Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 24

20105:(1) Used to quote their first successful release by them; (2) Stats from one of their published YouTube channels indicating a relationship with Square-Enix; (3) The publishers official Soundcloud (4) CMT and MTV remove content if its not up to snuff after a week of two; (5) Interview is not primary, as it is published by a second or third party; (6) Yes, Mario and Isabel were starting a business, the one that's the subject of the article; (7) That's an image file, there's no reason for it to set off anything, it's an college newsletter; (8) An interview from The Boston Globe, its a passing mention, but displays a relationship between Drew Cass and confirms information from the college newsletter; (9) Does your browser hate image files? It's a scanned newspaper article from the Albuquerque Tribune; (10) Not an interview, its 12 minutes, from a completely different area than the publisher's location, discussing a controversy about Google shutting down Heaven Sent Gaming's AdSense; (11) Yomiuri Shimbun is the most widely distributed paper in Japan, with multiple editions, some are not web cataloged, this one has a scanned page describing an article talking about kids in Tokyo coming home with Heaven Sent Gaming's Reverie characters drawn on their bookbags and such, it also talks about who Heaven Sent Gaming is and about Reverie; You also forgot to mention the "further reading" section, which contains (12) the publisher itself; (13) an independently produced secondary source book discussing the topic in depth; (14) another book containing a multi-page chapter discussing the topic. This is not an "advertorial" for a corner shop or ice cream parlour, its a nationally accepted organization according to the Library of Congress. 22440:, which i will add to this and to the Michigan Law Review article). I mean to assert notability of academic journals, i.e. student-edited and published on an academic topic, even if wholly or mostly from one university, and not to include student-published literary journals such as collections of poetry and short stories from students within one or a few universities. Some might consider the contents of Storja issues to be somewhat low-level and somewhat inconsistent; I submit there are plenty of non-student journals that are such, or considerably worse. If a student journal only completed one or two issues, I would tend to think it should not have a separate article, but rather be a redirect to a list-article of student journals or a redirect to a university article's section about student activities (if there is coverage there about the jourrnal). This Malta University Historical Society and its Storja journal, however, have survived 30 years, have multiple issues, and are ongoing, and seem unusual and merit coverage. And there is more material available in sources cited (largely their own articles and editorials, I admit, but reliable enough for basic facts) than is appropriate for just an item in a list-article. It would be nice if there were more outside coverage identified, but there is likely to be more with its 2015 issue, too. So, Keep and let it be developed!!! -- 5125:- GNG is not N, but its pretty clear Monika Lee meets GNG because you have multiple non-trivial details including interviews and a TV show that focus on her. Many minor and reliable sources that give examples of her work, almost all of which are secondary and independent of the subject. This means it is presumed Monika Lee is notable and that because we can write a stand alone article of at least a few paragraphs - she does meet the requirements for inclusion. Its demeaning to say someone's profession or acts which generate year's long interest is not up to the bar for inclusion. Editors are reminded to check their personal baggage and beliefs and go on the very reason N and GNG were even made in the first place - To determine if Knowledge can have and fill out a publicly useful article on a subject that is verifiable and credible. Its clear that the 28 sources in the article allow it to meet GNG and its a much better sourced article than many others because of its deep digging to try and sway this "cosplayers are notnotable" issue of Wikipedians. Look at it objectively and its clear that GNG was long since met. 19315:: I have been monitoring IMVBox for some time now and to my mind IMVBox has gained a great deal of recognition over recent months. It seems that many newspapers and news agencies in Iran have picked up on IMVBox’s work and started to cover the company; ISNA, a major news agency in Iran, ran a piece on IMVBox's work and interviewed the director. What comes through in many of the articles is the understanding that IMVBox is fighting a longstanding problem in Iran: online piracy. There is a view, I think, that IMVBox is revolutionising Iranian cinema. It is after all the first time Iranian films have been gathered together on one website. Before IMVBox’s creation Iranian films were available on many websites for illegal download. Iranian filmmakers are beginning to recognise what IMVBox stands for and how it will help them in their work. The press release from 200 Iranian actors and filmmakers received a lot of attention in Iran, and IMVBox was at the centre of the campaign. 22414:(creating as a redirect now) which the society edits and publishes, is wikipedia-notable and should be kept. Others can disagree, but it is unusual in my view for a student society to produce an academic journal, which is a big undertaking, requiring funding for printing and serious work. Storja has been published in multiple issues over 30 years, and is continuing with a 2015 issue funded and presumably forthcoming. The society and/or the journal were founded by professor Andrew B. Vella, and it has survived at least one transition to another principal advisor (Vella is deceased). Another "Vella", perhaps Andrew B. Vella's father or other relative, appears in academic lit searches on "Malta" and "storja", in non-English language articles apparently on Malta history that have titles often starting with the word "Storja", which I surmise might mean "history" or "stories". 5178:. Lee is not some random cosplayer and all the sources and unutilized sources still easily found show pretty clearly that it meets GNG. I don't care one bit about the Notability "minimum" from some guideline, we are talking pure General Notability Guidelines here - and its apparent that the bulk of these allow an article with no original research to be made. And that minimum is what Knowledge's inclusion policies are meant to be based on - everything else is just CREEP. This reminds me of the months long and up-hill battle to get a multi-billion dollar success its own article... people just write off things that they deem of less "importance" - but it doesn't change the fact that this article informs people and all claims are well-backed as GNG articles require. 20493:. I might be persuaded otherwise by an editor with special expertise in this branch of academic studies, but at first sight this appears to be a perfectly reasonable academic journal, and I had no particular difficulty in finding references to articles it has published. The problem with academic journals generally is that it's easy to prove existence, but it's much more difficult to prove notability for them. The people who publish in them, and even some particular articles in these journals, can easily be shown to be notable, but this is not the same thing as journal notability. In this case, I think the best thing to do is 853:, how are you keeping lad? Yip, thanks and they are fair points, but I still don't think it is notable, even though it's panning out to be a good film, looking at the script. Looking at the article for more than half an hour yesterday found that - Four of the sources are defunct, with the rest duplicating content, the film looks minor in nature (if only perceived), i.e. the this is the first film for director (having been actor/writer in others), the producer has only been on the go since 2010, Landmarc Films (I see has been going since 19th August 2011, with only 2 well known actors/actresses, all the rest unknowns. 19869:, for that constructive comment. That ヘブンセントゲーミング is a summary of the main article, it's located in the middle of the page under the Harry Potter image, its a rather large chunk of text. The "Further reading" section has independent sources that are quite lengthy, specifically "Internet Legends" and "New Mexico Free Press"; the "Internet Legends" book obviously has reliability assertions, and is probably the cause for the interest on the subject by editors. This is the exact kind of discussion should be had on the talk page. Which is why I said "Speedy Keep", this shouldn't be a 19335:

therefore indeed revolutionising the genre. It has enabled me to access both important and influential Iranian films that I would otherwise never have had the opportunity of watching. I believe it deserves recognition for continuously supporting a genre, that perhaps somewhat can become overlooked in Western society. The service provided by IMVBox also prevents and fights online piracy, therefore supporting a positive movement for cinema viewed via the Internet. I believe IMVBox deserves recognition and firmly believe it is in coherence with the

22510:-- This is clearly more than a typcial student society. I note that the government is funding the publication of Storja, which presumably means that the government thinks that the journal is notable. Malta is only a small country, so that it could be that this is the only national academic journal on its history; if so, the journal is cealrly notable. Accordingly we need an article either on the journal or its parent society, and the later is better. The article needs to be expanded to explain mopre of the significance of Storja. 5238:

run across these articles, I just have to run it through my interpretation of what passes GNG, and if I think the community will delete, the I nominate. It really is that simple and has nothing to do with the subject matter itself. I seek and post insanely cool cosplayer images on Facebook for family and friends, and if I was 30 years younger, might even get into it myself, but this isn't about what I think is cool or not. I need to see just a bit stronger and more independent sourcing to fit I try to make an objective standard

14850: 20543:/Arts & Humanities, contrary to what the article claimed (I have removed this from the text). That casts doubt on the other claims of indexing made. Looking at Google Scholar, using either the full journal name (including the subtitle) or the shorter "Theatre Annual" does not provide convincing evidence that the journal has been cited a lot either. The only thing that makes me hesitate it the long history of this journal, which (even though the claim that it is 21453: 17466:- This person appears to have zero coverage in reliable sources; a search turns up social media pagaes, personal websites, last.fm, etc... Her film credits are singular appearances in tv shows, or far, far down the list in a motion picture billing. Many of the roles are not even credited with a character name, i.e. "Girlfriend #2", "Bar Girl", "Student", and so on. Subject doe snot pass any notability guidelines of this project. 12535:, obviously. Frankly any company publicly traded on major U.S. stock exchanges NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ should be deemed wikipedia-notable as a matter of policy/guideline/style. I understand that there exists, explicitly, a statement that the wikipedia-notability is not assumed, however. It's a waste of AFD attention to discuss these. Maybe this repeats what MelanieN said above, but here is link to news headlines on the firm: 121: 5223:

or so words about a person with decent and independent sourcing outside of the "1E" type for such individuals. I much rather have a well-sourced article on a person of "questionable notability" in the eyes of many than no article at all. Currently, this article is probably the best representation of her work and history in a single place, but it is lacking in appropriate details given the threat its under.

35: 16874:: entities like "Republic of Foo", "Kingdom of Foo" are likely to be referred to as plain "Foo" and do not constitute "partial title matches" of the sort which policy excludes from dab pages: there is risk of confusion because all these different "Foo" entities existed at different points in time and had different meanings (if they all meant the same thing, there would only be one article). 7741:. The rabbi is availing himself of the others in order to satisfy religious requirements such as the need for a minyan. I think many other examples can be given as well in which the rabbi is as much dependent on the other congregants as the other congregants are dependent on the congregational rabbi. This is not just an employee/employer relationship. I notice you saying on your Talk page, 19923: 20012:) may be a passing mention, Rio Rancho Observer, Albuquerque Tribune (potential passing mention though I imagine Life Never Lost and Perrenials are passing mentions. Heaven Sent Gaming and Neil Patrick Harris have dedicated paragraphs), radio broadcast, Yomiuri Shimbun, main subject of an independently published book by Shigimori Shizuka, chapter in a book by New Mexico Free Press. 10447:, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was more context to be known. Is Bilal Erdogan notable outside of the AKP scandal/TURGEV issues? Perhaps the contents of this article can be merged with the articles about the scandals. If his main notability is because of a specific event, normally that person is put under the article for that event, but there are lots of exceptions. Thoughts? 7707:, so they cannot speak to notability. There are two newspapers (3 articles total). Two of the articles speak about a court case and not much on the temple itself. The third one is a local paper giving the expected coverage of the opening of a new house of worship. No secondary reliable sourcing from outside Metro DC, so even with the rather weighty addition, still fails 23882:, which is part of their blog but is written by a staff member so would be fine to establish notability. The rest, well, doesn't. It is just incidental mentions of people who went to that facility. If you could find more like the Guardian piece where they are talking about the Center itself as the main topic, then you would be fine, but I didn't see it. 24120:

creditworthiness of helping people with addiction problems. In my humble opinion, and after reading some of the comments above, the fact that this article has been recommended for deletion, seems to show that someone is maliciously trying to ruin the chances of having what can only be described as a truly valuable and worthwhile addition to Knowledge.

20023:)by Shigimori Shizuka asserts reliability as "a team of editors responsible for fact-checking and reliability... with experience at; 静山社 (Say-Zan-Sha), リクルート (Recruit), 小学館 (Shogakukan), and ゼンリン (Zenrin)" and "Scholastic, Penguin Random House, Macmillan, and HarperCollins", and I can't find anything on the New Mexico Free Press book except for 19938:, then histmerging that into the mainspace article. There are some irrelevant revisions along the way (ones subsequent to the cut and paste to mainspace), and there's an odd jump in article size between the two userspace versions (you may have edited the article without saving, then pasted the unsaved version). But the article history 2705:. I submitted the article for deletion because I feel it is not written from a neutral stance. Yes the subject of the article fits the criteria for BLP but the political career section (specifically the policy issues subsection) looks like something straight from a personal website. If you look at another politician, such as 5164:

Game Informer - a major (if not one of the top) gaming magazines also noted Monika Lee and included a dedicated and detailed account of the process, I like to think that is more then "mentions and blurbs in blogs" because Marie was the Associate Editor of Game Informer who did interviews as part of her paid position. The

22723:

irrelevant (barring possibly the elsalvador one). Despite the boss wanting the page deleted - normally a challenge to me - I think it should go as not notable. The companies that sell their products may be notable, but who knows who makes them? Ever found out where BloggsCo source their tinned peas and beans from?

22722:

I will quote User:SpaldingTac from User:Piguy101's talk page: "I work for the company Intradeco and my boss told me he wanted the page deleted so I tried to delete it as the original user". There is obvious sign of COI editing in the article, and the references are either the company site, or dead or

19819:

says, "... story on elementary school in Nerima-ku, children coming home with silly Miyazaki spirit drawn on backpacks and homework. faces from Reverie internet comic by HeavenSentGaming.com children think cute and like draw character Bronjay. details on much information of Mario J Lucero with Isabel

5917:

Responding to BrownHairedGirl's comments,are you sure you reviewed all of the links? You said you did not see a single independent reliable source? You don't consider a website run by the state government of North Carolina to be an independent source? And you don't consider Yelp to be independent?

5852:

That makes more sense to me, and work on the larger Meadowmont article, using that info. I've not heard of the place, but would love to see more about it if it can be sourced. If eventually, the Village has enough sources to become a separate article, then by all means it should be created, but for

5222:

has been active for over 12 years as a major focal point, niche as cosplay is, it is more than just a hobby for some. Of those on Cosplay Heroes, several of the cosplayers run their own businesses and they are professionally booked by those in the industry. I draw the line at being able to write 1000

4241:

is not valid. That's a list of episodes. This is a list of DVDs in 3 different regions sourced to being able to buy the DVDs in those particular regions rather than any sort of discussion about just the video releases for this small subset of a larger franchise. This article might have some use if it

3839:

claims. I've not disregarded any guidelines here by sending this to AFD. I do not think this article should exist. I am seeking the community's input on this matter to see if they agree or disagree. And I am not required to seek out sources as you requested. It is up to the people who think this page

1467:

A list of home media releases for televisions program is common. This would normally be contained within the the main article, but as this list is large and the main Family Guy article is approaching SIZE, it is completely reasonable to consider this a spinout of the main article to cover home media.

24171:

I see no reason this article should be up for deletion. It has been mentioned in the media, one article of which I have read the others which can be verified if you take the time to look. I personally know someone who has been a client there and the reason they attended Simon Mott's rehab centre was

23913:

In realtion to the above argument, the user has clearly not checked the links, there is NO Guardian article. There is TWO telegraph articles mentioning the center and up until this morning there was a photograph of an article mentioning it in the west australian newspaper. Two mentions in a global

16150:

Comment: The Norway terror threat of 2014 have been object for a massive media attention, as it is broadly covered by most, if not all, major medias in Norway along with medias from the other Scandinavian countries, and also by international medias like CNN. This is the first alert of this kind ever

8999:

With apologies to Frmorrison, I'm afraid I wouldn't give weight to either of his or her !votes in this debate. Neither the number of references the article has, nor the number of likes their Facebook page has, nor the number of subscribers their Youtube channel has, are contributors to notability.

5237:

Haven't seen the show, but I'm not much of a TV watcher. It is a Catch 22, but there is a fix, and I'm not against userification if it gets deleted. As a matter of fact, I recommend it if someone is willing to take it on. Maybe next year or next month it will pass, with a stronger source. When I

5192:

I get what you are saying, but a line has to be drawn and I just didn't how this passed it. Maybe in part because cosplay isn't as mainstream as some other forms of entertainment. I actually did a lot of WP:BEFORE on this, looking for the gold standard two, or even close, and checked every single

4382:

No. I'm suggesting we delete all lists of DVDs unless there's substantial review of their contents as being part of a DVD collection or a commendation on contents of the DVD. If it's just a review of the episodes then that content belongs on an episode list or the article on the TV program. Not spun

19772:

Things of relevance to this subject's notability. They have MARC Organization Code, they are listed in ton of directories, a secondary source book covering them as a reference subject, chapter in another book, multiple mentions in newspapers and on talk radio (the Japanese article has been called a

17932:

search (even in the article) assert the notability of a list of Pokémon. Moreover, gamecruft#6 doesn't even apply here (the list is basic identifying info). These aren't minutiae of a game but the mainstay of a gigantic franchise that has expanded well past video games. I'd even say speedy if there

17765:

is a guideline of the videogames project. I'm not sure it can be considered a proper guideline but, in any case, Pokemon are not just videogame elements; they are also characters in TV and movies; trading cards, physical soft toys and models, &c. Moreover, the nomination fails to consider the

8242:

This is a company that has been quoted by the Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CNBC, Bloomberg Businessweek amongst others. Also please go to investing.businessweek.com. User did not look at that link. You will find the company in there. Only companies that are potential for

7807:

and the Children of Israel were his congregation, and it continues to this day. Have you even read this article seriously and not with an eye to get rid of it? Rabbi Shaya Milikowsky has been the one to lead this congregation from the start. He led the legal breakaway from the "mother congregation"

7558:

I did, and I got an admin to close it and I redirected it. Another user came along and undid it. Has yet to add a reference to notability, but still had to undo it. Probably because there aren't any. If the legal case wasn't noted anywhere it says nothing about notability, and an article about a

7184:

I certainly thought about a speedy but my guess was that as I am one of the few Wikipedians who has been to Rousay and it took me ten minutes of checking to be sure, that a passing admin would likely decline on the grounds that it wasn't an obvious hoax. Another feature of the article is that there

5163:

So being in a nationally broadcast TV series as a focus doesn't count for anything, not even halfsies? I understand the "game contestant" aspect, but many Survivor finalists and other select people from such series have their own articles because enough sources exist to write one. Meagan Marie from

4236:

The third link still is not just MMPR which is what this article is about. And why would I look for sources when all I'm going to get is "you can buy the DVDs here" as results? We need sources explicitly about the releases of the first 3 seasons in general and not the 20 other seasons that followed

24144:

this article should be kept. The facility is run but the highly respected drug rehabilitation counsellor Simon Mott. His program's for rehabilitation are proven effective. His client base and success rate is extensive. This article provides addicts seeking help with substantial information to lead

24059:

sufficient resources already provided to support the noteworthiness of this facility, and this article is relevant because 1) it is fast becoming one of the most popular addiction rehabs in Thailand 2) celebrities have gone to this rehab for addiction treatment 3.) The manager of this rehab (Simon

21756:

or research work or awards. The individual did not even hold any major incumbent in Indian University system. Couldn't find any reliable source that supports this article independently. The work is not cited in leading journal or publications. Minor event/research work. It is somehow an example of

20090:

which is user-generated content; (5) An interview transcript (which is a primary source); (6) A reliable source (the Rio Rancho Observer), which looks better, but on investigation this is a passing mention advising us that two high-school sweethearts are starting a business together; (7) Something

19334:

I am a subscriber to the IMVBox website and have been for some time. I came across this Knowledge page when accessing the website online and saw it was up for deletion. I would like to add that IMVBox is a extremely unique service, projecting Iranian cinema onto an accessible, digital platform and

16901:

Disambiguation is for different topics that have the same name, sub-topics of a main article do not belong there. As far as the Kingdom and Principality being Serbias, yes, they are a part of what Serbia is, they are not a different distinct topic. The nominator is correct, these entries make more

16255:

I have reconsidered my opinion. This case is not an ordinary terror threat, but—based on a terror threat—a contemporary and one day historical emergency situation reaching extensive proportions, lasting for several days, and involving a sovereign state. The case has also involved Nordic police and

20547:

oldest journal in this -very small- field is not substantiated by independent sources) makes me think that perhaps there are some sources that we somehow fail to see. I'm surprised that the article creator has not chimed in here yet, as that editor might be able to provide better sourcing. In any

7920:

Schools have been granted a blanket notability for high schools only. This has been policy for a long time. No such policy exists for local houses of worship. If you want to argue the merits of a policy, start an RfC or take it to the village pump. I would appreciate it if you would keep your

4115:

That's the point. There's nothing out there that says the entirety of the Power Rangers VHS or DVD releases is notable. And there was only one independent source that covered the release to DVD (I'm still not convinced TVShowsonDVD counts as a reliable source). This is a footnote on an article at

2638:

I don't get it. This has a pass on WP:POLITICIAN, it's properly sourced. If there's anything in it that tweaks BLP, then perhaps the nom could point it out. That would, however, be a content issue which should be taken to the article's talk page, and AfD isn't the proper venue for it. (I admit

4280:

Why is this constantly a thing? And I don't think the all inclusive nature of websites like DVD Talk or TV Shows on DVD should really count towards anything. They list everything like IMDB does and we don't count them as a source. And how does that MTV Geek thing even work as a review if they're

20437:

This is an important academic journal, probably the 4th most important journal in the field of theatre and performance studies after Theatre Journal, Theatre Survey, TDR (journal). The information should remain online as a resource for scholars looking for 1) places to publish their work and 2)

19873:

issue. This might be brought up for AfD later on, but doing it now is causing people to rush through resources. New sources kept coming up, throughout the AfD and the DRV, this needs to be slowly discussed, in actual article space. Especially for incorporating the general editor's help, there's

17788:

I know this is ridiculous, but the history of Pokémon on Knowledge is very, very long and contentious. The amount of discussion the whole issue has generated is out of all proportion to its importance. To give you an idea, there's a WikiProject Pokémon that still probably has fifty-odd active

5168:

also highlighted that work as "the best cosplay ever" - which is a completely unrelated and well-recognized independent production within the culture. The Forbes blog note is small, but it highlights the work and doesn't conifer notability in this case - but I don't think anyone would. You have

20085:

to be a proper review of this article before it can be re-created. This was deleted very recently for lack of sources, the deletion was upheld because of the lack of sources, and now it's been re-created with sources that are, I'm afraid, still utterly inadequate. They are as follows:- (1) A

4039:

The nomination links to policy but does not make it clear what the actual concern is. The only thing I can gather for sure is that there is concern about sources. I agree there are problems but I do believe they can be solved. The subject is notable and surely has been commented on by numerous

15754:

based upon the inapplicable complaints about length or distributor. Length is not a concern for film notability, as many short films have been found notable. And being distributed though YouTube is also not a deletion criteria, as some films released that way have indeed been the recipient of

7813:

encyclopedic. Now it also happens to be that as far as Orthodox Judaism is concerned the rabbi is well-known in his own right and is cited in the relevant literature that looks into these kind of communally active rabbis. Not sure why you are denigrating the excellent sources, including from

7812:

has added an adult educational outreach center, and a program for less Jewishly religious families and children, all in the course of about a decade in real life, real time, with real efforts noted by the verifiable sources. This is all new in that location and it is both significant and

8206: 24119:

There are surely more than enough resources to support the continuation of this article. With references to celebrities past and present like Rob Ford in The Telegraph and the fact that Simon Mott was specifically asked to comment on this and other news items, shows his and Hope Rehabs

7747:

I don’t think this represents a correct understanding of the situation. An institution (any institution) has an ongoing intellectual thread. A rabbi is chosen by a congregation because certain ideas that the rabbi holds are consistent with certain ideas held by most of the congregation.

23945:

I modified your vote, since you only get one vote per AFD. And there is a Guardian article, I linked it for cripes sake. And I have to ask... Mr. 88.98.29.157, are you the same person as Dylanedit? You haven't participated outside of this one area and my Spidey sense is going off.

9859:, barring any discovery of Italian sourcing. I can't really find anything to verify that this book merits an article at this point in time. I can't really find much for the author either, although I will say that I'm looking using Google Translate, which has obvious flaws. I've asked 20091:

that sets off my browser's alerts about security certificates; (8) An interview transcript (which is a primary source); (9) Something that sets off my browser's alerts about security certificates; (10) A passing mention on an interview in local radio; and (11) Something in Japanese.

19701:'s reasoning was placed on the article's talk page. "I have recreated the article due to me not having an "advocacy for this organization". This publisher has a MARC21 Org record, meaning it is nationally accepted as a publisher. These records are not simply given out willy-nilly." 5853:

now, deleting and then I suppose redirecting the Village name to the main article, makes sense. Like I said, I live here (in Lexington, work in Greensboro) and I work on tons of NC articles all the time, but they still have to pass the criteria. By the way, you might want to join

20497:

in the above comment that this is one of the more significant journals in this field. If an expert in theatre studies claims otherwise, I could be persuaded otherwise, but for now I feel the balance leans towards "keep". For comparison, we have articles on the top five journals in

5141:

28 mentions and blurbs in blogs isn't notable, and I have no personal baggage, as I think the whole cosplay thing is incredibly cool, but "award winning cosplayer" isn't automatically notable and she need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, which doesn't exist.

17789:

participants even now (and hundreds of historical ones). Wikipedians who were around in 2006 might remember the Pokémon Test? The whole thing blew up into a very long and convoluted discussion in 2006-7 which spread across an awful lot of places, but there's a good example

16691:

In the first place, they're not the "same Serbia"; if they were, they wouldn't need separate articles. In the second, the purpose of a dab page is to list things that are referred to by the same name. There are quite a number that qualify in this particular case. As for

15796:

serve editors unwilling to click the link to see the article for themselves. My own "clarification" addresses a nom statement appearing to use length and distributor as part of the deletion rationale, when they are irrelevant. Lack of coverage is the sole valid reason.

13896: 2817:

Fattman clearly is notable. It's even more egregious, considering at one time there were states where all the Democrat state senators and virtually none of the Republicans had articles. That was odd. However clearly Fattman passes notability guidelines as they exist at

5315:. Btw, it's funny when you read "Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, 3930:. Lists are subject to this to. If there are any reliable sources that cover the topic of listing "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Home Media releases" then the article should stand. Not just supporting individual elements of the list but supporting the topic itself. 5278:– Disapointing that "buzz" isn't enough to pass notability, but that is the policy. It would be good to recreate on down the line if she doesn't drop off the radar and proper sourcing can be found. But right now, as Dennis said, it just doesn't pass GNG. 3701: 18953: 14090:- This seems like a local self-published article and the author is irritated that someone else appears to have plagiarized its content. The article contains no references that suggest notability and I find nothing online that suggests any notability.-- 7711:. The article is also written in a manner that would be hard to understand without at least a working knowledge of Judaism. That isn't the proper tone for an article here to take, but that is no reason to delete it. Lack of notability certainly is. 5193:

source, honestly figuring she was notable (new page patrol, the back of the list). I don't think that being on a reality show is enough to show notability, based on how most of the Big Brother and Survivor contestants don't have their own articles.

20388: 19649:, and I think it's finally time to call for sanctions and a possible SPI to find out who is behind these disruptive attempts to create an article for this organization. This is too much drama for one non-notable article, and it needs to be salted. 16219:

I believe it is both notable and relevant in the BM & RM version of Knowledge, but probably not in the English version. A concrete terror threat, followed by armed police in the streets and nearly closed borders, is of course dramatic for most

2324:- He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. There doesn't seem to be much on his career but if someone can prove that he has played in a fully professional league, I'll change to 8200: 7411: 7808:

it sprung from. He has made this into a unique congregation with a direct connection to a kollel which he also heads (and anyone who does not know what these terms mean should not be discussing this subject), and this rabbi that you just don't

13400: 7364: 7310: 7664:

Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable.

8984:

Perhaps the nomination is not enough, but I think the time the podcast has been ahead helps. Their Facebook has 7427 likes, Youtube channel over 6700 subscribers, and was viewed 635 times this month, so there are a decent number of fans.

15690: 20784: 7882:. The article under discussion fits well within Knowledge's scope. It is an institution not unlike an arts institution or an institution of secular education. Knowledge has articles on relatively small institutions. An example might be 3790:) so I do not see any reason why this should not be allowed. It seems to me that Ryūlóng is acting like he owns Knowledge as he just went and decided on himself that the page should be redirected reverted my edits and that to me is not 24086:

no wikipedia guideline has been breached. This article provides accurate information to help addicts seeking treatment in Thailand. Knowledge should let it serve its purpose and not limit addicts from finding new options to recover.

22111: 20033:"Presumed": listed on several databases. Most importantly they have a MARC 21 ORG from the Library of Congress, meaning they are nationally accepted enough to require a shortened format for local, national and international libraries. 2749:

So, I'll bite. You felt that there were parts of the article that are promotional? What prevented you from editing those out? Anything that isn't sourced to a reliable source is liable for removal. You could have done that, and

1222: 16264:

In addition to the several million humans whom this situation is affecting, a large number of people are seeking and will be seeking information about it, and this makes the article more notable than non-notable, the way I see it.

2769:

Promotional tones can be fixed without necessarily having to resort to deletion — the problem you've identified doesn't pertain to the whole article, either, but merely one specific section within it. So by all means, flag it for

2130: 358: 15736: 11636: 3949:

you can see there is sources by The Hollywood Reporter, Tvshowsondvd.com, Amazon.com (which I agree is the main source and more could be found if the page was given a chance) and trove.nla.gov.au. that is four sources in total.

769: 706: 11510: 11447: 1157: 1094: 17440:

Really? A search of this person's film credits shows nothing but credits for minor roles. A search of this person's name turns up nothing but facebook pages and other social media mentions. I'm sorry, but did you actually do

13890: 11762: 10370: 7234:

per nom. An elaborate hoax, but appears to be a hoax nonetheless. I wondered if it might perhaps be better known under a different name, but as far as I can tell none of the tombs on Rousay are in the location described here.

6212: 3654: 1845: 1509: 16592: 11699: 1767: 23690: 13833: 16260:. Otherwise, a former operative boss of the Danish intelligence services has summarised quite precisely what makes the case special: ' The only reason I can find is the national tragedy Norway experiences three years ago.' 16007: 8143: 22236:, the journal, which can/should be covered here rather than in a separate article. And I am not sure that it is just undergraduate. With discussion of the journal itself, could this be a combo article that is valid? Try: 18850:, but notable enough to include as an article. If "significant impact in elections" was the criteria, we'd only have a 2–3 articles, and such a narrow or restrictive view would not be encyclopedic. I have categorized it in 15564: 17061: 15627: 15501: 12539:. Publicly traded firms are of obvious importance to readers, and there is automatically tons of well-reviewed information published about them (e.g. SEC filings), and plenty of coverage by financial analysts and press. 10057: 9192: 7698:

Coverage that would show the Rabbi to be notable still would not make the congregation notable, but i haven't seen anything that makes him notable either. Despite the claims made above, most of the sourcing is not of the

1386: 11573: 4615: 22327:

Some sources found include from editors of Storja itself (not independent coverage establishing notability, i understand, but probably accurate on non-controversial facts about the history of the Storja journal itself):

21205: 18811: 18504: 15102: 13606: 5482: 17681: 3060: 22306:(tho i am not sure this is a public link), the journal Storja is held at Columbia University, at the New York Public Library, in the Library of Congress, at the unversities of Cambridge and at Oxford, and elsewhere. -- 17275: 809: 806: 23005: 22687: 19596: 9779: 5776: 15727: 12443:

Granted, the sources provided in the article are all primary or otherwise not independent, but there is plenty of independent coverage available. As a publicly traded company it gets all the usual financial coverage

803: 22419:

I rather think that any student-published academic journal, at least which has survived past 1 or 2 issues, is likely notable, as it is such a big and unusual undertaking. There exist only a relative handful; the

15730: 1220: 1191: 18094: 15733: 8829: 21647: 20030:"Sources": All of the above are secondary and tertiary sources. Since this is a publisher subject, their publications, published authors, and people directly connected with it should be used as sources themselves. 14679: 13317: 13061: 6497: 23310: 11340: 7044: 20341: 19754:. This time there needs to be a civil discussion, no socks or any other nonsense. Let's move this discussion to the article's talk page, so we can correct it this time. AfD is not a place for fixing an article. 19291:

I am the article's creator. The first, third and fourth sources cited in the article discuss the topic (IMVBox) extensively. They detail IMVBox's aims as a company and mention the company's collection of films.

15724: 12709: 3816:

he would have seen that I asked for help to find sources that need them. If it needs other sources why can't he just go and post more sources other then the Amazon.com ones? There is no need to delete the page.

3695: 2487: 553: 21262:- there are a few mentions in local press and a passing caption mention in a book by a local about the town but nothing by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Certainly not enough to meet 6746: 4964:(where you can see her listed in "IMPORTANT CONTACTS" second only to Michael Hagearty, "Director, Campus Communications and Special Events"). And what can possibly get a cosplayer "to pass WP:GNG by itself"? -- 3410: 1031: 20224: 19987:

Added a "Notability discussion" to the talk page of the article. I've also asserted notability there, I requested this to be discussed there first, and it should be. AfD is not the place for article clean up.

9477: 4909: 1468:(And I'm pretty confident that if really one wanted to question notability, the individual DVDs can be shown notable via such DVD release/review sites, but that's not a requirment for a spinout like this). -- 15325: 14312: 12326: 12035: 11032: 10702: 7467: 7305: 22429: 22273: 20382: 19144: 24344: 17793:. We finished up with the compromise and uneasy status quo that we currently have about Pokémon, not because either side "won" the discussion, but because it became clear that nobody was ever going to. 13309: 13301: 3794:

and personally he should have brought this up on the talk page instead of disregarding the guidelines set up on Knowledge and just nominating this for deletion. That is just plain rude and uncalled for.

3627: 3622: 176: 171: 14830:. Youth events don't really count and I do have one question. In 2011 she is listed as Gold at the national level for both senior and junior. Which one was it. The tone is still a little breathless. 16189:

Nothing in Google books. Most of the attention is in regards to an unnamed future event that may or may not happen, and at Knowledge, we don't need to speculate about the future, we can wait for it.

8221: 7841:

this article definitely meets all the basic WP requirements and it therefore is difficult to see why you are applying the most microscopic and obtuse "rules" that just looks like a desperate effort at

7405: 3631: 20169:, same reasons as last AFD, as well as per nom and NinjaRobotPirate. I do not plan to reply again to this AFD, it's already going down the same path of advocacy that the last AFD and the DRV went. -- 20024: 13353: 8188: 13394: 12450: 3614: 3892:

Do you think this topic should not have an article or are you just concerned with the lack of reliable sources? Given how young this article is perhaps it can be given some time for improvement?

20199: 3863: 1919:

Just because they are documented doesn't mean that it's a valid topic for Knowledge. All we have is proof that these exist. I see no reviews for the DVDs as a product. Just release information.—

15684: 7371: 4093:

The list has to be notable, not each DVD on the list. Given this is a very popular show, and the release on DVD was covered by independent sources, I would say a list is notable in the vein of

1959:

The list has to be notable, not each DVD on the list. Given this is a very popular show, and the release on DVD was covered by independent sources, I would say a list is notable in the vein of

1596:

The list has to be notable, not each DVD on the list. Given this is a very popular show, and the release on DVD was covered by independent sources, I would say a list is notable in the vein of

20778: 16151:

in Norway, with extencive boarder control, and what appears to be a huge mobilization and arming of the police forces. I have though no strong feelings either way when it comes to notability.

275: 22105: 20737: 7670: 19719:

This whole mess is extremely reminiscent of Toby Turner's article from a few years back. I don't want to have anything to do with this debate, or this article. So I'm withdrawing my vote.

8182: 7853:" would not stand a chance in hell of being on WP because they are less than "red herrings" since they don't even exist in reality and have done nothing anywhere at any time ever. Thanks, 1485:

Well are there reviews for the individual releases? Because all I see on the articles like these are just listings of releases and being proven that they exist. Not that they are of note.—

20314: 20309: 18457: 18403: 3246: 3233: 16780:, and I see a significant difference between Slovakia and Slovak Republic, unless there is some explicit mention in a Republic article that the state was referred to simply as Slovakia. 3661: 2124: 352: 22064: 20318: 19931: 19893: 19845: 19549: 19495: 11630: 7737:

to being part of the congregation. But he is a part of the congregation. The rabbi makes use of the synagogue setting just as any other congregant. For instance there is the need for a

7619:

as many of the footnotes and citations in the sources located at the bottom of the article prove this, he has been cited in scholarly publications for his rabbinical work e.g. see this

3860: 919:

I understand. A fine point of policy, which means my afd assertion is no longer a tautology (logic), meaning it's no longer valid, except for a very tiny policy, which may make it pass

763: 700: 11504: 11441: 1151: 1088: 23836: 13911: 11756: 10364: 8178: 7337: 7332: 6206: 19967:, and will get nothing done, just like the last AfD and the DRV too. This article needs work, and AfD is not the place for article repair. Hopefully my "Speedy Keep" plea is heeded. 16586: 11693: 1761: 23684: 23607: 20301: 16307: 13878: 13827: 7341: 267: 259: 24520:

All I am seeing is "Overview" articles which just have stats and price. None of the sources have decided it is worth writing a paragraph or two. It wouldn't bother me to redirect

22434:

Category:Student-published academic journals (though I will create the latter, i would be happy for it to be renamed if there is a better name and this could be discussed in a CFD)

16001: 8137: 6574:. Seven-year-old article which apparently never had a decent version. Couldn't find sources with anything other than mentions or essential data only. Btw, the creator of the page ( 4377: 1852:

to exist and is not a valid reason to delete an article just to make his point as to why List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases should not exist and get his way.

1516:

to exist and is not a valid reason to delete an article just to make his point as to why List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases should not exist and get his way.

15558: 3601: 20348: 17055: 15621: 15495: 10051: 9186: 8228: 1380: 20872: 18872: 18217: 17309: 11567: 10091: 8624: 7703:

type (most are content from websites and non-reviewed academic papers). Of the potentially reliable sources, all but two are affiliated with the denomination and hence are not

7324: 6842: 6129: 6062: 5516: 4609: 3486: 311: 21199: 20005: 19773:"passing mention", when its a front page article), a Wikimedia Commons category, and a Japanese Knowledge article. I can go on and on (the last two are purposely lame/absurd). 18944: 18805: 18498: 15096: 13600: 8610: 8596: 7934: 7720: 7568: 5476: 4701: 2796:

nuke and pave every single article that happens to have had a couple of value adjectives added to it, if it would take all of five seconds to just remove the value adjectives.

2047: 23263: 23209: 21681: 17675: 13326: 13321: 9974: 9109: 6025: 5556: 3114: 3054: 965:

of the statement's first two words about policy would be reasonable and not effect discussion. Such are the risks when nominating brand new articles on improvable topics (See

18965: 17770:. You should start with those before deleting the master list. The list in question is a true list rather than just being bundles of cruft and so has value as an index per 17269: 10882: 981: 70: 22999: 22681: 19590: 14529: 13330: 12840: 9773: 5987: 5927: 5912: 5770: 5287: 3946: 3813: 3618: 1898:

home media releases of televised shows are typically documented but considering the size of this and the main article, splitting this off to a separate list is reasonable. (

23091: 23071: 16286:

Norwegian intelligence agencies have received credible information concerning a terrorism attack in Norway in the following few days. Considering, amongst many things, the

13360: 11821: 9555: 6894: 6008: 23599: 23591: 23143: 21122: 19420:

I am the article's creator. I have just added an article published on BBC Persian that describes the work of IMVBox. BBC Persian surely must qualify as a credible source.

18421: 17329: 15019: 13658: 8343: 7201: 7176: 6862: 5399: 5332: 5197:

do because they get exposure afterwords for similar or different acts, but most don't. But I can that others would disagree, so I just have to wait for consensus on it.

4992: 2666: 24025: 23983: 23122: 23051: 22741:

Note: SpaldingTac may be the original author, but if so, it wasn't done with that account. There have been other SPA names involved as well. This is why I declined a G7.

22519: 18088: 16181: 13872: 13215: 8823: 6833: 5873: 5608: 5258: 5232: 5213: 5187: 5158: 5134: 3826: 1236: 642: 21641: 19658: 18863: 18337: 16693: 16666: 14673: 13523: 13313: 13055: 8885: 8556: 7547: 7527: 6491: 5895:

with separate concept of importance. As to Meadowmont as a whole, that article also lacks any reliable sources independent of the subject, and should also be deleted. --

5082: 5013: 3224: 2977: 2827: 2600: 1720: 23962: 23898: 23540: 23304: 20589: 18994: 18924: 18610: 16837: 16789: 16767: 16705: 16678: 16656: 16198: 13455: 11334: 8194: 7912: 7895: 7783: 7757: 7226: 7038: 4387:

of Power Rangers and just not the Mighty Morphin seasons, then I could see a utility for this list. As it stands it's pointless. Most of this can be covered elsewhere.—

4031: 1951: 1588: 24135: 24131: 23643: 20744: 19281: 18290: 17192: 14162: 14078: 14029: 14006: 13786: 12743: 12703: 12089: 10757: 8679: 8532: 7960:. The other sources (those that I have sampled: a few, maybe most) seem to be either passing mentions or directory listings, or else are not sufficiently independent. 7795:

a rabbi of a synagogue is a "herring"? Nice joke! a rabbi and a synagogue/congregation/yeshiva/Hasidic dynasty go together like a "horse and carriage". It starts with

7507: 6551: 6347: 6246: 6121: 6113: 5824: 3716: 3184: 2481: 547: 23354: 22497: 21895: 18904: 18884: 18464: 17920: 17783: 16911: 14477: 14459: 14427: 14141: 12876: 11885: 11406: 10781: 10323: 9523: 9310: 8492: 8360: 6874: 6802: 6740: 4973: 3404: 2628: 2039: 2031: 1833: 1025: 910: 24075: 24048: 23937: 23914:

media source, plus a mention 18th May 2014 West Australian News. The founder Simon Mott is the brother of the famous punk artist Toby Mott who produced artwork for

23476: 22922: 22604: 22071: 20710: 20705: 19935: 19897: 19556: 19513: 18977: 15960: 13868: 11157: 10474: 10456: 9966: 9958: 9594: 9471: 9101: 9093: 8096: 7993: 7976: 7589: 7486: 5844: 5693: 5625: 5218:

Have you seen the show? This is not a contestant type, the show actually follows their life and production of the costumes and the different venues they compete in.

5114: 5046: 4903: 4532: 3683: 3166: 2695: 24465: 22456: 22322: 21802: 21278: 17821: 17365: 16866: 15319: 14927: 14901: 14839: 14813: 14407: 14384: 14306: 13683: 12320: 12141: 12101: 12029: 11386: 10801: 9042: 7862: 7690: 7088: 6854: 5588: 5568: 5548: 4759: 4722: 4051:

I clearly state my concern to be poor sourcing relying on the existence of the ability to buy the home media and a lack of notability for any list of DVD releases.—

3981: 3968:

is a general announcement about the (then) future releases. Something like that belongs on the article about the TV show rather than supporting a separate article.—

3959: 3879: 3853: 3804: 3241: 3146: 3126: 2910: 2893: 2764: 2726: 2678:. Moreover, the footnoted independent, reliable sources already included in the article seem more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per 2649: 1861: 1813: 1525: 665: 24540: 24160: 24071: 24044: 23933: 21877: 21346: 21251: 20714: 20288: 20140: 20114: 18644: 16160: 13147: 13127: 12490: 11026: 10865: 10696: 7573:

Sorry, I didn't notice that you redirect had been reverted; the nearly identical nomination rationale confused me. I've struck my "speedy close" vote accordingly.

7156: 6165: 5094: 5071: 4681: 4661: 3610: 3602: 2535: 1849: 1513: 24011: 21961: 21733: 21713: 21389: 21319: 20989: 20565: 19997: 19976: 19909: 19883: 19782: 19763: 19728: 19710: 19685: 19429: 19410: 19324: 19301: 18590: 18570: 17394: 16355: 16319: 16115: 16095: 15809: 15787: 15771: 14361: 12081: 10517: 10436: 7244: 6596: 6326: 5528: 3106: 2287: 2083: 1456: 828: 24512: 24491: 24192: 22267: 22229: 22037: 22032: 21940: 21840: 21114: 21106: 20632: 20482: 20403: 20161: 19951: 19389: 19250: 19230: 19210: 19138: 18851: 18413: 18388: 17861: 17500: 16545: 15856: 15175: 15011: 15003: 14769: 14504: 13962: 13189: 13175: 13107: 11852: 11137: 10833: 10767: 10010: 9874: 9258: 9238: 9145: 7821:

in Israel. From where else should a successful rabbi be recognized, from China or from the Catholic Church? In any case, WP does not require that articles about

7136: 5391: 5383: 4441: 3903:

I do not think that this topic should have an article because of the lack of reliable sources and the overabundance of simply showing that the DVDs et al exist.—

2872: 2805: 2744: 2579: 2555: 2264: 2090: 1571: 1339: 318: 24569: 24410: 23449: 23371: 23270: 22197: 22177: 21766: 21693: 21299: 20971: 20864: 20843: 20519: 19348: 18661: 18550: 17890:: No way is this a legitimate nomination, someone is screwing with us, I have no doubt. And that's the last thing I will say about Pokemon for years, I hope.-- 17754: 17123: 17109: 16893: 16075: 16054: 13918: 12755: 10416: 10185: 10143: 10123: 9627: 9327: 8513: 8464: 8444: 7115: 4014: 2316: 1890: 1554: 1434: 890:

verifiable, and may (or may not) be considered worth an article if filming is confirmed. My point was to clarify that it is incorrect of you to declare that a

24586: 24440: 24338: 24156: 23777: 23523: 23498: 23489:: It meets WP:GNG and is therefore notable. I'm a bit intrigued at why the nominator chose to nominate this. The prior nomination in 2011 was also screwy.-- 22041: 21030: 20944: 20924: 20904: 20697: 20462: 20370: 20239: 20178: 19857: 19190: 18249: 18182: 18011: 17899: 16440: 16246: 16143: 14747: 14049: 13942: 13515: 13507: 12852: 12174: 11117: 8746: 8662: 7294: 6563: 6260: 4423: 3782:

and this seems to me to be no good faith or anything. As there are other pages in existence that list home media releases and uses Amazon.com as a source (Eg.

3478: 2969: 2961: 2722: 2236: 2216: 24390: 24107: 23417: 23396: 22750: 22396: 22371: 22217: 22157: 21783: 19645:, and the closing admin said that it should not be moved to article space without some kind of review from an experienced editor. This is becoming seriously 18307: 18273: 17725: 17435: 17341: 14952: 14099: 13248: 10330: 10103: 9290: 8424: 4464: 4085: 4076:- per nom. Why is it so hard to understand notability? Amazon retail links do not demonstrate notability, we need "significant coverage" in reliable sources. 4064: 4046: 3936: 3916: 3898: 3767: 3747: 3526: 23757: 22853: 22811: 22791: 21701: 21564: 21307: 21158: 21055: 20892: 20884: 20305: 19198: 18764: 18398: 18229: 18208: 17882: 17531: 17454: 17184: 17176: 16635: 15436: 15055: 14114: 13095: 12804: 12372: 10789: 10550: 10424: 9845: 9825: 9246: 9226: 9021: 8994: 7426: 6543: 6414: 6305: 6284: 5810: 5576: 5435: 3498: 2196: 2176: 1727: 404: 65: 60: 55: 51: 23880: 23736: 23650: 22410:. Based on what I found, it seems to me that a combo article about the student society (which is both undergraduate and graduate) and the academic journal 18140: 17321: 17014: 16376: 16274: 16126:

I agree with Lugnuts. Unless there is other evidence to prove that something actually happened that prompted this warning or after then I would say delete.

15411: 15391: 14725: 13793: 12783: 12432: 12412: 11188: 8939: 8899: 8877: 7731:"Coverage that would show the Rabbi to be notable still would not make the congregation notable, but i haven't seen anything that makes him notable either." 4400: 4341: 4315: 4294: 4275: 4255: 4231: 4213: 4195: 4181: 4163: 4129: 4110: 3551: 3456: 1980: 1932: 1914: 1617: 1498: 1480: 24184: 23765: 22914: 22906: 22771: 22732: 22596: 22588: 22185: 22024: 21460: 20852: 20217: 19841: 19505: 19480: 19344: 18892: 18155: 17944: 17790: 15967: 14346: 13559: 12466: 12380: 12360: 11257: 10218: 10131: 8103: 7515: 7393: 6961: 5963: 5685: 5677: 4524: 4516: 3013: 2543: 19833: 15371: 15146: 12909: 12559: 12392: 9905: 6172: 3677: 21287: 18237: 18128: 17475: 17228: 17021: 16552: 16409: 15759:. The only valid issue in the nominator's statement is the lack of coverage. Allow undeletion or recreation after release and only if it gains coverage. 15461: 14733: 14713: 13415: 10017: 9152: 7328: 5832: 3464: 3444: 3254: 2337: 2224: 1346: 284: 279: 4692:—I'm seeing several passing mentions in the dependency injection literature, but nothing of sufficient heft that would allow an article to be written. 22958: 22640: 21165: 19490: 18771: 15062: 13566: 13382: 13300: 12523: 8972: 8404: 5729: 5442: 4568: 2521: 2164: 288: 47: 17641: 17634: 13884: 3636: 3020: 24398: 23362:

It seems to have gotten the amount of in-depth secondary coverage by reliable sources that it deserves, and I guess that establishes its notability.

20470: 19421: 19316: 19293: 18538: 18003: 17995: 17235: 15705: 13950: 13115: 9833: 9394: 8738: 8730: 3735: 3673: 2718: 1801: 1442: 392: 23837:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/my-parents-had-no-idea-of-the-damage-their-hippie-values-did-to-me-2368443.html

22965: 22647: 20799: 20364: 5736: 4575: 4200:

Those are not about Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (the first 3 seasons). They're about the entirety of all 20+ years of the Power Rangers franchise.—

21556: 21442: 20297: 20289: 16103: 15672: 15242: 14392: 14229: 11952: 10743: 6406: 6398: 5536: 4649: 271: 94: 89: 22126: 20766: 20069: 24378: 24180: 23814: 23745: 23405: 23079: 23059: 22799: 21239: 20912: 19340: 19238: 18912: 18054: 18047: 15399: 14369: 13135: 12420: 12400: 11249: 11241: 11125: 10949: 10619: 9511: 8863: 8789: 8782: 8452: 8392: 7495: 7124: 6953: 6945: 4669: 3648: 2204: 1693: 1688: 22093: 21607: 14639: 13021: 9739: 7387: 6457: 4152: 3723: 23616: 23611: 22779: 22759: 22205: 22165: 21600: 21046:. Insufficient sourcing to warrant inclusion. A reasonable search finds little distinguishing this subject from the redirect target mentioned. 20360: 20205: 20193: 19742:

I requested a discussion on the talk page of the article, that was obviously overlooked, and I was not the one that removed the Speedy Delete,

14632: 13759: 13754: 13014: 12792: 11300: 9732: 7535: 7320: 7295: 7144: 7004: 6450: 3835:

is not a valid argument here. And for someone who says that I'm not assuming good faith you do a lot of the same by saying I have some sort of

3134: 1697: 20323: 12669: 10296: 10291: 2447: 2145: 513: 373: 23620: 23204: 22437: 22145: 20932: 20684: 20527:

I find it dificult to assume good faith if an article contains claims that are demonstrably incorrect... This journal cannot be found in the

20424: 19960: 19866: 19849: 18578: 16746:" (whichever period is referred to) is too subtle. My reading of the policy and the practice, that historical articles about a polity should 16626: 16083: 16063: 15933: 15928: 13930: 13763: 11651: 11293: 11105: 10404: 9319: 8432: 8069: 8064: 6997: 6706: 6531: 6293: 5102: 3370: 2184: 784: 721: 18652:. The suicide was videotaped. Otherwise, this is a textbook biography of one event. Only enduring interest is on gore sites and snopes.com. 13376: 11525: 11462: 10300: 9437: 7346: 4869: 4428:

What the hell is that? If every entry in the list isn't notable then that means the list as a whole is notable? That's just utter bullshit.—

2112: 1172: 1109: 340: 24095: 23039: 21721: 18558: 18152: 16298:

and the 1982 Oslo S bombing, as well as the extent of media coverage and police force mobilization, I would argue that this article should

15937: 15359: 15285: 14755: 14444: 14272: 14015: 12662: 12286: 12069: 11995: 11777: 11618: 11374: 10385: 9813: 9386: 9378: 9303: 8412: 8073: 7383: 6227: 6138: 6133: 3755: 2440: 1821: 1680: 1420: 816: 751: 688: 506: 20410: 20015:"Reliable": Interview is reliable, as BLP, directly involved with Heaven Sent Gaming, Rio Rancho Observer, Albuquerque Tribune, the book ( 17801: 16607: 11714: 11492: 11429: 10992: 10662: 2056: 2051: 1782: 1139: 1076: 24261: 23705: 23603: 22011: 20450: 20335: 19218: 19178: 16518: 16513: 15379: 15234: 15226: 14221: 14213: 13848: 13746: 11944: 11936: 11744: 11394: 10352: 10111: 9983: 9978: 9118: 9113: 7942:: or perhaps "weak delete", because I am relying on common sense to ignore the coverage of the court case, not on policy-based arguments 7825:

subject be plu-perfect amazing finished products on the level of a groundbreaking study and cutting edge research. As long as sufficient

6699: 6194: 6142: 3965: 3363: 3094: 1312: 1307: 651: 24632: 19104: 16574: 16022: 15666: 13335: 11681: 10283: 8158: 2060: 1749: 23672: 20760: 20701: 20187: 16522: 15920: 15579: 13815: 13372: 11094: 10941: 10933: 10611: 10603: 9987: 9430: 9122: 8056: 7921:

arguments here based in policy, not what you wish the policy would be. A house of worship, just like an art museum, still has to pass

7358: 4862: 3644: 3513:

and he has had only 2 professional boxing matches so far. The Golden Gloves and being an Olympic alternate are not sufficient to meet

3215:. Google scholar does find some of his works under the name "Poshtdar" but not with enough citations to be worth much for notability. — 1316: 24304: 17076: 15989: 15642: 15516: 10072: 9207: 8615:

Defintely not a sockpuppet ;) I don't mind checkusers checking me though. If the community trusts them with that info I'm ok with it.

8125: 7433: 4460:, however this would no doubt make that article too long and lead to the recreation of this article as a breakout article once more. 3689: 1401: 166: 22087: 21131: 21126: 18737: 18732: 18430: 18425: 15546: 15278: 15028: 15023: 14265: 12279: 11988: 11588: 6125: 5408: 5403: 4630: 3779: 614:. However, if it can be confirmed that filming has begun, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) would be met and this brand new article merited. That 21220: 18826: 18519: 17043: 16987: 16982: 15609: 15483: 15117: 13621: 10039: 9174: 5497: 2735:

Struck delete vote by nominator. Your nomination is your vote. Neutrality issues can be dealt with in the course of normal editing.

2043: 1368: 22425: 22028: 21135: 20719: 19837: 18741: 18434: 17696: 16505: 15662: 15032: 13532: 13527: 13347: 11864:

per MichaelQSchmidt - No evidence of notability, I too wouldn't object to recreation or un-deletion once it becomes more notable. –

11555: 10985: 10655: 9970: 9105: 5412: 4597: 3640: 3075: 2986: 2981: 1299: 213: 21187: 20756: 18793: 18486: 17290: 16991: 15084: 14876:

was really worse, but now it can be expended with the support of reliable references. For any other query please follow the cite.

13588: 13422: 5464: 23020: 22702: 22046: 20331: 19611: 17663: 17201: 17196: 15780:

To help clarify: The first sentence describes the article and the subject. The second sentence give the rationale for deletion.-

13536: 9794: 5791: 3250: 3237: 3042: 2990: 2106: 334: 258: 24643: 23858: 22083: 20376: 17257: 11612: 745: 682: 24535: 24253: 24245: 23957: 23893: 22987: 22931: 22926: 22669: 22613: 22608: 21118: 19578: 19522: 19517: 19097: 18724: 18417: 17873:

entirely separate from notability or cruft; it's a handy index for all of the Pokémon covered in their own pages and in lists.

17205: 15015: 14788:

She is notable Indian boxer, please have a look; I just tried to restructure the content and added some reliable references.

11486: 11423: 9761: 5868: 5758: 5702: 5697: 5395: 5253: 5208: 5153: 4541: 4536: 1133: 1070: 156: 20731: 18109: 17607: 17602: 16974: 15712: 13978:) as one of the earliest web novels in China and has been adapted as a film. It is also reviewed in multiple research papers ( 11738: 10346: 8844: 6188: 23792: 22935: 22617: 21662: 20806: 20693: 20685: 19526: 18957: 17912: 16568: 14694: 14154: 14070: 14021: 13998: 13519: 13076: 12447: 11675: 8671: 8588: 8524: 8484: 7677:

Therefore the nominator is respectfully requested to withdraw his nomination as the article now meets all WP requirements of

7354: 6512: 5982: 5907: 5706: 4545: 4146: 2973: 2065: 1743: 293: 218: 23666: 23325: 22058: 18076: 17611: 13809: 11355: 8811: 7399: 7059: 2102: 598:"failed", as that policy specifically allows that a future event may be written of if properly sourced... and just a little 330: 24297: 24127: 23922:

Clearly states his brother Simon Mott is a therapist in the evening standard article - whom is the founder of hope rehab.

22133: 21629: 20327: 17188: 15983: 15852: 14897: 14809: 14661: 14108:

There is a paucity of references in English because it is a Chinese phenomena, which doesn't make it any the less notable.

13043: 12724: 11608: 8119: 7744: 6819: 6479: 5854: 2502: 741: 678: 568: 224: 23292: 15540: 11482: 11419: 11322: 10305: 8642:. The references cited and those quoted above are passing mentions/press release reprints and do not provide the required 8311: 7026: 6761: 3425: 1129: 1066: 1046: 22918: 22600: 22020: 22012: 19509: 18020: 18015: 17907:

Clearly Pokémon is discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources. Either this index list or other detailed lists meet

17037: 16647:. I've deleted the inappropriate entries, but that still leaves plenty of states that could reasonably be called Serbia. 16261: 15603: 15477: 13343: 12691: 11734: 10342: 10033: 9492: 9168: 8755: 8750: 7350: 6184: 5689: 4924: 4528: 4149: 2469: 1702: 1667: 1362: 535: 21: 23625: 19795: 17594: 16564: 16367:

It's not just news. This event is going to play a rather big part in Norwegian history. Books will be written about it.

15340: 14327: 13768: 13388: 12341: 12050: 11671: 11549: 6728: 4591: 4264: 3392: 2077: 1739: 1013: 305: 24067: 24040: 23929: 23662: 23590: 21815: 21573: 21568: 21181: 20536: 18787: 18480: 18024: 17097: 16329: 15942: 15078: 14605: 14600: 13805: 13733: 13582: 12987: 12982: 11047: 10717: 9705: 9700: 9459: 8759: 8078: 7644: 6423: 6418: 5458: 4891: 3197: 2624: 2152: 1900:

Completely separate issue - the nonfree cover images are a problem here, per NFLISTS. One cover may be okay, but not 4

380: 141: 136: 17657: 15979: 15307: 14294: 12308: 12017: 11658: 8115: 6147: 4457: 3036: 2884:, nomination does not advance a valid reason for deletion, lots of keep !votes – why hasn't this been closed already? 923:. I would like to leave it in, as it stands, and let the WP community decide. But, if you genuinely believe it passes 791: 728: 602:

finds this film topic spoken of in numerous independent sources. All that needs be done is this stub be expanded per

23428:- If deletionists had there way there would be no content on this website at all!, Passes GNG with flying colours!. – 23345:

How so? Its gotten years worth of coverage from reputable media sources in both the United States and Great Britain.

23236: 23231: 22288: 21577: 21469: 20211: 20036:

Sources like the interview with Mario, the book by Shigimori Shizuka, the radio broadcast, and Yomiuri Shimbun, meet

19746:

did. I went off to lunch and all of this happened. There are multiple secondary references on this subject, it meets

19159: 17251: 16996: 16527: 15907: 15536: 15168: 14915: 14609: 13339: 12991: 11532: 11469: 11266: 11261: 11014: 10684: 10317: 9992: 9709: 9127: 8043: 6970: 6965: 6427: 2780:, but the reason you've identified doesn't make the entire article a candidate for outright deletion. To qualify for 1321: 1179: 1116: 146: 23974:– per Dennis Brown. More information on the center itself covered by reliable sources would be needed to save this. 22981: 22663: 20727: 19572: 17833:

They can NOT delete this. Pokemon on Knowledge just has too much history. Also, @Andrew Davidson does have a point.

17033: 15678: 15599: 15473: 11784: 10392: 10029: 9755: 9164: 6234: 5752: 2847:, and any content problems can be flagged for repair through the normal editing process — the article as a whole is 1714: 1358: 24359: 24152: 23637: 23240: 22255: 21857: 21819: 21488: 21140: 20772: 20136: 19900:, this Heaven Sent Gaming has been botch after botch. There needs to be more time taken with it, even I'm rushing. 19126: 18746: 18635: 18439: 18163:: good catch, nothing on Google, and no refs about him. If he is real, he's not notable, so delete anyway. Thanks, 18007: 17857: 17817: 16614: 15037: 13780: 13541: 12635: 12630: 11721: 11545: 11270: 9017: 8742: 7196: 6974: 6112: 5417: 4587: 4304: 4261: 3258: 3201: 2413: 2408: 1789: 1684: 479: 474: 114: 34: 23712: 22054: 21458:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

21177: 18783: 18476: 17767: 17616: 16801: 16799: 15954: 15074: 13855: 13578: 12457:

as well. The article needs some of these references added, but they are sufficient to show the company notable. --

11809:

and has not received the requisite coverage. If (or when) it does, an undeletion or recreation can be considered.

8090: 5945:

is a website which exists to promote the area; is fundamentally advertising, and as such it is is not independent.

5857:

if you are interested in NC articles in general. We don't have a lot of active members and can always use more.

5454: 3175:

Mr. Pshtdar, associate professor Payam Noor University of Tehran and is the owner of dozens of articles and books.

2995: 24326: 24007: 22099: 21853: 21560: 18177: 18070: 17749: 17653: 17210: 16492: 16029: 14592: 13750: 12974: 12639: 12133: 10270: 9957: 9692: 9586: 9092: 8931: 8805: 8289: 8278: 8165: 6672: 6667: 6410: 6159: 5320: 4983:

Closest claim to notability is appearing in a reality show, but not all reality show appearances give notability.

3336: 3331: 3032: 2608:. State legislator satisfies POLITICIAN #1, and I don't see anything scurrilous in there that would trigger BLP. 2417: 1968: 1286: 894:

which allows sourcable content to be written of somewhere was somehow "failed" simply because a separate article

483: 193: 131: 42: 17: 22940: 22622: 21623: 20723: 20438:

sources for research. It has the same information as Theatre Journal, which has been on Knowledge for some time.

19531: 18985:

per S. Rich. Notable minor party that fielded ballot-qualified candidates in national and statewide elections.--

17247: 17008: 16539: 15586: 14655: 14043:

based on the sources cited above plus the other seven in the Chinese Knowledge article. Needs expansion though.

13037: 10287: 10004: 9139: 6473: 5711: 4550: 2859:

line of response. (And, for that matter, I absolutely share Ravenswing's suspicions about brand new users whose

2709:, his atricle is written from a much more neutral stance. BPL are required to be written form a neutral stance 1333: 24188: 23286: 23223: 23139: 22977: 22659: 20086:

youtube video; (2) Stats about someone's youtube account; (3) A podcast hosted on soundcloud; (4) A profile on

19568: 17083: 15924: 15649: 15523: 14525: 14500: 11316: 11253: 10079: 9751: 9403: 9398: 9214: 8060: 7660:

because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship.

7185:

is, let's say, some similarity of interests amongst the editors. I may look into this further if time permits.

7020: 6957: 6676: 5748: 4835: 4830: 4718: 4697: 3340: 1408: 23815:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10813366/I-almost-ended-up-like-Peaches-but-there-is-a-way-out.htm

22050: 21152: 18758: 18451: 15049: 13553: 13506: 12685: 11595: 8267: 8256: 5958:

In summary, the sources so far show a complete absence of anything which might go even part way to satisfying

5429: 4637: 2463: 2303:. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy 2073: 529: 301: 22451: 22391: 22366: 22317: 21227: 21105: 19803: 18833: 18711: 18526: 18387: 18321: 18201: 18029: 17628: 16817: 16755: 15251: 15246: 15124: 15002: 14238: 14233: 13628: 12622: 12554: 12252: 12247: 11961: 11956: 9407: 8764: 7903:

The article, as expanded, provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability.

7669:

It is also unfortunate and insensitive that this AfD pops up when there is still the ongoing issue regarding

6722: 6046: 5504: 5382: 5312: 4839: 3386: 3007: 2788:

horribly written from top to bottom that killing it off and restarting the whole thing from scratch would be

2713:. I considered submitting the article for speedy deletion because I felt it fits the criteria for promotion 2400: 2118: 1208: 1204: 1007: 945: 466: 346: 21582: 18066: 17703: 17222: 16804: 14614: 12996: 11624: 9714: 9453: 8801: 6432: 6016:– Same reasons as Dennis and BrownHairedGirl. There are no independent reliable sources for it to pass GNG. 4885: 3082: 757: 694: 203: 23245: 22952: 22634: 21619: 20502:(indeed, we have many more than that!). In other areas, we are similarly comprehensive - see, for example, 19543: 17297: 16723: 16509: 16400: 16134: 15301: 15255: 14651: 14288: 14242: 13033: 12302: 12256: 12011: 11965: 11498: 11435: 11275: 10958: 10953: 10856: 10628: 10623: 10313: 7106: 6979: 6659: 6469: 6155: 5723: 4562: 3323: 2960: 1303: 1145: 1082: 151: 23282: 23027: 22709: 19618: 16535: 12644: 11750: 11312: 11008: 10678: 10358: 9801: 9000:

What this content needs is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources and I haven't been able to find any.

7967: 7580: 7477: 7456: 7016: 6200: 5798: 3928:

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Knowledge should not have an article about it.

2639:

suspicion, as ever, about a nomination by a SPA for whom filing this AfD is his sole Knowledge activity.)

2422: 2069: 1710: 488: 297: 208: 24103: 23979: 23633: 23536: 18940: 18298:

Appears to be a hoax. Links are to other fighters and the article's fight record appears to be made up.

18286: 17175: 16580: 16177: 13776: 12681: 11687: 10962: 10878: 10632: 9390: 9038: 8606: 8552: 8547:

disagree that Hell in a Bucket is a sockpuppet (if that was who the IP was refering to; I may be wrong).

8243:

going public or may be target for investment are listed in there. Below are a few of the links mentioned:

7172: 6681: 6343: 6021: 5283: 5058:

What would bring an "evidence of any notability," in a case of a cosplayer, for your liking? Articles in

4822: 4027: 3783: 3345: 2662: 2459: 1947: 1755: 1676: 1668: 1584: 525: 198: 107: 23724: 23678: 22331: 22249: 21952:

Fails Notability (academics) test, the person may be published but it was not significant in his field.

19120: 18041: 15950: 13821: 13670:

without even a vague stab at sourcing. (Has there ever been a decent article that began its life with a

9412: 8776: 8086: 6718: 4952:, which is currently pretty crappy basically listing only links some articles and not even this one) or 4844: 3382: 1003: 22905: 22587: 21594: 20499: 19799: 19654: 19479: 19070: 19065: 18728: 18151:

per nom. None of the refs talk about the subject. Could not find him (or a similar name) on boxrec.--–

18116: 16961: 16343: 16334: 15995: 15260: 15238: 14626: 14247: 14225: 13742: 13734: 13008: 12261: 12239: 11970: 11948: 10309: 9726: 9551: 9449: 8851: 8620: 8376: 8131: 7930: 7779: 7716: 7564: 6444: 5676: 5173: 4881: 4515: 3832: 24320: 23257: 21669: 17004: 16978: 15552: 15297: 14701: 14284: 13083: 12298: 12007: 11287: 11148:

Article remains merely an advert, with no sourcing and, as the OP says, is lacking only a price list.

10967: 10637: 10279: 10271: 10000: 9135: 6991: 6519: 5881:. The only sources on offer appear to the links on the article, and they come nowhere near satisfying 4383:

out into this list of just three seasons of a 20+ season franchise. If this list is expanded to cover

2247:- He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails 1706: 1329: 24605: 24236: 24213: 23629: 23582: 23559: 23350: 23332: 23185: 23162: 22897: 22874: 22579: 22556: 22003: 21980: 21433: 21410: 21097: 21074: 20676: 20653: 20280: 20257: 19471: 19448: 19278: 19074: 19036: 19013: 18961: 18703: 18680: 18606: 18379: 18356: 17986: 17963: 17916: 17779: 17573: 17550: 17361: 17356:

she was in, the Knowledge article has a list of 10 starring actors. She does not appear on that list.

17167: 17144: 17049: 16953: 16930: 16731: 16484: 16461: 16389: 16194: 15916: 15908: 15899: 15876: 15806: 15768: 15615: 15489: 15217: 15194: 14994: 14971: 14571: 14548: 14521: 14204: 14181: 14158: 14074: 14025: 14002: 13772: 13725: 13702: 13671: 13498: 13475: 13292: 13269: 12953: 12930: 12656: 12601: 12578: 12218: 12195: 11927: 11904: 11818: 11362: 11232: 11209: 11004: 10945: 10924: 10901: 10674: 10615: 10594: 10571: 10262: 10239: 10045: 9949: 9926: 9671: 9648: 9369: 9346: 9180: 9084: 9061: 8721: 8698: 8675: 8592: 8528: 8488: 8052: 8044: 8035: 8012: 7846: 7286: 7263: 7066: 6936: 6913: 6890: 6638: 6615: 6389: 6366: 6104: 6081: 5978: 5903: 5668: 5645: 5604: 5374: 5351: 4988: 4801: 4778: 4693: 4558: 4507: 4484: 4040:

sources. If this is still not sourced better in a few months I may go the other way at the next AfD.

3593: 3570: 3302: 3279: 2952: 2929: 2823: 2596: 2434: 2379: 2356: 2022: 1999: 1659: 1636: 1374: 1278: 1255: 1233: 978: 907: 850: 639: 500: 445: 422: 250: 24633:

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/toby-mott--from-the-punk-of-pimlico-to-power-player-6512037.html

21148: 19079: 18754: 18447: 18194:. If you look at the boxing records for his opponents, they exist but have never fought this guy. -- 15946: 15045: 14491:: no significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. — 13549: 12825:

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels

12731: 11561: 8082: 6693: 5425: 4603: 3357: 2901:. Clearly, as a member of a state legislature. Nominator seems to have mistaken AfD for cleanup. -- 2570:. The references in the article support that. Can the nominator elaborate on how this breaches BLP? 2509: 575: 24270: 24265: 24060:

Mott) is regularly mentioned in news articles for his work helping people break free of addiction

22341: 22336: 22245: 21193: 20831:

article and the heritage of the centers is included in the Bowlmor AMF and Bowlmor Lanes articles.

20507: 20503: 19116: 18799: 18492: 17624: 15848: 15090: 14923: 14893: 14805: 14134: 13594: 9424: 7219: 6768: 6151: 6004: 5923: 5470: 5228: 5183: 5176: 5130: 4856: 3432: 3220: 3003: 2030: 1053: 24279: 22377: 20009: 17669: 17218: 17000: 16531: 15272: 14259: 12273: 11982: 11806: 9996: 9499: 9131: 8652:). I'm also not seeing the type of in-depth coverage on Chinese sites, which I would expect for a 4931: 3048: 1325: 24461: 24316: 24274: 22948: 22630: 22515: 19816: 19539: 19057: 17994: 17581: 17263: 16751: 16715: 16662: 16501: 16493: 15347: 14473: 14423: 14334: 12348: 12057: 11153: 10979: 10649: 9722: 8729: 7814: 6829: 5948: 5719: 3955: 3822: 3800: 3787: 1857: 1829: 1809: 1521: 1295: 1287: 22993: 22675: 21144: 19584: 18750: 18443: 17598: 15041: 13545: 11054: 10724: 9767: 8506:, significant coverage is needed, not just mentions or quotes from someone who works for them. 7961: 7620: 7574: 7471: 7450: 5764: 5421: 5170: 4306:

Your suggestion seemingly would have us excluding industry-specific sources across the board. --

24531: 24022: 23975: 23953: 23889: 23532: 23472: 21891: 21811: 21798: 21520: 21441: 20819:. No centers currently operate under this brand. The centers were included in the formation of 19963:

I will ping you, discussing sources on the article's talk page. This AfD is a distractions and

19091: 18936: 18639: 18631: 18282: 18191: 17620: 17496: 16833: 16785: 16763: 16727: 16701: 16674: 16652: 16287: 16173: 15155: 14579: 12961: 10874: 10452: 9679: 9034: 8602: 8582: 8548: 7925:

and this one doesn't. What portion of Knowledge's scope do local houses of worship fall under?

7168: 6594: 6397: 6339: 6324: 6017: 5864: 5279: 5249: 5204: 5149: 4023: 3193: 3180: 2999: 2658: 2620: 2284: 1943: 1580: 24225:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

23571:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

23174:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

22886:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

22568:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

22295: 21992:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

21422:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

21086:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

20665:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

20269:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

19460:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

19166: 19025:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

18692:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

18368:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

18037: 17975:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

17562:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

17214: 17156:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

16942:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

16473:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

15888:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

15206:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

14983:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

14560:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

14193:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

13714:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

13487:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

13281:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

12942:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

12590:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

12207:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

11916:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

11221:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

10913:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

10583:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

10251:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

9938:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

9660:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

9358:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

9073:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

8772: 8710:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

8024:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

7636: 7275:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

6925:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

6627:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

6378:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

6093:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

5657:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

5363:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

5004:

What makes a notable cosplayer, according to you? If "nothing", then it's not a good anwer. --

4790:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

4730:

per the above - I'm unable to locate sufficient coverage to demonstrate that this topic meets

4496:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

4281:

discussing something that isn't out and it's just like vague research about the third season.—

3582:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3291:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2941:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2657:– Looking at the nominator's three edits, I say Ravenswing may have hit it right on the head. 2368:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2011:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

1648:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

1267:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

434:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

239:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

24644:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10973460/Are-some-people-really-born-addicts.html

24601: 24600: