 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) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep as creator. Old games are notoriously hard to find sources for as they are all in physical magazines that are out of print or at the very least not available on the internet through a simple Google Search. This *is* a notable game.--Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure how "keep as creator" is helpful—yes, you want to keep it, no, we're not any closer to comparing it to the GNG. So while the other AfDs from this lot were kept, no similar sourcing shows for this one. The MobyGames listing, while not a reliable source and no good on its own, usually points to the print reviews necessary for making an AfD case. No such sources available for this one. Further, no meaningful hits in WP:VG/RS or Amiga Magazine Rack searches. Yes, it's hard to find the actual out-of-print sources, but it's rare for a notable game to be missing entries in basic databases in this age. czar ♔ 00:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- There may very well be sources out there, but I'm having a hard time finding them if there are. I need access to Taiwanese magazine articles. In any case, I have much respect for you I trust your judgement. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral. I think this is a notable game but can't seem to find an sources. I would put this down to the game being released near the pre-internet age, not originally being released in English, and me not having the best ability to scout the internet and print magazines for video game sources. --Coin945 (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources I just discovered the game's Chinese name. (After all, it was originaly developed and released on Taiwan). See here for evidence that the chinese name is "中文名称：绝地—众神之咀咒". This seems to have a more successful Google Search.--Coin945 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting find, but still can't find sources using that name czar ♔ 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We really need someone who understands Chinese because I'm seriously struggling. From what I can gather, This appears to be the game's script, This is a chinese book about the game, this appears to be information on the game's development - perhaps given by a member of the team, an article about the game, this appears to be some sort of text. a walk-through perhaps? or a book about the game?--Coin945 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I should have clarified not that we can't find sources, but that we can't find reliable sources. This isn't to say that they don't exist at all, but if they're this hard to find, there's no problem with deleting the article for now and reestablishing it once sources are found. czar ♔ 19:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I do think there is some great content in those sources I found - especially the one about the game's development - so I want to seek help from a Wiki-user who understands Chinese before being able to wholeheartedly accept a delete.--Coin945 (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless such a translation confirms somehow that the info comes straight from the dev, that site's a forum and would not be accepted as an adequate reference for the article (nevertheless a secondary source sufficient for the GNG) czar ♔ 05:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@2009193537cherry10, Alvinpiggy, Avrilverdison, Avaria vitievA, B747131, Beijing 28, and Charlie9897:@Chua Fook Loon, Cjsmith.us, Collinlaurence, D.s.ronis, Derekjoe, Dien-Universal, and Epicgenius:@Eshleyy, Haiyizhu, Hoiwa852, Hongdx, Jaguitar, Jeffwang, and Jsjsjs1111:@Kong Yiji, Lennieii, Leos2000171, Luka govisky, Maodi xn, Mini Dragon, and Mufffin man:@Navyau, Philg88, Phung Wilson, Qby, Raymondwy, Rglovernfan1234, and Serenehj:@Shengwei95, SmileBlueJay97, Supersonic Electronic, Tai Khoon, ThatLinuxIT, Tonyxty, and White whirlwind:@Wiggin01, Yienshawn, Yueni, Zanetu, Zywxn, and 丘明利:

I tagged some people from the "Category:User zh-5" page in order to help us out. Essentially we are trying to find sources for an article about a game (Heaven's Dawn) originally released in Taiwan. I worked out what its Chinese name is ("中文名称：绝地—众神之咀咒"), but am having a bit of trouble deciphering the few links I managed to find (see links above). Please can you read those sources and see what can be used to prove the topics' notablility? Or even to help us find more sources (I found this part particularly difficult)? Thanks in advance. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'd say the correct translation of the name is "Jedi, Curse of the Gods" but it may have been published under a different name in the West. There is a fairly long review here but douban may not be considered a reliable source. There is a walkthru at China Internet Information Center (article link). There are also a number of other sources scattered about. I would call the notability as borderline but with a bit of work ... Philg88 14:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment A word on the name: the Chinese name should be "绝地—众神之咀咒" whereas "中文名称" means "Chinese name." Although literally "绝地" is the translation of Jedi, this game has nothing to do with Lucas's trilogy, so I'd say "Jedi, Curse of the Gods" is not accurate. The links given by Coin945 above, except the one about the dev process, are all the same text, the walkthru found by Philg88 at China Internet Information Center. As to the forum thread about the dev process, it is a autobiography-style memoir. I think this thread is posted by a member of the team as it contains many details which a non-member won't know, but I don't think it adds anything to the significance debate. I also did a Baidu ("largest Chinese search engine") search on the query "绝地——众神的诅咒" and obtained only 326 results, among which many are about Jedis or curses. Not a serious research though, I would suggest it is not very popular in China.Tony Beta Lambda (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Weak Delete, based on the comments of our Chinese speaking friends above and the fact that there is very little in English that would propel this past the GNG. There might be more out there in Chinese that I can't read; if such sources are found post-deletion the article can be restored. Lankiveil 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC).
Delete - Doesn't seem to be any reliable sources to be found of this for the time being. But once there are some, the article can always be restored and improved. GamerPro64 03:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. The sources currently cited in the article are just some game sites that couldn't really be considered respectable for encyclopedic purposes. --Writing Enthusiast 03:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for invite. Not sure whether it is suitable to delete this article. For the Chinese information that I have searched, this game is not a notable game in Taiwan and Chinese world. So maybe it is hard to find information about this game. But one of the sources stated that this game has Finland version. One of the articles about this game I have also found some youtube videos about ways to play this game. One of the Youtube videos. And also, the Chinese name for this game is 绝地—众神之诅咒, "咀" is the wrong word for "诅". --Shengwei95 (Talk) 02:50 12 October 2014 (UTC)

New journal article source: --Coin945 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

- http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-DINA199702049.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522%25E7%25BB%259D%25E5%259C%25B0%25E2%2580%2594%25E4%25BC%2597%25E7%25A5%259E%25E4%25B9%258B%25E8%25AF%2585%25E5%2592%2592%2522%26start%3D20%26newwindow%3D1%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DtDh%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Drcs%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D874

Just to summarize to this point, we still don't have anything to use to write an article. A bunch of links and (apparent?) mentions but few from reliable sources and none with actual information to populate an encyclopedia article. czar ♔ 15:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a Pelit magazine article (excerpted at Mobygames), the aformentioned journal article, a site where the games developers discuss the game in detail, plus this article. I think that enough to demonstrate the games notability, taking into account the fact that we have no deadline and more concrete sources can be located as research deepens.--Coin945 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mobygames is not reliable, and Pelit is behind a paywall, as is this journal article (which could even be an advertisement—we have no idea what it is). The latter two links are not reliable sources. Anyway, this is where I bow out so please ping me if needed czar ♔ 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

'Comment the argument that because a source is behind a paywall it cannot show notability is nonsense; we use whatever sources are available. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@DGG, "the latter two links" refers to the latter two of the four mentioned by Coin (i.e., the supposed game dev discussion and the jedi.org site, not the paywall sites). czar ♔ 06:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The result was redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

First Street, Manchester

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

An on-going planned development of office blocks and housing, not more notable than dozens of others currently existing. Not every office development is notable and this one - other than the trivial coverage all activity gets - doesn't seem different than the lot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to HOME (Manchester) as a possible search term. Lugnuts 06:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect Agree, it can be recreated if it becomes notable. J3Mrs (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect per above - Seems more sensible to Redirect than delete imho .–Davey2010 • (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. SNOW KEEP ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Kominas

AfDs for this article:

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

Second go around for this article. Was debated in 2006 with no consensus - nothing seems to have given them notability; moreover, we now have WP:BLP and there are no reliable secondary sources for anything in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Much though I deplore those awful "Seems notable" decisions made in profusion at AfD back in the day, it took me all of about ten seconds to find a raft of substantive and reliable sources, including the Boston Globe , the Washington Post , Rolling Stone , the Associated Press , NPR's All Things Considered , Newsweek . This is such an egregious case of the nom not making the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD, that I checked his contribution history. I found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and well worth reporting. Ravenswing 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep - Please, nom, follow through on WP:BEFORE in the future. Its hard to believe you tried very hard to research this one. Plenty of reliable sources, per above. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Strong keep per the above sources, and others at CNN , The Guardian , and the LA Times . Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:BAND and have added References.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Diva Taunia

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

WP:BLP of a musician, which is nudging a bit too close to advertorial territory in some aspects; referenced entirely on primary sources and citing not a shred of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that she actually passes WP:NMUSIC at all. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the article was created by User:RosieDiva. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom - Promo bs that belongs elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Natsuki kawase

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

A BLP with minimal sourcing of anything approaching what's necessary. In any event, there's a claim she was on a tv show, sold soap, is related to a prince, stands 1.71 m tall, a smattering of claims to fame, but not WP:GNG. The Japanese article has the same two allusions to sources but no footnotes as in this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete Original Japanese Wiki-article seems to be sourced by her employer's or agent's official bio, no secondary sources. Google pretty much shows her on social media, Youtube, etc. A search for my name would look pretty much the same.BayShrimp (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Because the article explicitly states sourced from ja:川瀬奈月, so I guess it is acceptable to examine that article also? The jawp article is started by a Natskawa (note the name resemblance) and a lot of accounts and IPs with little to no edits outside the bio. The enwp article started as a redirect to the recently A7-ed Natsuki Kawase. Later translation added by Nancynancy31 just yesterday. The history looks autobiographic, and I would say Delete or even Speedy by A7 or G4. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete not coming up with anything, such as a sweep of Japanese newspapers in English here, although I found a possible mention here (not sure if it is the same person as in the article). Not sure if being in a commercial for a brand of soap is all that notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and salt against recreation Natsuki Kawase has been twice deleted already, if anything is going to come up to save this article it would have done so in the past.--KTo288 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gary Spedding

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

Transferring from PROD deletion request by 90.216.103.173, article is too substantial for simple PROD deletion. Ronhjones 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep He seems to have gotten quite a bit of substantial press attention. Here's an article by the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-25688529. BayShrimp (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete The "Political and social career" section is full of WP:PEACOCK language like "Spedding has worked on behalf of the LGBT community, as well, in their struggle for equal rights." Of the sources that are provided, all but four of them are letters to the editor that he has written, which are in no way reliable sources. The only others are two press releases that mention him in passing, for example this one that says he's been elected to the Alliance Party Youth Executive Committee; and two self-published blog posts that violate WP:BLOGS and are not appropriate or reliable sources for his BLP. He thus clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. He's never even been a candidate for office, he just works for a political party and has written some letters to the editor.

Finally, the section "Human rights advocacy in Israel/Palestine" which is, apart from the section on his deportation from Israel, 2 lines long and notes that he founded a university Palestine solidarity society. As for the section on his deportation from Israel, it's a prime example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Every single one of the sources about his deportation is from within a few days of the incident, which was back in January. There is clearly no enduring notability in this event which received routine coverage in the news - "Palestine activist deported from Israel". The event itself was, per WP:NOTNEWS, notable enough to receive press coverage for a couple of days, but there is no enduring notability beyond that and he is not himself notable. Per BLP1E, each of the 3 criteria for deleting this article are met:

"reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" - true, the only other sources provided are blogs and letters to the editor he's written.

"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - again, aside from the routine coverage of his deportation, he's received no significant coverage in reliable sources, either before or since the event.

"If the event is not significant" - man was deported from Israel. There was routine press coverage on it and a week later, it was forgotten about.

As his political career fails WP:POLITICIAN and the only thing that he has received attention for is a single, routinely-covered news event, the article should be deleted. Tiller54 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

weak delete probably meets GNG but the overly promotional and WP:AUTOBIO nature of the article really makes it non-redeemable BlueSalix (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails wp:blp1e and wp:politician. Once the poorly sourced (to blogs and letters he's written to newspapers) claims have been removed, the only thing that's left is the fact that he was once deported from Israel. There's nothing else to say. The incident is not significant, he remains a low-profile individual and the coverage stopped 2 days after the incident happened. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete, for much the same reasons as Dcfc1988. Article very largely puts a one-sided positive view of Spedding while only being cited to news articles by him (rather than about him). The news articles about his airport detention in Israel contain little if any biographical info. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep-- it seems like GNG is met. BLP1E would be an issue were it not for the fact that Spedding could be seen as high-profile (in his activism and politics). Darmokand (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

William V. Chambers

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

This person does not seem to meet WP:Notable. No secondary sources are provided and I couldn't find out anything through Google other than a few mentions. BayShrimp (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

delete - per nom.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete - What would be needed here are independent reliable sources that demonstrate a significant impact (see WP:NACADEMIC). I see lots of journal articles (including the Group Psychological Abuse Scale article he co-authored, which is cited a number of times elsewhere - but 70 cites doesn't help meet any of the Notability criteria), but no significant independent coverage of him and his achievements. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment If the Group Psychological Abuse Scale is what's notable wouldn't it be better to have an article on that? BayShrimp (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds sensible. There doesn't appear to be much written about the author, but the Scale does appear in numerous works. Zambelo; talk 11:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now I don't see much proof of notability, but WP:PROF is relevant here--Randykitty, DGG, can I ask you to have a look? Deor, do I remember correctly that you used to assess profs as well? Drmies (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Weak delete His most cited publication ,his " The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A measure of the varieties of cultic abuse" is cited only 73 times, That's not significant in the field. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Weak delete His citation record is modest. While that does not prove non-notability (not something that can be proven, I think), it does not point to notability either. I don't know the mentioned awards, if they are major, that could change things, but actually I doubt it. I judge the scale only moderately notable, too, given that his article on it has been cited only around 70 times. --Randykitty (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)