Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 April	1 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ormond[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, as stated above. also i don't think it's "lacking trivial support", but rather strong, reliable support, idk if that was intended ~Helicopter Llama~ 00:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, tone of this autobiography is self-promotional and unencyclopaedically gossipy too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve : Notable per coverage. Lyndasim (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by that? What coverage? The only source cited in the article is IMDb. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in relaible independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Stephen General Apostolic Church[edit]

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

The article does not indicate the notability of the subject. There are no reliable sources indicating the notability of the subject, and the subject does not appear to pass GNG. A google search turns up no relevant results. KJ^{«Click Here»} 23:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. I can't find anything substantial about this supposed group of churches. I tried searching it scurrent name, former name and the name of its supposed founder. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding coverage in any reliable sources, just directory listing-types of webpages. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sourcing found. Fails WP:GNG EBstrunk18 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan M. Boyer[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable writer, does not meet WP:ARTIST. Like many writers, she has written books; like many of those, she has been published. Neither in itself constitutes notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The LA Times article is one exapmle of the very substantial coverage of this and her work. The award is also significant (perhaps not enough on its own, but it adds to notability). Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Candleabracadabra. The Agatha Award is prestigious and significant. With the LA Times her notability has been established. JSFarman (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets 4(c) of WP:ARTIST as the recipient of an Agatha Award. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - author request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline and Matches[edit]

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

Non-charting song with no suggestion of notability. This was PRODed, and the original creator merely removed the PROD tag with no repairs to the article the panda ₯’ 23:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I can't find any sources for this single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be an official single and certainly not noteworthy. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Extra[edit]

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

A small radio station with no evidence of notability, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I failed to spot the sister station, As per below a merge is a better solution. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on sister station. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 96.4 Eagle Radio, which presently only mentions Eagle Extra (WP:Preserve). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Barnabic[edit]

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

Non-notable activist and author. No significant coverage that is primarily about Dan Barnabic in independent, reliable sources, online or offline. Footnotes are all press releases, forum discussions, and COI publications. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a vanity bio to me; no evidence of WP:BIO whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in any way, no widespread coverage. It also appears to me to be a vanity biography. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Woodward[edit]

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

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

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

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

Only limited local coverage from his town; no evidence this meets WP:BAND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Josh is one of the top Creative Commons artists. Many of the notability criteria don't apply, since he's not really a traditional artist, but he's got a larger audience than many major label bands. I can't speak for all of the criteria, but I know he won the top Jamendo artist, on a site with millions of users out of hundreds of thousands of tracks. He's also been the featured performer twice on WBGU's PBS concert series. He's definitely had significant radio airplay - I found out about him when I was living in Germany and he was on the radio (and later the in-house music at my grocery store). I agree that the article is a little lightweight, but this page is still useful. It's getting hundreds of Wikipedia hits a week, which shows I'm not alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:E4E1:9300:58E4:F434:DBA4:36EF (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC) — 2607:FCC8:E4E1:9300:58E4:F434:DBA4:36EF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Creative Commons artists don't get their own notability criteria; WP:MUSIC still applies. Hundreds of hits a week could easily by from Web crawlers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Put it down to my experience lacking on this but I've been pretty 'on the fence' about this one. My Delete vote is on the basis that 2 of the sources are his website and thus self published, one is a blog, one is YouTube (unreliable per RS if I'm not mistaken), the other three are what make as wonder. I call them as no good on the basis that they have nothing to back them up and so they cannot be judged as reliable. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets parts 7, 9 and arguably 1 of WP:BAND Mkrossum (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)— Mkrossum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. It'd be nice if we could keep him, but unfortunately he just doesn't pass notability guidelines. There's little to no coverage about him, very few reviews in reliable sources, and while popularity can help gain coverage it's never a guarantee of notability. Someone can be WP:POPULAR, but that in and of itself is not notability. As far as WP:BAND goes, it really all comes down to coverage in reliable sources. We can say that someone is a significant example of something, but without actual coverage in reliable sources (Pitchfork, AllMusic, Rolling Stone, etc) we can't actually prove that someone is a significant example. When it comes to the contest, the problem with this is that few contests/awards are so notable that they'd give absolute notability on that basis alone. I always say that only about 5% of any awards ever given (and this would be every award everywhere) would actually extend any notability and of those, less than 1% actually give that absolute notability. Since Song Fight! is held weekly, I don't think it'd really give any notability when you get down to it and As far as the sourcing in the article goes, a few of them are usable but they don't really show a huge depth of coverage. I'd say that maybe the Findlay Living article and certainly The Courier would be usable, but that's about it. It's a shame that there hasn't been more coverage, but the problem is that it just isn't out there. We can't even really count the podcast expose when we get down to it, because that wouldn't be considered a national rotation. (Meaning that you'd hear it at least 2-3 times a day on at least one radio station.) He's more notable than some of the other indie musicians out there, but right now he just falls short of notability guidelines. I have no problem with someone userfying the data if they so want, but I'd really recommend that they get a lot of help from WP:MUSIC before re-adding it to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Document Layout Requirements[edit]

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

A mere definition, and not a very clear one, for I do not see any direct connection between laying out a document and capturing business requirements, except in the very broad sense that if you wish to retain information you must have a way to do so. CSD and Prod tags were removed. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I can't find any evidence of special usage beyond simply the different things that these three words mean when used together, for example requirements for how a document of some kind must be laid out, or writing up what the layout requirements are for some purpose, etc. I can't find anything to suggest a legitimate neologism here, in other words, an encyclopedic topic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a spam article which should have been speedily deleted as such, but the spam has been removed, leaving a trivial unsourced article on an expression with no notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by FreeRangeFrog (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh.V.m[edit]

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

Originally I put this as a prod-until I noticed this is a director who has never actually done anything. His first film has not even started shooting! Wgolf (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Okay this is not a real person-someone change this to a speedy-the creator also made Rajesh.V.M. Wgolf (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as this is the wrong venue for this matter. WP:RM is the proper venue, though you are correct that if this move is carried out as you propose the current Interstate 540 dab page would have to be deleted, but under G6. I also see on Talk:Interstate 49 in Arkansas that there is no consensus yet to merge Interstate 540 (Arkansas) into that article. Please continue those discussions and use WP:RM if there is a consensus. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 540[edit]

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

Only one of these highways is still Interstate 540; the one in North Carolina. To update the dis-ambiguation, we must:

Delete this dis-ambiguation page (as long as there are no other Interstate 540's)
Move Interstate 540 (North Carolina) to Interstate 540
Merge Interstate 540 (Arkansas) into Interstate 49 in Arkansas
Add a dis-ambiguation link at the top of the new Interstate 540 article (currently titled Interstate 540 (North Carolina)) saying {{the current I-540 in North Carolina|the former I-540 in Arkansas|Interstate 49 in Arkansas}} Georgia guy (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Canada[edit]

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

Before I attempt to prune some frankly absurd content out of this newly created disambiguation page - do we need it all? No one refers to Ottawa as downtown Canada, nor do we refer to our downtowns that way. Which leaves us with a joke-name in the South Park series, or how Detroit residents may refer to Windsor, Ontario -- or so it is WP:WEASELishly and tenuously claimed, "...since some people consider." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely pejorative and useless, and no, Detroiters don't usually refer Windsor as this, but as either "Windsor", "Canada", "Ontario", "across the river" or any of a number of other appropriate ways to refer to it. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no valid entries. PamD 14:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The place does not exist. The term is not commonly used. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a scholarly book entitled Downtown Canada: Writing Canadian Cities, viewable at Amazon.com here and reviewed here. However, my search through the Amazon text of the book didn't reveal any suggestions that the phrase is commonly used, and I find no other indications to this effect. The South Park gag is not sufficient to convey notability on the phrase. No prejudice, of course, toward recreating an article of this name about the book if it can be shown to be notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 13:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no valid entries per Pam Widefox; talk 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia in my entire time here — and that's saying a lot given that I've been around here for a decade. The only usage here that's even remotely valid for this title is the South Park reference, and a throwaway joke in a single episode of a TV series is not a topic that warrants a Wikipedia article or a disambiguation page. Delete with fire. No prejudice against subsequent repurposing of this title as an article about the Edwards/Ivison book instead, if there's enough reliable source coverage about it to support one — but even if we can justify that, we can do it from a redlink and don't need this nonsense hanging around in its edit history. Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Peczkis[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. External notice is necessary for WP:FRINGE subjects, and while many creationists trumpet this person, we need independent sources to establish notability on the basis of fringey-ness. He is not a notable WP:AUTHOR either. jps (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing wrong with this short article as far as I can see. Refs are fine. WP:FRINGE is about theories, not individuals, possible misreading of actual policies I'm afraid. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he notable? jps (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems he has an MA, taught elementary school for awhile and is a substitute teacher. He is a book reviewer for Amazon ... seems anyone can write reviews for Amazon so how is that remotely notable? Seems he has three books published by the Institute for Creation Research and "several" articles for that institute and Answers in Genesis ... where have those works been reviewed? Tell me again how this good man is notable ... Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the lack of reliable independent sources in a fringey area makes it very difficult to write neutral content. In this case, we have a choice between a substantial article based on creationist sources, or cut it down to a microstub about an otherwise non-notable individual, or deletion. The latter is the best way to meet wikipedia's standards. Other sites which don't require neutrality or notability may find it easier to sustain an article on this person, but not wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No deep third-party coverage in reliable sources to support notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has a few mainstream journal articles under his own name, from his time at Northeastern Illinois University (see Google Scholar), plus the Creationist books under the "John Woodmorappe" pseudonym (these have received multiple reviews, mostly negative). He gets a brief mention in Robert P. Vande Kappelle's Beyond Belief: Faith, Science, and the Value of Unknowing and in the Tom McIver book already cited in the article. There is also some minor media coverage. Altogether, I think that puts him over the notability line. -- 101.117.57.204 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.57.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing anything that would make him notable.VViking_TalkEdits 04:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguably an A7 to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajsiva[edit]

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

BLP does not have Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) Anton^Talk 18:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline speedyable, as it doesn't even make claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches under this subject's name (R. Sivalingam) and under his works as listed in the article are not providing coverage in reliable sources (e.g. [1], [2]). Appears to not meet WP:BASIC for an English Wikipedia article. I found a passing mention here, but it's unclear if it's about the same subject as in the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Coşkun[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. The article's creator also objected based on youth and cup appearances. WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability, and his one cup appearance was against a lower division club and therefore does not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - He may not be notable enough today; but he is still young and I guess will soon come back to Wikipedia with more notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kori caste[edit]

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

There is already an article Kori.Why do we need many articles for the same community? Mahensingha 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent input from someone who knows more about the subject. Kori is a disambiguation page, leading eventually to Koli people. The Kori caste article has many severe issues, and I suspect some of its content would be rather surprising to archaeologists and historians. Most of it seems to be concerned with (I think mythical) ancient history of various Indian people groups - if this belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it isn't here. GoldenRing (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that the two Kori pages are about the same group of people. But that aside this article is an NPOV disaster, and I don't think it's fixable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What i find that the article kori caste also represent the same group of people, which is clearly mentioned also in the heading no.3. but here i find a lot of unreliable material stolen from the literature basically depicting Rajputs or other Kshatriya communities and hence the article lacks mention of correct sources. Also it does not meet the Wiki tone as the article is written just to advertise the false glory of the caste without any or sufficient proofs. Thanx mahensingha - Mahensingha 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Koli people. Yikes. If this article was made sooner, your rationale is a criterion for speedy deletion. But there is content that is really similar to another page, so they can just exchange w/ each other instead of destruction. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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} 09:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to David O. Cooke. A merge is still performable if warranted, because the revision history for Mayor of the Pentagon remains present. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of the Pentagon[edit]

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

I cannot find enough references to show this term is notable Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David O. Cooke, the person for whom the term was coined and who is the overwhelming useage of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David O. Cooke. This article is mainly about him, and the title/nickname is treated in that article. Cnilep (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As far as I am concerned, _IF_ this section can be merged into the Director of Administration and Management (DoD), _THEN_ I can see that this page could be changed into a: REDIRECT. The catch is, of course, that I could not find a convenient location to insert this article's information. BTW, I disagree about the term "Mayor" referring only to David O. Cooke. That WAS true, it now seems to refer to the position, not only the person. LP-mn (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Director of Administration and Management (DoD). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who first wrote this article, and have a relevant question:
Would anyone think it inappropriate to copy and paste the text in as a new SUB-section at Director_of_Administration_and_Management_(DoD)#History?
LP-mn (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no issue with that and most votes here are either merge or redirect, so taking the referenced sentence and putting it there would not likely be out of line (I would remove the YouTube clip as it is not an RS source). In that case, you can create the redirect yourself to the subsection you place it in, and blank the current page with a note on the talk page as to what you've done. Maybe wait a while to see if anyone else here disagrees before moving forward, but you should be fine. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 14:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MyCorporation.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP. The article's only reliable reference is a story about the company being purchased by Intuit in 2005; however, Intuit is the subject, not MyCorporation (I would suggest a merge, but the topic is already covered in the Intuit article). I've found multiple mentions of the company, but none pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The company's CEO, who seems to have created the article, writes a lot of content and has been interviewed multiple times, but I don't think that lifts the company to encyclopedic standards. EBstrunk18 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked for other sources, found a few columns by the company's CEO and a few other article where she was quoted briefly in connection with some issue of corporate filing practice, but nothing substantive about the company except in press releases. Since the company no longer belongs to Intuit a redirect there would probably not be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable company. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding substantial coverage in reliable sources, just lots of press releases such as [3], [4]. There's this source which is lacking in terms of substantial coverage, but additional searches for more sources (e.g. under "My Corporate Business Services Inc.") are also not yielding substantial coverage. Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Moser[edit]

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

~~Been unreferenced for 3 years now-nothing has happened either. Wgolf (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator-Well I'm withdrawing this-actually as odd as it sounds, the AFD probably actually helped instead of having it rot too long. Wgolf (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. It was unreferenced, but was not tagged so. Notability is asserted. You have to give people a chance to fix it before slaughterhouse. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment-Well it has been unreferenced for over 3 years now-and I have seen AFD's go up when stuff like that has happened. Wgolf (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-also I did put a deletion tag on it-but I then thought since this has been around so long this might actually get it done faster to link it or something. Wgolf (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment-Sorry I feel kind of bad for putting an AFD now-I was just unsure of what to say about the page that was unreferenced for over 3 years-I had it at deletion but yeah as I said...Wgolf (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-withdrawing. Wgolf (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty On The Inside (painting)[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable painting. TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps a significant piece of art as it relates to the history and music of Hole but for those purposes it is adequately covered at Pretty on the Inside#Packaging and artwork. No showing of separate notability as an artwork. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush substance abuse history[edit]

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

Blatant BLP violation; there's no evidence in the article that this is notable. This should not be merged anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a tiny mention of the drunk driving incident, but that's about it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I may differ with Mangoe on the details--some of it is maybe acceptable in his main article; then again, I just looked at Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#Alcohol_use_and_DUI_arrest (there's a link to this article there, which should be removed of course if I have my way in this AfD), where perhaps one or more editors feel the need to start pruning. But this article is unacceptable, placing UNDUE weight on one aspect of his life; if any content is worth saving it should be placed elsewhere. And I agree that there should be no redirect either. Burn it. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe Early life of George W. Bush needs to go as well, before or after pruning, but let's set that aside for later. It's needless but not a problem, besides possibly the drinking bit, which I'll leave for other editors to decide. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I first noticed this page from BLP noticeboard and initially thought it seemed kind of a ridiculous. However, while I personally have little interest in this topic, there does seem to be enough related content from reliable sources for an article on this topic. It appears some reliable sources and content has been deleted. Also, from participating on the talk page, I noticed there's an editor, Lulaq, who says he is in the process of creating "Bill Clinton substance abuse history" and "Barack Obama substance abuse history" and who has created a Category:Substance abuse histories of Presidents of the United States. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would there be a reason for an independent article? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean: well, if they're going to write it, those articles will end up the way this one does (hopefully). Drmies (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplication entirely. Including material which violates WP:BLP in the first place (anonymous allegations of drug use with his refusal to speak being then used to imply guilt, etc.) Collect (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A ridiculous BLP violation. We don't need articles that specifically highlight dubious behavior of public figures. What's next, "History of rude statements made by Johnny Depp"? Give me a break. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly pathetic BLPVIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant content already found at Early life of George W. Bush in the Alcohol use and DUI arrest section (which is in turn a duplication of content also found in the Marriage, family, and personal life section of George W. Bush). Anyway, to me the AfD under consideration is a WP:POVFORK giving WP:UNDUE to events that are not denied by subject and also veers into WP:NPOVVIEW territory. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is the "second" nomination older than this nomination? --N Y Kevin 01:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, it's because there were two old nominations and this is actually the third. That's a little confusing... --N Y Kevin 01:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other two were were when the article was under a different name, controversy vs history. GB fan 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as strong BLP violation. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question The two previous nominations ended in very clear keeps; why the difference now? ^walk victor falk^talk 23:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because a significant amount of content along with refs has recently been cut from article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're implying something about the editing history, then come out and say it. If you think this article should be adjusted to a previous state then give us a link so we can perhaps change our opinions. Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. I came out and said it. A significant amount of content & refs were recently deleted. Everyone has access to edit history, but here's a link to my last edit on this article (which was just to remove a dead link). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_history&oldid=605453293 It had a lot more content then, and significant content had been recently deleted before that. Here's a slightly older version, that included cocaine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_history&oldid=602526940. I only stumbled upon this article from BLP noticeboard, and personally, I don't care much about the article one way or another. It clearly needed work, and it's not a topic I'm terribly interested in. Just answering victor falk's question. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was even better in 2008. Anarchangel (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- I think you should have read that section before showing it here as a great reason for deletion of this article: In Fortunate Son, Bush biographer Hatfield quoted several anonymous sources regarding allegations of Bush's cocaine use.. The problems are that "anonymous sources" for a felony are against WP:BLP and the minor bit that "Fortunate Son" is not a "reliable source" for anything at all. Books actually pulled by their publisher are not reliable for anything. Glad to see this is the "substance" of what was deleted -- and which absolutely had to be deleted by policy. Collect (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first nom was closed out rapidly as "disruptive" (someone essentially edited the article away), and the second was largely perfunctory. In both cases, from what I can see looking at the old versions, the complaints were largely justified. The talk page is full of people complaining about the inclusion of questionably-sourced allegations, on top of the complaints that the article itself is one big BLP violation. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The path to deletion is clear; snip away at a hated article until it is a stub, then nominate it. At 18,000 bytes and well written, the article was much better in 2008, given that it needed bare cites turned into proper references. Anarchangel (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see User:ResearcherInFlorida try and do this the easy way in 2009, by deleting it down to its current 3K bytes and then attempting to turn it into a redirect. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP issues were not created by some sort of conspiracy or cabal, and this is not the venue to make any such accusations of improper editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case this doesn't address the issue of whether at least some of RiF's excisions were justified. Mangoe (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information is in other articles and a compilation of Bush's verified substance abuse is not notable nor neutral. My position is the same for articles that would be created for Clinton and Obama, and the consensus on these types of articles must transcend party lines. Lulaq (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My position on this has changed throughout the years, and this is documented. Lulaq (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this page is to discuss whether an article ought to be deleted. Personal asides, innuendoes and attacks, including implications that an editor was another editor in the past or the like are improper here and should not be considered at all by anyone closing this discussion. Collect (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has received a lot of attention. But where's all the content? Everyking (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Govinda Poudel[edit]

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

While being a doctor is notable to many, not quite for Wikipedia, the links are basically for resumes for this guy and it basically looks like a classic advertisement when it is all said and done. Wgolf (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Now I do see he has written some stuff-but as another article came up saying that was under an afd that was similar (actually it had a lot more info even) it is not considered notable still. Wgolf (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too little impact on literature yet. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An h-index of only 6. Much too early. -- 101.117.89.120 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Phill24th (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YuMex music[edit]

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

~~Possible fraud, no sources or indication of significance. Phill24th (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Yeah, I think this is a valid significance article. Thanks to all users in the discussion.Phill24th (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the genre is significant enough to have even deserved a documentary.[5] In addition to Mazzini, see also this or this article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick google search proves that it's a real genre. I'll reference this article properly tonight when I have some free time. IJA (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Cove Camp[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I think it still should pass-it seems good enough from the looks of it. Wgolf (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be legitimately notable as both a former military installation and as a notable geographic location within a national recreation area. Examples of coverage [6][7][8] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those appear to be tourist directories, and not the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage supplied by Arxiloxos. WP:GNG makes no discrimination of coverage from travel books. As long as the coverage is independent of the subject and significant, it suffices.--Oakshade (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "As long as the coverage is... significant"- precisely; in this case, it is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that coverage is significant. The primary example WP:GNG gives to non-significant coverage is a "one sentence mention" in a piece about another topic. The travel books sources are far beyond a "one sentence mention" and go very into detail of this topic. That's significant by both WP:GNG and common standards. --Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos, as the site of a former military installation. One could argue for a rename to Battery Kirby, with the park info added to it, but thats another matter, as it wouldnt require deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Hockings[edit]

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

Semi-promotional article for somebody who seems to be a dubious medical practitioner. Cannot find any solid sources to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-looks like a advertisement/resume. Wgolf (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verified claim of notability. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW) (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Ridley[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The role in Star Wars will be notable when that comes out, but now she only has a handful of minor roles. Beerest 2 Talk page 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do a Google search and you'll see that she already meets WP:GNG for significant coverage in multiple sources, as many publications are interested in who she is because of this high profile role. She's getting other work too (her first film comes out in August). The WP:POTENTIAL for this stub to grow as we learn more about her overweighs any TOOSOON concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep. People are going to be looking her up (and are already doing so). I don't think it's a violation of the crystal ball principle to consider that her having been cast for a part in Star Wars makes her inherently notable. Aridd (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it got 7,585 page views on April 29. Why take this consolidated information away from them? It's not the role that makes her notable, but the coverage about her and her getting the role that does. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as above. —scarecroe (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has been cast in the lead of the biggest movie of the decade. The article needs work, but she is an important person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewinmaine (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-She is notable enough, nothing wrong here. Wgolf (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the above, A Google search brings up alot of stuff & people will be searching her up, Not the most perfect article but IMO cleaning it up is the best solution. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's going to be a lead actress in a major movie. I agree that the article falls under WP:POTENTIAL. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has a new agent now, and her previous Facebook page is rumored to have been taken down. Disney publicity flacks have apparently been hard at work to sell her as a newcomer. As Davey2010 says, a lot of people will be seeking info on Wikipedia.Lynxx2 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Considering the fact that she has important involvement with Star Wars Episode VII, and has been verified and legitimately announced as being so, her article must be kept. Sure, the details of Star Wars VII are scant currently, and there is the crystal ball rule which attempts to prevent too much future prediction and notability based off of something that has not happened yet. While Daisy Ridley was a virtual unknown until the announcement of her participation, I think that her close affiliation with the coming Star Wars film, and the fact that Star Wars is still a monolithic franchise, should be considered in the context of deciding to keep or delete the article. If the article does get deleted, which is highly doubtful since as of my posting there are no nay-saying votes, then it will have to be made later. However, in my opinion, Ridley is already notable enough for her own article here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This debate is one of the dumber things I've ever seen Wikipedia divided on. Who is the lunatic saying that a lead in a Star Wars movie isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia that has a lengthy entry on Sha Na Na? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.57.162 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:CIVIL, I'm sure the editor meant well in nominating. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep News broke this week; 20-something confirmed for major role in Star Wars VII http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2617679/Daisy-Ridleys-father-celebrates-daughters-leading-role-new-Star-Wars-movie.html ... most experience guest roles in UK TV http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5397459/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 .... With news, a lot of 'Who is?'. My thanks to originator of page, found partial answer here. Deletion consideration,Wikipedia takes a step back. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The female lead role in the third trilogy of Star Wars. Hektor (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - Confirmed, by numerous sources, as a lead role in a film which is expected to be very high-profile. The Daisy Ridley article had over 20,000 page views, yesterday. EP111 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete for G11, A7, and G12 (of the festival's own blog). — Gwalla | Talk 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fethiye World Music Festival[edit]

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

Article does not display notability, it only has one reference and that is to a "Facebook Fan Page". (t) Josve05a (c) 12:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and Qwertyus. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu stars birthday List[edit]

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

per WP:NOTDIR Or maybe I just don't see the point. _noisy jinx ^huh? 11:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close. If this gets more coverage, we can always re-create but right now it is just too soon. Given that the article for Amit manwar has been recreated several times after deletion, I'm salting this to prevent a similar situation. I have no problem un-salting it if/when sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts indigo[edit]

(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) (director)

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

No indication that this comes anywhere near WP:Notability (films). Searches on the film's name together with the names of the director or the star find nothing except this article. One of a string of articles about the works of a 14-year-old "actor, singer, producer, poet, writter, director, wrestler, martial artist, music director... " - see User talk:Sunil gav for related notices. Contested PROD. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Bad born. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, fails the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:GNG, WP:N etc. The article creator's talk page speaks volumes. — sparklism ^hey! 11:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-almost seems like a home made film. Wgolf (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 16:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Firm Elite MMA[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA training facility. None of the references are about the club - this is primarily advertisement. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club has no significant coverage so fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club has no indication of notability and none of the references provide significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Upperlands#Education . j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ampertaine Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. We don't generally have stand-alone articles for such schools, unless they are especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Upperlands#Education where I have added a paragraph on the school. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Upperlands#Education per The Whispering Wind. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per longstanding precedent that verifiable secondary schools are qualified to have a Wikipedia article, this appears to qualify as a secondary school per the discussion herein. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross Grammar School[edit]

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

Non-notable grammar school. We don't generally have articles for such schools, unless they are especially notable. Tagged for five years for lack of refs. Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - You were told in the previous AFD high schools are kept So was utterly pointless renominating....... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's name denotes it as a grammar school. We don't -- anymore -- generally keep stand-alone articles for grammar schools, absent extraordinary circumstances. And even in the last AfD -- it was not closed a keep as you suggest, but a "no consensus. Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Grammar school" means different things in different countries. In the British tradition, it generally means secondary school. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I noted in the previous discussion, this is a K–10 school. The debate closed with no consensus as editors disagreed whether this qualifies as a high school. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grade 10 is the leaving grade in Pakistan (only some students go on to Grade 12) so it should be regarded as a high school. We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and encourage local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- this is interesting ... but is there RS support for it? I guess it would be RS support that would related to your view that while in the US 12th grade is what we deem relevant, that 10th grade is the equivalent here, and that a self-described grammar school here is equal to a high school in the West. Or, is it that this is an OR argument? Also, I don't think a redirect or delete here would go against your goal of encouraging hard copy and local language sources to be investigated -- just the opposite, it would tend to encourage it. I expect. Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In countries using the British system, a grammar school is a secondary school, and secondary schools are kept by long-standing consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quran and Sunnah[edit]

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

We have an article on the Qur'an and an article on the Sunnah, but this article isn't about them both; it's supposedly about a specific Hadith yet it actually includes copy paste from multiple hadiths, and the only proof that they're related is the original research performed by the article's creator, Striver - now retired, a large number of his articles have been deleted as original research. This is, like most of the others, a synthesis of primary sources written to push a certain POV in the Sunni-Shia debate. There is no secondary source literature tying these together or making this point, and thus there isn't really anywhere to merge this material. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought (or research) and there simply isn't a place for this random collection of primary sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caching SAN Adapter[edit]

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

Delete as WP:OR. Yes caching is important in storage area networks; but only one of the supplied 10 references appears to use the term Caching SAN Adapter" in body text. All of the uses of the term I'm seeing in google appear to be marketting / branding for a single product (or line of products). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept. A Caching SAN Adapter is a new category in the storage area network ecosystem taking a hybrid approach combining caching and host bus adapter technology. Just as the term Storage Area Network was not in vogue initially, technology writers have not reached consensus on which term to utilize for this unique category. Alternative terms have been used including "shared caching adapter", "shared server cache", and "shared transparent cache". If nothing more this article serves to drive industry consensus to standardize on a single term. User:Cyclewolf 10:45, 15 April 2014

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO contains our in depth policy on neologisms, and what you describe is pretty much directly in opposition to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT: the article is more of an essay rather than an encyclopedic overview of a technology and would need to fundamentally rewritten to get rid of all the OR. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remo Vinzens[edit]

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

This subject doesn't appear to have received any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are therefore not met. SmartSE (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources in the article are press releases, passing mentions, and non-reliable sources. I can't find anything else that would make the subject meet WP:N or WP:NACTOR. Article was also created and maintained by promotional accounts, so there is little encyclopedic intent here. WP:NOTPROMO Them From Space 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Pownall[edit]

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

Lead singer of a not notable band. Not many primary sources about him. The only ones I really found were from Vogue and The Standard but it's just brief mentions about his relationship with Wilde and him being a lead singers of a band. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage includes [9][10][11][12][13]. I've added these sources to the article; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 07:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO per [14], [15], [16], [17]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added by Gongshow, which shows that the artist meets WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 11:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is unfortunate that only two users gave their opinion, but nobody argued for notability even weakly.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newmarket Stingers[edit]

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

This local softball team lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet notability, including those for organisations. Whpq (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local club team with no sign of significant coverage in any independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Charfen[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable businessman and "thought leader" DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Vanispamcruftisement. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davao City Torotot Festival[edit]

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

Local tourist event. Promotional article. Being in the local news is not sufficient for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does coverage by GMA News and other news outlets not count as local news coverage? Even local news can be considered to be reliable. Plus, a quick search revealed a lot of reliable coverage for it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The GMA article merely mentions the city among those cities in the area with successful bans on firecrackers; it does not even mention the festival itself. . I note the festival has as its main feature an attempt to break the world's record for "simultaneous blowing of party horns". DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Leck[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in independent sources Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show why you think that there is no evidence of notability in independent sources? Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment it appears the nom has been asked to prove a negative. 5 sources are currently listed. The first is self-referential as the organization founded by the subject, not otherwise notable. The second may go towards establishing notability, hard to tell as the page has been deleted, and it may be a press release. The rest are from his place of employment, which are not independent references. They do not rise to the level of showing WP:NPROF. He is given a mention here [18] and here [19] (likely self-publilshed work). This [20] also mentions him briefly, but would go much further towards establishing the notability of his choir. He is a published composer arranger, with numerous publications by a major publisher [21]. Through numerous passing mentions it is obvious his choirs have toured multiple times internationally, but these references provide no information on Leck the person. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Induction is not a form of proof. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's kinda my point... My guess is that he's marginally notable, but certainly the current sources don't prove it, and the sources I've found don't readily demonstrate it either. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your first sentence, which implies that I asked the nom to prove a negative. That is not accurate, since induction is not a form of proof. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of your book references claims that there was a concert in Oklahoma with his name in the name of the concert. The references in the article show that he has received the highest awards that Indiana has for his profession. Accepting that Butler University is a reliable publisher, the article is sufficiently referenced, even though for a bio, we'd really want more information such as when he was born. Yes, student organizations don't get the attention that adult ones do, but he has been in the public eye since 1986. I'm not at all convinced that there is or was a case here for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you have similarly noted, the nom did not report that the second reference was a dead link. I have restored the link using [22]. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Couchois[edit]

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

Not individually notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Google search yields no significant results that establish notability. A few results that do, are trivial. Harsh (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Couchois. I'm unable to find coverage for this individual in reliable sources, but there's enough material on the band's work to warrant an article: two albums on a major label (WP:BAND #5), one of which charted (WP:BAND #2), and some (rather brief, but not exactly "passing" or "trivial") coverage in Pittsburgh Press, Billboard, Allmusic, and a Rolling Stone record guide (WP:BAND #1). I've re-worked the article to include these sources and to establish the band's notability. Gongshow talk 06:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, it appears that a merge may be possible for this article. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zilla Panchayath Davanagere[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:NOPAGE. It provides little useful context to an excellent article that exists on the South Indian state Davangere. I believe it is intended to be an article about an late 1990's administration for the state, but it is poorly written and give so little context it is almost nonsensical. --Acezn (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to delete this article without prejudice against recreation of an article which would be written in English, have a defined scope, and be sourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Davanagere district, clear WP:FORK of that article. --Soman (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Farnsworth House Inn[edit]

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

Only the Frederick News Post source comes close to being a source that provides some evidence of notability. We need multiple reliable, independent sources that are actually about the subject in order to establish notability. TheCascadian 01:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has some coverage [23] as a haunted attraction but whatever the case, the article desperately needs to be cleaned up of dizzy PR language. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much did a thorough scrubbing of the article. The stuff was interesting, but that's something that's more appropriate for a fan website or something along those lines. I do agree that this does seem to have a good assertion for notability and I'm finding some sources as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed mention of it being on Ghost Hunters, as it's supposed to be a season 10 episode. Since they're still doing season 9 right now, I've removed it. A lot can change between now and a prospective release date and it's not uncommon for a channel to either outright cancel a specific episode, greatly edit it to remove elements, prolong the release of the episode, or any mixture of things that could prevent the episode from airing as promised. Until we have an actual airing or a lot of coverage in RS about the inn being on the show, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've been able to find where it's gotten a lot of coverage. It still needs work to help flesh out things and it'll likely need to be watched like a hawk to prevent it from being transformed into a non-NPOV, promotional-ish article again, but it is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Per WP:NRVE, WP:HEY and WP:N. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than sourcing within articles. See also WP:BEFORE. Source examples providing significant coverage include [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Many thanks to User:Tokyogirl79 for their significant improvements to the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Tokyogirl. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even without the excellent work by Tokyogirl79, this would've been kept by available sources. While article improvement is always welcomed and ecouraged, AfD is not a proper mechanism for it.--Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Page (murderer)[edit]

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

Article violates WP:BIO1E. PROD declined in bad faith by a user upset with me over a totally unrelated article. Safiel (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish WP:GNG, long term notability of the incident. Murder-suicides are common, and this one does not seem unusual. Martin451 11:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page murdered two people, with one murder by throwing them off the Golden Gate Bridge. He then jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge himself. The unusual circumstances surrounding the events make Page worthy of inclusion. --Kbabej (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I would refer to WP:BIO1E. The Golden Gate Bridge is a well known Suicide bridge the second most prolific one in the world. Murder suicides are common. The only really notable aspect is that part of the event occurred on the Golden Gate Bridge. A blurb on this event in the suicide section of the Golden Gate Bridge article might be appropriate. Another point that I would also make, if this article is retained, it should be moved to Steven Page murder/suicide as BIO1E dictates that in such situations, the article should be about the event, not the person. But again, I would delete and, at most, put a small blurb in the suicide section of the Gold Gate Bridge article. Safiel (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Strange proposal for deletion for such high profile case. Very notable, and indeed should be listed with other notable cases that already exist. Wangleetodd (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article forks into water impact, which is interesting, but of no avail to the topic. People hitting water after being pushed, falling off of, or being thrown off of a bridge does not make the act notable. It does appear to violate WP:BIO1E because though two people were sadly killed, it stems from the same non-notable incident. It simply does not meet notability standards. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a double murder/suicide qualifies as a notable event to have an article on. I can see a name change being appropriate, though im not sure how to write it so it covers the event. I dont think B101E quite applies here, though i would agree with how we have nearly no articles on suicides from the bridge, as only a few are of already notable people.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This unfortunate episode got coverage at the time - January 1993 - but per my research there has been virtually nothing written about it since. Classic example of WP:1E; with the virtue of hindsight we can see that this case did not have any lasting impact as required per WP:CRIME. I have to disagree with my friend Mercurywoodrose: murder-suicides are not notable, in fact they are sadly commonplace; there are 1000 to 1500 of them every year in the U.S. according to this reference, in other words 3-5 a day, with similar proportions in other countries. (Inspiring a sick joke: "No, fellow, you're doing it wrong: Kill yourself FIRST, and THEN kill your family.") --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perhaps a namechange is needed but W:CRIME should cover this.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per nom & above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Private Universities for Engineering in Bangladesh[edit]

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

An unsourced, unresearched list of ten universities. Staglit (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears WP:OR and personal WP:POV--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have List of universities in Bangladesh, and moreover, the article in question is a POV. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide wave of action[edit]

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

As I've observed at Talk:Worldwide wave of action#RfC: One week in, virtually nothing, this doesn't seem to have been a real event, or at least not one that panned out. There are just a few reports of isolated protests at Google News, which could just be a matter of a few people taking the bait. Appears not to pass WP:N or even, at this point, WP:V. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Occupy movement. I think it's gotten some immediate coverage from a notability standpoint that I found doing some research for the RfC, but I don't see where the coverage is enough to sustain an article. A merge seems more appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now I'll admit that so far the results have not been spectacular but to counter the RfC, this is decidedly not a hoax (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WaveOfAction&src=hash , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/world-wide-wave-of-action_b_5070337.html) I will have time to expand the page in a few days and there are major actions being planned for May Day and the Fourth of July. If those don't appear to be going anywhere, lets revisit and probably merge into the broader Occupy articles. Juno (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that those two links lead to anything that demonstrates that it wasn't a hoax! All the tweets, in particular, could just as well be references to an event that all the tweeters were led to falsely led to believe would take place as it could to an event that they were told truthfully would take place. Dylan Rattigan evidently was under the impression that such an event was about to occur but didn't write anything of substance about it indicating that he knew anything specific about it beyond the impressions given in the initial round of announcements.

It's sort of reminding me of what happened yesterday in Donetsk: the flyers really existed, but what the represented was a hoax.

Note that I'm not declaring a belief that it was an outright hoax. I'm just leaning in that direction because if it was real, if it consisted of actual plans that some organizing group was making, I'd expect manifestations of it to have occurred and to have seen substantial mention of them in the news. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Twice as many web results under this name. Anarchangel (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, news search for "Wave of action" -worldwide -"world wide" ("wave of action" excluding "worldwide" and "world wide") on or after April 4, 2014, yields 13 hits. Four are unrelated.

Radio Rebelde in Cuba reports, "Los activistas del movimiento anticorrupción Wave Of Action lanzaron una campaña de 3 meses en cientos de lugares donde triunfó Ocupa Wall Street para iniciar su propia “Primavera Mundial” de la reforma social, económica y política." ("Activists from the anticorruption movement Wave of Action launched a three-month campaign in hundreds of places since the triumph of Occupy Wall Street to kick off its own "Worldwide Spring" for social, economic, and political reform.") This is the only source that reports in the past tense activities happening in more than one location, but it doesn't report on any of those activities, or even name their locations. A few other articles report on details of a single incident each, each of which the article then associates with WWOA: New York, Venice Beach. The rest of the articles are written in the future tense. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no reliable sources at this point--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Miller (actor)[edit]

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

Not Notable at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmillernz (talk • contribs) 14 April 2014

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 22:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gadfium 22:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - LOL, I agree with you Nick Miller....--Stemoc (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Subject with the same name deleting an article with their name; they are advised to read our conflict of interest policies. Nothing wrong with the article as-is and no negative assertions are being made here. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the name of the nominator, the actor does fail notability, not sure how the article survived so many years..I know a few more "recurring" Shortland Street actors whose articles were deleted as they were not regarded as "notable"..--Stemoc (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... it's not really a clear cut case of "not notable" since he seems to have been a fairly major character in the third series of The Tribe, and was part of the show for 3 years. It seems to be what he's mostly known for, but then he was also a minor character in another series. We might be able to redirect this to Tribe, if the consensus is to delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Subject meets WP:NACTOR. The article is in bad need of RS references though and I have tagged it accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Delete on grounds of WP:NRV fail. All claims to notability MUST be backed by RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that an editor named Nick Miller must be this one is the most ludrcrous claim I have ever seen. Miller is a very, very common last name, and Nick a very common first name. What next, will I be excluded from any discussion on all the articles on John Lambert because it is a conflict of interest?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No I am not Nick Miller myself but I do feel this Article is non-notable. Please sort yourselves out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmillernz (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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} 09:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTORS. Has not had significant roles in multiple notable...television shows; does not have a large fan base/following; appears to not have been featured multiple times in mainstream media. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of taglines in the Alien franchise[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In the Alien franchise, there is one famous tagline, "In space, no one can hear you scream." This does not mean that the other taglines in the franchise are worth noting, especially to the point of creating a stand-alone list. List of taglines in the Jaws franchise was deleted, and List of taglines in the Predator franchise looks to be heading the same way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Alien (franchise). GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of this should be merged. The famous tagline is already identified at Alien (film), and the rest are indiscriminate. We should especially avoid covering promotional materials unless there is "context with explanations references to independent sources" per WP:IINFO. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair enough, though I don't think the line here is hard and fast. The standard for what goes in an article is lower than what makes an article. I'm happy either way, really; if there's anything worth salvaging, it should get merged. Otherwise, it can go. GoldenRing (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't anything to merge. If people really, really want to merge, then I guess that's alright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only what is verifiable in reliable sources. Interestingly enough, I did not find listed in either the list nor franchise article the more notable "Get away from her - YOU BITCH" though it is at Wikiquote. Go figure. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In Wikipedia, no one can hear you lvote keep. The only really notable one is already in Alien (film). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst I'm sure the editor means well - This isn't encyclopedic and pretty much non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOLAP[edit]

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

The entire article is original research. Aside from a link to a small startup [29], Google returns no relevant results. None of the sources used in the article talk or event mention the term McSly (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how to add comments to discuss why this article should not be deleted. Is this correct, add edits to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHoffman (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is mostly WP:OR. There is very little in the way of secondary and primary sources to support the article. Even your website article posts back to this WP article page, with only 3 other Google page hits supporting both this term and the concept, also linking to this page. In addition to that, the article also advances a narrow field, specific to certain financial reporting products. It also focuses on XBRL. Why? There is many more reasons. I hope it doesn't put you off. scope_creep talk 18:48 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this neologism represents a notable framework or class of OLAP systems, much less a "global standard", and conversation with the article creator on this discussion's talk page confirms the impression that the article is indeed original research. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.