Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 April	10 April >

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

Acrobat (band)[edit]

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

The article does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND, and references don't seem to do much to indicate notability; most existing references are primary sources or blurbs about shows where they opened for another band, and I couldn't find any better ones myself. Iago Qnsi 23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability in the article or on Google, which mostly turns up unrelated pages discussing a Canadian band or a U2 song. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. By a long way. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 06:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:24, 10 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 keep. Nominator has endorsed SNOW close (non-admin closure) Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Regional High School stabbing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID Jinkinson talk to me 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - !voted against this article being featured at ITN. But I do not see a reason for deletion. Article is well-referenced and has recieved world coverage. Too soon is not really a reason for deletion here as 20 people has been stabbed at a school and it has recieved extensive coverage now. I would say that this nomination is too soon considering that the article is notable now but might not have any long extensive notability which we do not know anything about just yet. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A serious incident at a U.S. high school that resulted in mass casualties, despite no fatalities. Mass stabbings with knives are also a rare and notable event. Cyanidethistles (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you deletists insane? This is a major, article worthy thing! Sure, violence is all too common in today's society, but a stabbing of this caliber is almost unheard of in the USA. Keep this article up. --Matt723star (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article defiently is notable and has a lot of information to back it up. Deleting it would do a disservice to readers. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Definitely" is how it's spelled, and by the way,~~ Franklin Regional School District still has the text about this. It wouldn't be a disservice to readers because very little is being deleted. Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like the first part of yours the above is just unnecessary and pointy Epicgenius . Secondly a mention in the Franklin Regional School District article will still not cover the entire case so a separate article is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: I already voted "Support" below. My apologies if it sounded too pointy, but I thought that Peter.C said "defiantly" at first. Epicgenius (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am also overreacting I guess. No worries ;)--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A counter argument would be WP:DEADLINE which like WP:TOOSOON is only an essay, WP:BREAKING evens out WP:RAPID which leaves WP:NOTNEWS. I think it is too soon to tell what will happen but seeing that things are still unfolding I feel it should be waited out a bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Episodes of mass school violence like this one always make a lasting traumatic impact on the U.S. national psyche. In this case one does not a crystal ball to know that this episode will continue to be covered for months and years (and not just days, as would have been for a WP:NOTNEWS case). Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. But it needs cleanup judging from sentences like these: The stabbing occurred almost fifteen years after the columbine high school massacre and on the birthday of one of the school shooters Eric Harris. Uh, great. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – As this article is about a mass stabbing, with very widespread news coverage, where twenty people were injured. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps a closing of this AfD ASAP would be appropriate so that users could focus on the article instead.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also, I agree with the above comment. Rilech (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this AFD seem so familiar? Oh yeah... Jinkinson talk to me 23:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with above comments. Corn cheese (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with above comments. Corn cheese (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT; this is a mass stabbing even of national coverage, worthy of notice (Fox, CNN, ABC, NY Daily, NY Times, etc...) --CyberXRef^☎ 03:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CyberXRef. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't Sandy Hook, thank God, but it's received the requisite coverage for notability. NOTNEWS is always misinterpreted; those using it need to read the policy. This incident will probably be of some significance in gun control arguments in the U.S. since the knife incident didn't actually kill anyone. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do we seriously have to do this every time with a major news event? John, did you think at all? Silver seren^C 06:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For frell's sake. DodgerOfZion (talk)
Keep Lethal weapons and mass attacks, particularly in schools, are an ongoing topic of vital concern and discussion in the US public arena and elsewhere. Keep this information maximally accessible. Thank you. Deborahjay (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why in bob's name would anyone possibly think an article about this major event would be a good candidate for deletion? Strong keep. lu3ke (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2014 (GMT)
Strong Keep Per above Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has gotten a lot of attention, politically, Bearian (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone close this as a WP:SNOW case? At this point given the strong consensus I do not see this article being deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Snow Close as Nominator I still don't see this having an article, but I am obviously in the minority. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 10 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. None of the "keep" !votes is policy based. Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcavias[edit]

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

Article about a software product that was deleted at AFD two years ago, and subsequently speedied twice as G11. I am bringing it to AFD again rather than tag it with G4 given the elapsed time, but it seems the notability is still not there. The principal claim seems to be being named "one of the best open source shop systems in 2013" where the source is another website of unknown reliability and the subject is #4 among 30 other similar products. All coverage i can find in Google (including Google.de) are press releases and minor mentions about new versions. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arcavias is well known and notable within the (european) TYPO3 community, mainly by speeches and presentations on official TYPO3 conferences and camps in Germany, Romania, Spain and other countries. Two of them are referenced in the article --Nsendetzky (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I like to follow the argument of Nsendetzky. Not everything can get his relevance on the world wide web. Arcavias is relevant for a lot of Typo3 developers creating online shops and so on. Kekstod (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can confirm that. Arcavias has a decent notability in the TYPO3 community. It's known through speakers on various TYPO3 events. I've attended one today in the Netherlands where Arcavias was a topic. --Becom2k (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the only edit from a new editor. Wonder why they made their first edit here? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Open Source project is still young. It's mainly empowered by the German community and that's why the provided references are mainly in German language available. Therefore English (or non German) speaking references can't be brought up yet. But this will certainly change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huisku (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the only edit from a new editor. Wonder why they made their first edit here? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am new here. - And yes this is/was my first action as registered member. - And I wounder if this is the nice and proper way to welcome and motivate new members/beginners within Wikipedia. --Huisku (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and you chose this page out of 4,000,000 plus for your first editing foray... what a remarkable coincidence!

1. Yes. 2. No. Arcavias was the reason (icing on the cake) to create the account. Otherwise I would have continued to participate sporadically and anonymously. I hope your attacks and offending way of communication will stop.--Huisku (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and non-notable, and their seems to be some bad faith here with sock or meat puppets casting votes too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It were people like you who stopped me from contributing actively to the English Wikipedia. If everyone interested only in special topics is a puppet for you, please convince Wikipedia management to shut down registration and allow new editors by personal invitation only. That would save us all a lot of anger! Nsendetzky (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've accused you of anything, you have a decent contribution history dating back some way. It's the two new accounts with this as their only edits that I have grave doubts about. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, you should have declared a Conflict of Interest, since non-admins won't be aware that you created this article first time around Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only seeing enough evidence to conclude that this software exists, not seeing anywhere close to the quantity of independent coverage from reliable sources needed to establish notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does it exist? Yes, it does, but I don't see the sort of coverage by third party sources that would be needed for it to meet WP:N. And the sudden appearance of a whole bunch of editors registering just to take part in this discussion does have a somewhat unpleasant odour about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 17 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) 03:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Degan[edit]

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

This looks like unnecessary disambiguation. The first entry is about an attorney with a claim of importance but no Wikipedia article or source to back it up. The second is a typo (it should be Bruce Degen). The third is a school for which "Degan elementary" or even "Degan school" are more likely as search terms. Pichpich (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty of reason to have a disambiguation page; there is Degan of Treves, as well as several notable people with the surname "Degan". Neelix (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find Neelix's revision neatly satisfies the requirements of a disambiguation page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid dab page. Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep legitimate dab page. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:28, 10 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Op'nin', Another Show[edit]

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

unreferenced, unfocused, POV. better to just start over if we are going to have an article about the song. John from Idegon (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a famous Cole Porter song and one can find an inexhaustible supply of sources describing it as a "classic", a "show business anthem" and the like. [1][2][3][4] etc. I've cleaned up the article and added a few sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is possibly the best known song (The other candidate being "Too Darn Hot") from a Broadway musical which won a Tony Award as best Musical and as Best Revival of a Musical, among other awards, which is constantly produced in community theatre (Do I need to dredge up statistics for this point?), which was Cole Porter's most successful show during his lifetime, and from which five other songs (at least--this one isn't linked from the "Kiss Me Kate" page, so others may not be) have their own Wikipedia pages. It was selected as the opening track for the 1991 tribute album of 23 Cole Porter songs, "Centennial Gala Concert", [5], which was produced from the 16 June 1991 London concert commemorating the centennial of Porter's birth. Automeris (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The quasi-POV sentences I believe the nominator objects to are now referenced by reliable sources (thanks to Arxiloxos) which establish its notability. BethNaught (talk) 06:54, 17 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 all. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fredy Sosa[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 me because the Honduran National League was inappropriately listed at WP:FPL at the time. It no longer is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - all appear to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Players have not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fail NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 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. There just isn't anything to show that this film currently passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14th Feb (The Deadline)[edit]

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

Putting aside the article's problematic tone - "a refreshing take", "a heart-warming and illuminating finish", "talent contributed with their best to achieve the best output" - I searched for coverage but found nothing in reliable sources for this short film. It appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NF. Gongshow talk 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this could reasonably be speedy deleted as spam but in any case, this short film, (and its director) appear to fail the basic notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overly promotional article from an editor with an obvious conflict of interest. Even if it were notable, this would be a useless start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This film is a really good try to make awareness to our new generation through short film's story. And the film is on the floor. I found it's detail at it's sites and portals. I feel it should not delete--Sreyaroy29 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Borderline promotional speedy candidate. BethNaught (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent references provided, and the film's page is at blogspot. Amateur productions don't often gain the coverage we require to see in reliable independent sources WP:RS. If and when they do, then is the time to come here. Wikipedia is not here to help with the promotion - that's up to the people involved with the film (and their friends...). Without giving us suitable references, it's a waste of time to say Keep here. Sorry, and I do wish you luck with it. But it's too soon. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NF. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:42, 10 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) 03:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rutvik Oza[edit]

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

Since an article on this individual was previously deleted and salted, since editors at its recent RM expressed that this one should be too, and since it was recently PRODded (which I guess shouldn't've happened), I am opening discussion on the topic. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral, at least for now. BDD (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is NOT about the individual, whose article was previously deleted. That person was a namesake 19-year mathematician. This person fulfills WP:ANYBIO as it has won a notable Filmfare award and has worked on many notable Bollywood films. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First AfD nomination of the title was not really about this person, that was about some non-notable person. The present article is about a Bollywood director who has been nominated for three notable awards and won one of them. And, yes, this way he meets ANYBIO, and the article should be kept. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the others say, the first AfD is completely irrelevant, having concerned a different individual. This person is an award-winning screenwriter, meeting the standards of WP:GNG. Xoloz (talk) 02:53, 15 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 06:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy May[edit]

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

I don't think she's notable enough to have her own page. Her 4 credits on IMDb speaks for itself.OscarL 17:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. The article says it all: "Not much is known about Patsy." Then move over Patsy May (cricketer) and add a hatnote to Our Gang. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a few appearances in shorts. This is basically like being in a few episodes of one TV show. We don't need articles on every actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 13 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kōhei Kashii[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Article is only a sentence long. JDDJS (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say that "lieutenant-general in the Imperial Japanese Army" is a claim to notability. There's considerably more substance in the Japanese version of the article ja:香椎浩平. According to our articles, he was a commander of the Japanese China Garrison Army and later played a significant role in the February 26 Incident of 1936. However, I agree that the earlier machine-translated and largely unintelligible version of this article [6] was unacceptable. Holding my !vote for the moment.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His involvement in the February 26 Incident alone should be sufficient, not to mention his high rank. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would remind the nominator of WP:NRVE: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Just because it is one-sentence long does not mean it should be deleted. As this RS confirms, [7], he was a lieutenant general, which passes the notability criteria of WP:SOLDIER, number 3. (He also possibly clears number 5 because of his involvement in 2.26.) Michitaro (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn The aricle is better shape than it was when nominated, and now notability is clear. JDDJS (talk) 13:23, 10 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 Speedily deleted as a hoax (G3) by RockMagnetist (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 per G3: blatant hoax. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Paul Curtis[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. This is not my last name (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. Unquestionably a hoax, albeit a fairly widely distributed one via other websites. The story being attributed to Curtis is that he developed a system of using binary digits for use in interpreting the I Ching, but found no other immediate application. True story -- except for the person involved, who is actually Gottfried Leibniz, as our article on binary code clearly relates (with references). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lugansk parliamentary republic[edit]

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

Delete - Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, this 'parliamentary republic' was declared by a group of armed ~~terrorists~~ militants occupying a police headquarters holding hostages. All content on the situation is already covered on 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, no need for a split. Львівське (говорити) 15:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement delete - While the initiator of this request may have used somewhat bombastic language, he is quite correct in that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and furthermore, we cannot give WP:UNDUE weight. This feels as if it is a WP:POVFORK. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part was bombastic? Armed rebels have indeed taken the SBU building and are holding hostages and have planted explosives in the building. This is the Die Hard definition of terrorism, I don't think I exaggerated. --Львівське (говорити) 16:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, 'terrorism' is in the eye of the beholder. It is hard to remain neutral while using it, as one would see by reading WP:TERRORIST. Evoking 'terrorism', regardless of the facts on the ground, isn't a good way to advance one's arguments here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, I only intended to use it in the most literal sense. Didn't mean to inject hyperbole. --Львівське (говорити) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and RGloucestor. Adequately represented in the relevant articles, no need for a separate one. § DDima 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep article as it seems to be notable. Keep at least until the situation is proven false (or not). The Principality of Sealand was formed illegally, is located in a smaller area (a sea platform), and is "inhabited" by less than 50 persons. Sealand is unrecognized by all countries in the world. Yet it still has an article. Do you want to delete it as well? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, lets start with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter what else exists. Secondly, your comparison is moot. The difference with regard to Sealand, and any other small little republics that may have article for whatever reason, is that, for those, we have historical distance. For those, there has been coverage in reliable third party scholarly sources, that establish that events were notable in the context of history. We do not have that distance here, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we have no right to 'determine' the future before it has happened. As it stands now, an independent article for this supposed entity is WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on all counts, as well it should be noted that Sealand has de facto control and recognition; these guys aren't claiming just the SBU building, but the entire province, which they do not have de facto control over. If we're going to compare otherstuff, then at least let it be apples to apples.--Львівське (говорити) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – move to Lugansk People's Militia – Of all the recent Rebellions in Ukraine this one is likely to be the most bloody. The rebels are "armed to the teeth" from the start. Local hospitals are reportedly ordered to prepare 500 extra beds in anticipation of the expected "anti-terror" operation. As to the name of the article, I have no idea what the people now controlling Lugansk call themselves or their political entity. (I did note that they had replaced Ukrainian symbols with Soviet ones.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"likely" --Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), we can not assume that Kiev will be able to take back control of the region. Until we have proof of the failure of this so-called republic, we should keep the article. And eventually expend it (or not). Let's wait, people here are too hasty. Of course, if you are Ukrainian, I understand your hostility: your country is collapsing. But this is not a valid reason to delete a potentially good article. Canadianking123 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev never lost control of the region… RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these self-declared republic articles are getting out of hand. I propose either merging them all with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, or perhaps creating a new article called something like 2014 Ukrainian secession movements, which would also include sections about Crimea, Donetsk, and Kharkov. Orser67 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine was recently revamped to take care of that. RGloucester — ☎ 01:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "a planned republic to be declared" ?? This just boggles the mind. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of possible future events. --> WP:Crystalball --92.224.199.242 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Republic is now proclaimed, assembly is in full session by revolutionary Lugansk militia, who is in full control. Notable unrecognized state, many references. Seraborum (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sockpuppet. --Nug (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Some of the sources look to be unreliable and all appear to be pro-Russian. Article also violates WP:UNDUE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And where are these flags and coats of arms coming from? This is turning into a fantasy for some editors, they haven't even declared their position yet and already people are drawing flags? Delete this junk ASAP. --Львівське (говорити) 18:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the "announced" bit as not being in the source given, this republic according to the source has been "planned" not announced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:Crystalball and WP:Advocacy. --Nug (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I've never been a fan of starting those content forks on each and every single issue of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, no evidence of independent notability.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:Crystalball Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. But unfortunately no independent source found that verify such things.A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process similar to the present civil strife in Ukraine happened in Yugoslavia that fell apart in 1990s, and the right of self-determination of people prevailed. Also, Republic of Prekmurje existed for only 6 days, almost 100 years ago, and we have article with this title. Should not be removed OR renamed. Slovinan (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per my prior statements at the deletion page of Donetsk People's Republic. Once again, this entity may not be extremely important and/or legal, but it has reliable sources supporting it's current/past existence and it is notable as it is tied into the recent events in Ukraine. However, this one needs much more detail on the who/what/whys. --Therexbanner (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current/past existence? This never did exist in the first place, the source says that they planned to declare a "Lugansk Parliamentary Republic", how is that existing? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was my assumption that if something (esp. an independent state, in this case) is announced given the context & the overall situation in the country, it is noteworthy to include, whether it is legal or not. The entity exists in the minds of its proponents, as highlighted by the numerous RS. The sources say "they plan" not "they planned", which in my opinion confirms it as a current event. Overall, the situation is still developing (the armed protestors remain in control) and additional sources will appear. There is no reason to delete an entity claiming an area the size of Belgium, created as a result of an armed conflict as part of one of the most noteworthy events in world history (I'm referring to all of the events in Ukraine over the past few months.)--Therexbanner (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the occupiers claim to control a country the size of Belgium if they do not actually control or at least have a legitimate claim to the overwhelming majority of the land. Also, if your argument is that we should keep this article because it might become notable someday, I would suggest userfying it until such a day occurs instead of keeping a non-notable article in the mainspace.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget userfying, which is now obsolete. This is an ideal use for the new draft namespace. 'Move to Draft' is supposed to be a valid AFD result, and I would not be opposed to such a move, though I doubt the article will ever need to be revived. RGloucester — ☎ 03:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about a country that nobody has even proclaimed yet? Just plain silly. WP:Crystalball fully applies.--Staberinde (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Enough is enough. We do not need an article about every single Ukrainian building that gets occupied by protestors for a couple of days. Calling these occupations legitimate countries is a gross misrepresentation of the word. Likewise, the entire focus of the article is on a country a group is planning on forming, which is a violation of both WP:Crystal and WP:MADEUP. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a lesson to some POV-driven editors lately in Ukraine-related articles, who put their ideology & beliefs before the facts, I support the removal of this article. The main and fundamental difference with the Donetsk People's Republic & Kharkhiv People's Republic articles is that while this two have been in fact declared (wether we like it or not, wether we consider its proclamation valid or not), the "Lugansk parliamentary republic" has not been declared yet, so as other editors say, its ridiculous to have an article about an entity that doesnt exist neither in theory or in practice. Thats why the "Lugansk parliamentary republic" article should be deleted while the DPR & KPR articles should be kept.--HC PUNXKID 17:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or let's create the Moscow Parliamentary Republic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's a notable event according to every future history book - a group of people organize and start a fight for independence. It's not just an "idea" but in a way a fact (not as much if the state will survive or not, but that such an attempt was made). How come it's ok to have an article about the Ukrainian People's Republic, but not about that state? Let's be neutral and judge events by their notability rather by which side are you on. Ukraine gained independence from the USSR by "a bunch of people making a declaration", Ireland gained independence by "a bunch of separatists (according to the UK)" Who started a war based on their right for self determination. It's the same story with that state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every future history book huh? If there was some way for you to look into the future and prove that yes this will be notable then maybe okay but for now no its not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UPR was internationally recognized and lasted for 4 years. Ukraine was not just a declaration in a building, but by the state, same with Ireland or all your other examples. You need to understand legal or factual levels of independence, and if a proclaimed state has governance and territorial control. As it stands, the Lugansk Republic is a police station and nothing more. --Львівське (говорити) 23:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The time's not yet ripe for this article to exist. Even in the best case scenario, that the Lugansk Parliamentary Republic becomes an actual real, notable thing, it's not one now. We're putting together an encyclopedia, not participating in a race to be the first to acknowledge a theoretical state. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:14, 17 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) 03:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Free Press[edit]

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

Nonnotable alternative press, lacks the reliable sources necessary to sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-lived alternative paper, covered in reliable sources and cited as an authority by others. See e.g. [8][9][10][11][12][13] Passes WP:NMEDIA #2, #4, and #5. -Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of what you've linked, it appears the only one that's of value that's independent and about the subject is the WOSU piece, which is a local NPR station. DailyKos is not a reliable source, the Columbus Dispatch references are nearly all confined to user comments and not reporting. Is that enough for notability? Enough to build an article from? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Actually the CFP is a venerable publication of considerable impact. Newspaper titles as topics are often hard to source but, as Arxiloxos has ably shown, it can be done. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would request you look at those a little closer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Look a little closer. Note that there is a single user that holds this opinion. This user Thargor Orlando, has previously proposed deletion of the CFP's editor in chief Bob Fitrakis . He also has successfully removed OpEdNews which is a non-profit news organization that the CFP serves as the fiscal agent for. The person proposing this has a clear political agenda, as is evidenced by which articles they propose or nominate for deletion. The person proposing this has contributed more than a few WikiPedia articles, but their area of expertise seems to be teleplays airing on the CBS network in the late 1960s, not alternative publications.
Keep The CFP's investigative journalism is often cited as a source by mainstream publications like Forbes [14] and Huffington Post [15] the author of the latter article is a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. Salon has also cited the Free Press as a source [16]. Those are a few that are not behind paywalls.

The CFP is a long standing publication the is cataloged on microfilm at the Ohio Historical Society. If all these sources are willing to note the publication, why is it not noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GtotheEtotheR (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding A Few additional Citations here just to underscore the point. The CFP's website, which contains web versions of its articles is cited in over 500 books according to a quick google search [17] Searching Google Books with a for Columbus Free Press yields more than 600 hits, some not solid, some duplicates of the first search, but not all hits fall into either category [18] It seems like Michael Parenti has no problem citing the CFP as a source. He is joined by Chris Hedges, amongst others. The Congress of the United States has cited Free Press articles in official Oversight Hearing proceedings [[19]]. Maybe Congress is too left wing to be considered a source by the detractor. Perhaps we should go with Vincent Bugliosi, the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson and cited the CFP in this book [20] . So I'm trying to understand how the CFP is not notable when so many notable authors have taken copius notes. GtotheEtotheR (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Awards. The CFP has been given awards multiple times by Project Censored , which is run by Sonoma State University. A link to one of those can be found here [21].
Summing Up for now: The Wikipedia Notability guidelines for newspapers are listed here [[22]] Let's go through them. #1 Award winning. Check, #2 "have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" Check. #3 Considered a reliable source. see my previous posts. Check. #4 "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" see above. Check. #5 "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" Again, see above, Again, Check.

The notability guidelines suggest one out of five notability criteria should be met. The CFP meets all five criteria. GtotheEtotheR (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable newspaper. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:36, 10 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Age Poetry of Bangladesh[edit]

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

I came upon this article after seeing the same editor undertaking some suspicious activity that I think is COI/self-promotion adding the same patent nonsense about "Literature enters a new era i.e. Post-postmodernism with the publication of Md. Ziaul Haque’s “Give Me a Sky to Fly” in 2014." The subject of this page is not notable, the concept expressed is not discussed in real reliable sources such as reliable international or regional journals. This seems like someone's personal idea broadcast on Wikipedia (perhaps the ever ubiquitous "Haque" whose name and "work" keeps being inserted everywhere by the same user). Three of the sources are non-existent, the fourth IJHSSI article is not a credible or respected journal among literary scholars or historians, and the journal article itself is nonsense, reads like it was written by a computer program (like many science and maths journals criticized in the press) and is an article sourced by non-existent scholars, the source is nonsense. Delete for being patent nonsense, lacking notability, lacking reliable sourcing, and potential COI/self-promotion editing. ColonelHenry (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with ColonelHenry here. The current article is dominated by the Haque material. The IJHSSI is, to say the least, not a reputable, established journal (nor, based on its web site, is it likely to become one: "IJHSSI publish only and only quality papers." Indeed.). The paper itself is virtually nonsense and its authorship questionable (the institution represented by the lead author is a private high school that doesn't currently list the author on staff, the webpage for the second is currently blocked by my browser as an attack page, and the third author is actually a real person in a non-professor position at a small private college). Additionally, this material has been inserted in Wikipedia in a variety of places. I just excised it from Bengali poetry; I'm forced to conclude we should treat the "Give me a Sky to Fly" material as spam. However, this article has been around since 2010, and I tried to find a functional version in page history. Sadly, the only references that occur at any point are the first three currently present. If those are real, I cannot find them given the citations provided. Even aggressive searches in Wordcat provide me with no results. I'm extremely doubtful that any article at this title could meet inclusion standards, but even if I'm wrong on that account, such an article would owe nothing to what is here now, nor what has been here in the past. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 10 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 Sooraj R. Barjatya. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Ratan Dhan Payo[edit]

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

The principal photography of this film hasn't started . It is a WP:TOOSOON case. The articles fails WP:NFILMS. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect redirect to director Sooraj R. Barjatya. Babita arora 03:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 10 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Kaliamman Temple[edit]

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

Non-notable local Hindu temple. No indications of any historic or architectural significance. No reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling ஸ்ரீ காளியம்மன் கோவில் shows many results and images. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but a quick survey of the results shows that they are mainly Facebook pages, WikiMapia pages, stories about other temples with similar names, etc. No clear indication that there is an abundance of coverage for this particular temple. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a random house of worship which only has a digital footprint on some non-English social media sites. This could almost have been speedied. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:31, 10 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) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dipper Pines[edit]

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

The page is not notable as per the guidelines and is supposed to redirect at Gravity Falls. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to the main Gravity Falls article. As much as I love the actual show, there really isn't much available in the way of sources that doesn't just fall purely into WP:PLOT. There's really nothing to show that Dipper is particularly notable himself, outside of the general notability of the show. Though, as the Nominator themself is advocating a redirect rather than a deletion, I don't think AFD is the appropriate place for the discussion. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - First off, this is an invalid AfD as it's a nomination for merge. Second, nominator's argument is WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is a non-argument. Nominator has not demonstrated the lack of notability of the article subject. Article subject is the protagonist of a popular cartoon. Though it's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, having articles about the protagonists of TV shows is common practice on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, however, while there is no doubt that the show is notable, there is nothing to show that Dipper has the notability himself to sustain an article independent of the show's. The sources present in the article speak of him only in terms of WP:PLOT, and offer no meaningful analysis of the character or indication that he is independently notable. I have likewise not been able to locate any additional sources that do so. As is, the article is an unneeded WP:SPLIT from the character section of the main Gravity Falls article, as it offers no sources or information that require its own page.64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am redirecting this page to Gravity Falls. If you have any queries, then, talk it on my talk page --Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I undid it. I am not AGF as you have had 2 final warnings about removing AfD templates. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, with the way the nominator created the discussion in the wrong place to begin with, and is begining to act without consensus, I don't suppose its possible that this AFD can just be closed prematurely, and have a merge/redirect discussion created in the appropriate place instead, is there?64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator claims "as per the guidelines" yet lists none that this article is in violation of. Sounds like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Antoshi ☏ ★ 19:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has failed to prove his argument. The article has enough reliable sources, with significant coverage and no apparent original research, almost all of the sources are secondary, I don't think that the article should be redirected or removed from Wikipedia. Phill24th (talk) 08:01, 14 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) 03:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatriz Colomina[edit]

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

Fails to meet any of the criteria for notability under WP: Academic Nick012000 (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Okay, going by WP:ACADEMIC. Firstly, Beatriz Colomina is a faculty member and directer at Princeton University, as well as winning a 2003 Old Dominion Faculty Fellow, so she passes the professor test. She has also won three grants, at the Chicago Institute for Architecture, Fondation Le Corbusier, and the Center for Advanced Studies. Colomina has three books published, as well as essays in journals. Also, all of these things are sourced on the page. It is relevant to people interested in architectural history and theory and criticism but I see why somebody who is not would not see her as notable. I don't really see why the article would need to be deleted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at the WikiProject History talk page [23], WikiProject Architecture talk page [24] & WikiProject National Register of Historic Places talk page [25]. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Notable per Drowninginlimbo, certainly much more so than any of the footballers we keep for having played once in a national team. The nom seems to be related to a dispute here. --ELEKHH^T 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another link to the dispute and associated vandalism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question which of Wikipedia:NACADEMICS does she pass on? I'm not sure being a director fits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them, as far as I can tell. That's why I nominated it for deletion to begin with. Criterion 1, failed; she's no Gloria Steinem. Criteron 2, failed; the awards she's received are for books she's written outside her academic work, so we'd have to apply the rules at WP:Author, all of which she also fails. 3. She's not a member of any notable professional organisations. 4. No notable impact on higher education. 5. Okay, she's the Founding Director of a particular university's "Media and Modernity" course, but is that notable, or just impressive-sounding resume padding? I mean, do we want to create a wikipedia page for everyone who starts every new course every university ever offers? 6. She's never been a dean. 7. Again, no Gloria Steinem, and her contributions to literature don't count because they don't meet the rules of WP:Author. 8: She doesn't edit any journals. 9. Fails to meet the requirements of WP: Author.--Nick012000 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2, possibly 5 and 6, I honestly believe the motivation behind this is to get the material removed from the other article (see the vandalism link above) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide more evidence on same - eg 2,5,6? Nonetheless the presence of an article about an academic has little to do with whether their writings can be included in an article so I wouldn't worry on that account. They are separate arguments.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Beatriz Colomina is a founding directer at Princeton University, which would be one of the highest elected positions at the institution, as well as winning the 2003 Old Dominion Faculty Fellow. She has also won four (not three) grants, at the Chicago Institute for Architecture, Fondation Le Corbusier, the Graham Foundation, and the Center for Advanced Studies. She also has three books published, as well as essays in journals within her field. This is all on the page --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please look at the criteria esp the more detailed criteria. # of books/articles is irrelevant, winning a grant is irrelevant, and being a director which is I think equivalent to chair is Also not qualifying. it's really about demonstrating her impact on the field - which could be done through citation analysis or establishing how one or more of her ideas have shaped a field in a significant fashion. THis is a borderline case frankly--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps borderline, but on multiple criteria. To the above add also #1 as she is broadly cited. --ELEKHH^T 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the case for retention here is as strong as some of the above comments seems to believe. Regarding the current state of the article, neither the MIT nor the Princeton reference are independent of the subject. However, the Sydney Morning Herald reference is independent, and satisfies my threshold of significant coverage (it's not a mere interview, and doesn't just quote her and move on). This is a reliable source, but as its largely a pure interview, I'm dubious about weighting it toward notability; however, this Performing Arts Journal review of one of her books indicates that her work has attracted attention within the field. Now, arguably, that speaks to the notability of the book and not its author, but I don't think we gain from splitting hairs here, and on the balance, I think the scales tip in favor of inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "Founding director" is absolutely not the kind of "highest elected position" that WP:PROF talks about. University president, that would do it, a mere director not. "Old Dominion Faculty Fellow" does not seem to be any distinction at all, it just seems to be a discussion group. Obtaining grants (not "winning" them) is something all academics have to do in order to stay employed. Unless one of those grants was uniquely prestigious, this does not meet any of the criteria of PROF either. The same goes for publishing, whether books, essays, or articles and lecturing "throughout the world": every academic publishes, that's what they do, so this does not meet any of the PROF criteria either, unless those publications have been noted (book reviews, notable awards, for example). If the awards mentioned in the article can be verified and shown to be major awards, that might confer notability. What does go a long way towards meeting PROF#1, though, is Colomina's citation record. The above link to Google Scholar shows several very highly cited publications (one with more than 300 citations). --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Sexuality & space, currently in more than 500 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Has an h-index of 15 based on GS, and at least 3 pubs with more than 100 citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? this h-index is obtained only by including the cites in Google scholar with "[CITATION]". Is there some double counting here? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Like Eric, I also get an h-index of 15 based on searching GS for "author:b-colomina". Two of the 15 hits have the same title but one appears to be a 2007 MIT Press book and the other a 1991 journal article so they appear not to be duplicates. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 11 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 21:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean levitt orourke[edit]

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

Potentially CSD A7 but giving the benefit of the doubt. Does not meet any of the 12 criteria in WP:MUSBIO Rmosler | ● 05:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Found no references in Google search except those about the Irish broadcaster of the same name, uncontroversially unnotable individual. -Iago Qnsi 14:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this person is notable. There isn't even really a whisper about him in any language. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 11 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 21:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vithoam[edit]

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

Unreferenced; evidently a WP:HOAX. Online search for the term, including GBOOKS, only turns up a non-notable Australian games studio. Ruby Murray 05:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparent hoax, as I'm seeing zero coverage for this term as described in the article. Gongshow talk 06:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consider a G3 Speedy. A web search reveals no relevant hits, merely an apparently unrelated indie software project. Zero returns from Google Books, zero returns from scholar. I think this is obviously a hoax, or something so badly mistransliterated and out of context as to be indistinguishable from one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 11 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 06:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ni-Ni[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion: "Non-notable singer lacking non-trivial support." Borderline speedy deletion candidate. Delete. Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not show where this meets any of the 12 criteria in WP:MUSBIO. Rmosler | ● 06:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN singer. reddogsix (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - having some songs published in video games might be a weak claim of notability, although WP:MUSICBIO doesn't address it (perhaps it should). So it seems Ni-Ni is N-N. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we had reliable sources citing her as a contributing artist to two major video game series (likely Dance Dance Revolution and In the Groove), I might be convinced to interpret that as satisfying WP:MUSICBIO #10. But I'm struggling to find independent, reliable sources discussing her involvement with those franchises. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 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 21:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sayed Ansari Shaheb[edit]

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

A lack of independent reliable sources available on this subject, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks notability, and hardly any sources too. OccultZone (Talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a mid-level clergyman without national notoriety in the UK. Of the sources, two appear to be directories or search engines or something, one is an advertisement for an event the subject was involved in and it just mentions his name and mosque, another one is a passing mention in a news story and the last is from the official website of the subject's organization. This seems like a WP:GNG fail as I really can't find anything not already in the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Asserts basic notability, however, fails in the references department and hence doesn't cut the mustard for an article. ——MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no solid sources whatsoever. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting one's car vandalized does not make one notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough and looks promotional Sic Semper Tyrannis82 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails BIO. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find notability, just some short bio. ///EuroCarGT 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources only show that the subject exists, not that he is notable for anything specific over and above that of any other Iman or lawyer. One worrying 'reference' is a blatant CV with land address, email address, and phone number - such outing details wrong for BLP, and certainly promotional. Acabashi (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No fine source--Ciofeca (talk) 13:09, 16 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. Withdrawn by nominator given new evidence of notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Soria[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Soopafred (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability. While the player has played at a reserve club, he has never played in a notable league. I've checked his progress, and his article was created and he did play at impressive clubs, but has played at the Segunda B level which is not a league considered notable by WP:FOOTY. Soopafred (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Since he did play in the Ottawa game this week, he is considered notable per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The deletion was made prior to the fact, and the page should be kept. Soopafred (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he makes his debut for Ottawa this weekend, then I'll change my decision. But as of right now, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know how to say that, but since he has played in an NASL game, a league considered professional, he should be kept. I don't know if I can withdraw a Soopafred (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet another example of time being wasted by nominating players days before the start of the season, that have recently signed with fully professional teams, and show every sign of starting. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 13 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 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Lüchinger[edit]

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

No evidence this individual has played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG. PROD was challenged as he has played international football, but WP:FOOTYN allows only senior international competition and this man has only played at under-19 level. C 679 04:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 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 06:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stedall[edit]

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

this did indeed get a considerable excerpt and photospread in the Daily Mail 2 years ago. The effort was wasted,because it apparently didn't sell any books. 9 library holdings total, which is ridiculously small for a popularized historical bio on a very familiar theme. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~ - I found a few sources here and there, but am unsure if those are reliable. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first, Book Guild Publishing, is his publisher, and the second a mere listings. There are similar listings on a variety of amateur history blogs, but no actual discussions even on such sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete therefore. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reviews or coverage apart from the Daily Mail article. WP:AUTHOR requires multiple reviews. No indication of any other notability guideline he might meet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 10 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 21:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilija Kovačić[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 the article's creator on the grounds that he Has played international football in a professional match, an assertion not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence the player has played in a fully professional league or represented his country at senior level, thus failing football-related notability guidelines. Also fails WP:GNG due to absence of significant coverage. C 679 05:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:14, 12 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) 03:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argentines in Spain[edit]

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

Significance and creator undone previous deletion notice. Brett ~ KaraokeMac (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid rationale given for deletion. How does this fail notability? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Hate to pull a Pokemon test, but if we're going to delete this page, we should probably simultaneously be considering all the pages listed in Template:Immigration to Spain. This page seems to be reliably sourced, and the sources seem to be just marginally enough to establish notability. But I could be persuaded to delete, especially if the other pages were also put up for deletion. -Iago Qnsi 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a relevant article subject. --Soman (talk) 06:52, 12 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Salman Naveed[edit]

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

I vote delete

Don't see the importance of this person (no links or refs either-which I could put as a prod, but this seems to be more in this area) Nothing links to here either Wgolf (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seem to primarily be a local DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no doubt very good at his job, but the article is promotional in tone and I don't see how he meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 17 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pereslavl's Sobor[edit]

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

Yet another incomprehensible gibberish generated by User:Superzohar. Ghirla^-трёп- 15:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what Ghirla says. Poorly written article that cites only one source. G S Palmer (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not incomprehensible to me. This appears to be a major council of the Russian Orthodox Church, attempting to impose a limit on simony. My guess is that this is a transalation from the Russian WP, but unfortunatley I do not know that language. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 6 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 01:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't incomprehensible, although it's not really readable, either. It's a machine translation of an article on the Russian Wikipedia, which isn't really sourced in a manner that meets our expectations, either. But, here, the question for me is one of the core notability of the event. The other sobor article currently at AFD is unquestionably notable (just in even worse shape); there's been quite a bit written about it even in, say, the past 100 years. This council, on the other hand ... well, this snippet view is about the only book source I'm able to locate, and it doesn't really convince me that this is an important or notable event (there are many more Catholic synods than warrant articles, as a parallel). I see little-to-nothing about this one in religious studies journals, either. It's possible that I'm merely the victim of systemic bias and the reliable sources are exclusively Russian, but I'm doubtful. On the merits, I think this article should go. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I can understand how User:Squeamish Ossifrage came to his conclusions, I do not entirely agree with them. Trying a Google translate of the notes and references in the Russian Wikipedia article, one or two look distinctly dubious and several should probably be regarded as primary - but that still looks likely to leave enough for GNG. However, one also gets more results if one realises that the medieval name for the town in which this was held was Pereyaslavl - including this one. As this makes clear, the importance of the event - which was effectively a trial of Peter of Kiev, the metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church, for simony - appears to have been political rather than strictly religious: Kiev had been destroyed by the Mongols a few decades earlier, and Peter's main opponents were from Tver while he was supported by the Princes of Moscow. Peter was acquitted and moved his residence to Moscow a few years later, effectively supporting Moscow's claims to leadership of Russia. Usually, I would therefore be arguing to keep this article, or at least merge it elsewhere. However, the article is currently very substandard, and we don't seem to have anyone both able and willing to evaluate the Russian sources and use them to improve the article. And the current article title is not suitable for English Wikipedia. It might be better, therefore, to use the English sources we now have to improve Peter of Kiev and other related articles, and recreate a better article under a better title as and when it seems needed. PWilkinson (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event is less notable, and this draft article is less usable, than Vladimir's Sobor. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 13 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. Only one editor seriously arguing for deletion, and with a rather subjective argument that doesn't seem to have gotten much support. The article should of course be watched closely to stop promotional or spammy material being added. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiggo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiggo, and is being relisted here as a result of a deletion review, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 8. My listing here is a purely administrative function and I offer no opinion on the desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not only does it meet GNG (I've just added some more refs, including an article in Spiegel Online, and there are more out there if you want to read them), but it meets our music notability criteria of WP:BAND as it had a single that charted in Germany.Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and great work Epeefleche Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. They do not meet WP:GNG nor do they meet WP:BAND, this article has had a huge self promotion issue in the past with many socks adding content that claims notability but is clearly not. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Why, for example, do you think that having a single on a country's national music chart does not satisfy wp:Band? It most certainly does. Furthermore, any past self-promotion by socks is wholly irrelevant at AfD -- it's simply not cause for deletion. For your !vote to have weight, it has to be based on wp policies.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my reading of the wikipedia policies says that it does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BAND, you are welcome to disagree, as you have, but as this is "not a vote" it is more up to the closer do decide who's opinion is right. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take -- as just one example -- wp:BAND. Are you asserting that having a single on a country's national music chart does not satisfy wp:Band? Or are you asserting that this band did not have a single on a country's national music chart? Please note that wp:DISCUSSAFD says: "When an editor offers arguments ... that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy ... a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."--Epeefleche (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CW, in regards to your position "had a huge self promotion issue in the past with many socks adding content that claims notability but is clearly not" - the article has been totally rewritten since then and the fact that previous socking occured is not a factor in this discussion Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm convinced it has been solved, and it is pertinant to this discussion as if those socks come to this page it will be very relevent.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to me socking seems not of value in a discussion , simply tag the posts if there are any and discount them Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — As the closer of the original AfD, if Epeefleche's link regarding the charting of the single is reliable, then I'd see no reason why the artist wouldn't meet WP:BAND and should therefore be kept. The main issue on the original AfD was some people saying, effectively, "so totally meets GNG" while others were saying, effectively, "so totally doesn't meet GNG and fails BAND," so it mainly came down to whether the artist met WP:BAND. *shrug* FWIW. --slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Agree that national charting of a single meets wp:BAND, etc.

2) The article now reflects a number of additional RS refs covering Indiggo added after the close of the last AfD--so the argument that it meets GNG is even stronger.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A position that a topic passes WP:GNG is not required to address the issue of whether the topic passes or doesn't pass WP:BAND; any more than the position would address the issue of whether or not the topic passes WP:PROF. Reference: the lede of WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 15:09, 29 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A note about swisscharts.com... I see it used a lot as a reference on Wikipedia in music-related articles (doing a search for "swisscharts.com" on the encyclopedia comes up with almost 3,000 results) and there was a discussion about it from 2008 on the reliable sources noticeboard where it's suggested that it might be okay to use (it was a very short discussion admittedly). -- Atama頭 04:20, 6 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 01:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say the charting in Germany is enough to pass WP:BAND. And looking at the sources, quite a few do mention Indiggo just in passing rather than in-depth, but I think there is still enough RS coverage to support WP:GNG too. Thrub (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as far as I can make it out, the only arguments for deletion I can see here are "Doesn't pass WP:BAND or WP:GNG but I'm not telling you why" and "There were problems with a previous version of the article" - neither of which really seem to carry much weight. Thrub (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I have reverted my keep request, the promo editors have returned and with borderline stardom I can't continue to request wiki promoting them. Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and I share deeply your concern about the promo editor, that's not a reason for deletion. Especially in an article that you otherwise believe meets our notability requirements. It's cause for requesting article protection, for example, which would prevent newly formed editors from editing it. But not deletion. (Plus -- with input from a number of other editors, they seem to have gone away, and if they return I expect they will be quickly blocked if they continue editing against consensus). Might you reconsider?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as you ask so nicely. I will leave myself as a neutral, I removed the article from my notices when the edit warring returned, good luck. Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wasn't a valid reason for deletion - and if it helps, I'm another editor who now has the article watchlisted and who will revert promo additions and will report if necessary. Thrub (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- the recent promotional editor has just been blocked indefinitely, so that should ameliorate that problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BAND guidelines. Promo editing can be dealt with elsewhere (blocking, semi-p etc) ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 9 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out Here Records[edit]

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

no references cited since 2006 Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found one ref: a review on NPR of a compilation they put out. NPR's definitely something, but that's only one piece of coverage, and it's about one of their products and not the label itself. — Gwalla | Talk 04:49, 26 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 00:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find substantial RS coverage to meet GNG, or that it otherwise meets our notability criteria. Some other articles, which likely should be deleted, depend on this article for notability. We can't have an otherwise NN band depend on an otherwise NN record producer for notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 1 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 01:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the NPR article, while reliable, doesn't have this label as it's prime topic, only one of its releases. I was able to find some scattered coverage of material that the label has released, but nothing about the label itself, which would lead me to believe they don't meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 17 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

43 Express[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as it simply a listing of a single route's bus stops. The minimal news mentions all fail one or more of local, trivial, and passing mention. Ravendrop 05:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as we don't do bus routes per long precedent. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 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 01:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search for sources gives me nothing that suggests this meets WP:GNG. (But note that the rationale one above mine, "we don't do bus routes", is both an awful reason for deletion and not even accurate - several have survived AfDs and at least one is a GA.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.185.218 (talk) 00:28, 13 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. This article was also eligible for CSD G5. MER-C 10:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhinta Verma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the reference is mainly kind of WP:NEWSEVENT , one time statement and does not meet the WP:GNG criteria too.Shrikanthv (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was deleted at AfD a year ago by User:J04n; if this version is mostly the same, it can be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. ansh666 05:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Now she is also a film actress worked in Station: The Film Artistlover90 (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:Sibtain 007. MER-C 10:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Currently the sources were from multiple high standard Indian newspapers and since she was associated with Indian films (Bollywood or something), I think she is notable enough. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 12:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Jim Carter ^(talk) 01:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jim note that the actual newpapers talks about the releasing movie and does not really talk about notability of the person, please also note that it seriously fails WP:ENT, and the news paper links it mentions about increase in business of image consulting no where talks about how notable she is ? Shrikanthv (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She is also the winner of Elite model look India in 2004 and a finalist of Miss India contest in 2006, which infers that the subject is notable. Lakshmikhana (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:Sibtain 007. MER-C 10:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the user who is also creator of this article Lakshmikhana , may be personally involved with the subject matter may be using wikipedia as a source of advertisement(WP:NOTPROMOTION), please refer to here. also note that the claims do not have any reference proof other than one mention in a newspaper against WP:NOTNEWS.

Comment I guess User:Artistlover90 have created this article. Now it is different if both are the same, I mean sock puppets. ;) Jim Carter ^(talk) 01:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Jim Carter, this is my account, I used multiple accounts as they are allowed on Wikipedia. I was not intended to use it for any exploitation, if you think I have exploited so you can delete the article.Artistlover90 (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that WP:SOC is not allowed and is against policy, I have note seen your contribution to any other article than the contended person and her releasing picture Shrikanthv (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for this, I am new here and had no idea about it. I was just attempting to create a page for a media personality for whom a page was not present on Wikipedia. I will learn from my mistakes and I will contribute to Wikipedia in a disciplined manner in future. Artistlover90 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non related comment- Wait a minute please, Artistlover90 and Shrikanthv this is not the place to talk about WP:SOC. Although I think it is against our policies but since Artistlover90 is new here some concession can be given. @Artistlover90: you can't use both the accounts it is against our policy and you should only use one account to contribute here. If you continue using both accounts then I'm afraid I have to take this matter directly onto the notice of any admin which my result block of your both the accounts. So I request you to use only one account. Jim Carter ^(talk) 04:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of page is seriously only involved in promoting a person and only the upcoming picture proofs here and here , have not seen any considerable other edits by the both id's also seems the sock was created much before too wiki:BLP Shrikanthv (talk) 06:52, 8 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 01:28, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory incubator[edit]

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

This is a neologism that is not in wide usage. 'Regulatory incubator' is only used in RSs when referring to the company that invented the concept. 'Regulatory umbrella' is more widely used, but not in the sense it is described in this article. If there was an article about Sturgeon Ventures then a merge/redirect would be fine, but I don't think that there are sufficient sources for this to be an independent article at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 24 March 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article seems to be talking about something that business incubator firms do, along with their other services. As a term unto itself, it seems to have no traction: I get very few book or GScholar hits, and they are all either completely spurious or talk about the Civil Aeronautics Board as regulatory structure itself used to get the airline industry off the ground. Of the few references I checked, none of them actually used it as a term, and one didn't talk about regulation at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge Believe the term Regulatory Incubator (or Regulatory Umbrella) is actively used by journalists and companies when searching the web for information on the services so it has a right to stay on Wikipedia, maybe in a much more concise version. Or the title could be changed to Regulatory Umbrella (if this other term is more widely used). Having said that, there's a substantial amount of coverage for Sturgeon Ventures in high quality UK publications, including the Financial Times, so probably this article should be either kept and edited down or merged/redirected to an article about Sturgeon Ventures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt1502 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Kt1502 has previously disclosed that they have a conflict of interest with regards to Sturgeon Ventures. SmartSE (talk) 19:23, 7 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 01:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sourcing which would meet WP:GNG and address plausible WP:NEO issues. I checked the usual range of searches plus Highbeam, the latter did net a single republished press release mentioning the term, but in no way *about* the term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:04, 17 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 deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kepha[edit]

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

Non-notable small organization with less than five local chapters according to its website. Informations about the number of members were not obtainable. jergen (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted & redirect. Redirect was in place to a source section about the group. The article is unsourced thus not proving notability. Spshu (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how a redirect from a clearly non-notable topic fits in WP:REDIR#Purposes of redirects. A simple deletion without any additional measures should suffice. --jergen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- Looks NN to me: even its website is a deadlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 6 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 01:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of false positive hits from a Michigan service organization, a venture capital firm, a graphics consulting company. In addition to their defunct website, there are a handful of mentions (including some substantial coverage), but on sites that are not independent, not reliable, or both (the various "Brotherhood of the Iron Will" essays are written by the Kepha founder and widely republished). On the other hand, this article, from an EWTN publication, might serve (its information suggests it may be reliable for internal Catholic information). But that leaves us in need of a second source. Google suggests there's a mention of Kepha in this book, but it is apparently no longer available (at all!) through Google Books. What little I can see looked promising -- but the author of that book is the same as the author of the New Catholic Register article. Even if the book's treatment is substantive, there are not two independent sources here. And try as I might, I just cannot scrape up a candidate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine coverage of routine org. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:03, 12 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Kahloon[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2013. The only references are to youtube video's. No evidence of notability Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 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 01:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appearing in two youtube videos doesn't make you notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be NN. Epeefleche (talk) 14:48, 12 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAA (Society For All Artists)[edit]

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

I see no reason to keep this article. No references and hence I cannot verify if this article passes WP:NGO. Lets see what others think. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is my tentative view. Seems large-scale, that there will be substantial coverage but perhaps under other search terms. The official website linked indicates it is associated with Teaching Art, Ltd. (see bottom right of SAA's "About" page). Maybe they are the same really, or they overlap, and probably Teaching Art, Ltd. (currently a redlink, could redirect to this article. Teaching Art, Ltd. is the producer of "A Splash of Paint", a TV program that is listed at IMDB: A Splash of Paint, at IMDB. That info could be added to article. More information can be derived from searching on these other terms. --do ncr am 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sustaining this position would need reliable evidence that Teaching Art Ltd. is notable as a firm and/or that "A Splash of Paint" (whose IMDb text was authored by Teaching Art Ltd) is a notable series, and I am seeing neither? AllyD (talk) 07:10, 9 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, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The little coverage I can find (both via Highbeam, subscription reqd.) relates to a local affiliate exhibition [26] and ongoing marketing of their member database [27]. There is also an index listing page here with some 2012 events. There are various artists' exhibiting societies, but this appears instead to be a retail site aimed at supplying Sunday painters. Nothing wrong with that, but it needs to be able to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB notability and I am seeing no evidence for that. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I agree with doncram that 45,000 members at £27.50 a pop seems very large. All the same I'm an artist myself and have never heard of them. The only coverage of any kind I can see is a couple of listings in Artists & Illustrators. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 07:26, 12 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Veitch[edit]

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

The absence of any background information indicates to me that this guy is not sufficiently notable to warrant a "biography" on Wikipedia Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are good sources with which to beef up the biographical details. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's April 1, hard to tell the jokes from the real AfDs. Particularly so in this case, the claim to importance so weak and the sourcing so poor... Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article before April 1st; I have been editing Wikipedia for over two years and at no time have I created a joke article. It now has three sources, plus his youtube channel. I will add more material to the article when time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainofignorance (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a minor blogger who has not received the widespread coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 3 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 01:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He's borderline, but I just don't think that he's received the necessary secondary coverage. The fact that the BBC article doesn't even mention the 9/11 stuff makes me think that coverage of his views was minor, even though Slate did have an article about him. Orser67 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interview-based articles are not independent. The BBC link is not in depth and completely fails WP:CRIME. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just not good enough. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 15 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Chambord[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability online, other than sources which mention the restaurant's alleged high prices in passing. HOT WUK (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable, a brief search (didn't look past page one) found three reliable sources: NY Times, On the Town in New York: The Landmark History of Eating, Drinking, and Entertainments from the American Revolution to the Food Revolution, and more trivially The Man Who Changed the Way We Eat: Craig Claiborne and the American Food. Oh wait The New Yorker, what is interesting is that some of the sources consider this restuarant a historic landmark. How the nominator was unable to find this is perplexing. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:17, 7 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 01:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find Valoem's sourcing persuasive (even if both of his book links were accidentally to On the Town). The New Yorker is particularly compelling; random restaurants could not expect this sort of attention in the 1950s. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I fixed that! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Valoem's sources. Pburka (talk) 22:52, 11 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. Withdrawn by the nominator with no outstanding delete !votes (non-admin closure). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of droughts[edit]

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

~~This is a very unusual "disambiguation" page and I can't see how it's useful. DexDor (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw this AFD now that the page is a list. DexDor (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. There are two different types of drought, one in sport and the other having to do with water. There are two different places to get information on either of those, so I made a disambugiation page. The alternative is to make a redirect and put a hatnote on the target for the meaning which is less commonly used. -- Beland (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't AFAIK pages titled anything like List of droughts (hydrology) or List of droughts (sport) so why would a dab page be needed ? DexDor (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep it, and make a few edits to turn it into a proper list of actual hydrological-type droughts for now. There are lots of specifically notable droughts in history, including ones in ancient Egypt. It is a notable list-topic, there are many notable droughts that have articles (see Category:Droughts) and having an explicit list will complement the categories. See wp:CLT about how Lists and Categories and navigation Templates are complementary. If there is a category, there can be a list. There is no need for disambiguation, however, as there are not multiple pages titled "List of droughts". I am not sure if sports droughts are notable topics, but if there is a category of them, then possibly a list of such droughts could also be created. If and when that happens, then add a hatnote to link to it. But just because the current version of "List of droughts" is not useful, doesn't mean it is not a valid topic. It is an obviously valid topic. --do ncr am 21:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page though definitely needs a bit of polish. Looks clunky as is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless those voting to keep actually expend some elbow grease to improve this. But in any case, this is not a legitimate disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 22:16, 2 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 01:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, per my comment above and others' comments, I have gone ahead and edited the article to make it into a proper list-article of droughts, meaning the no-water kind. It is no longer a disambiguation page; there is a hatnote pointing to athletic game series lists. There is a Wikiproject subproject for Droughts! I added that to the Talk page. There are currently no sources included in the list-article but it is legit; linked articles do have sources. People can mark the current list-article to call for sources or whatever, but it is a legit as a list-article corresponding to categories of droughts, per wp:CLT. I think this AFD could be closed now as Keep. --do ncr am 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page as originally nominated was not a valid disambiguation page, and would have been eligible for deletion, in my view. However, doncram's substantive work has converted this to a list that appears wholly deserving of retention (and further development). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the changes to the article by User:Doncram, the article is no longer a disambiguation page and is now acceptable per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Droughts. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands now, it is a perfectly reasonable, policy-compliant list of notable droughts. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:04, 9 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. JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna James (disambiguation)[edit]

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

none of the names listed are notable so why should there be a disamb page for the name? LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Clearly not true that none are notable - one has article, others meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION. It is these guidelines that govern whether they are valid dab entries, not notability. There are 5 valid entries, plus valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all valid dab page entries, all could help readers to find the Anna James they seek. PamD 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if only the one has a link then what's the point of having a disambiguation page when none of the other ones do? That's my point. That's all a user is going to click is the disambiguation because none of the other names goes anywhere LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They do go somewhere! You click on what links here and see what articles mention them. They also have a blue link which takes you to an article mentioning the person. By removing the redlinks, you're removing the opportunity of What links here, removing the easy opportunity for people to create the article, and for the article, when/if created, to automatically be added to dab, and not keeping to MOS:DABRL guidelines. In no way WP:USEFUL to delete this valid dab which meets all guidelines. If you disagree with the guidelines, that's a different discussion for a different place. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 2 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 01:21, 9 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.