Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 May	12 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Costessey#Education. Redirected by precedent. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Hill Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. --Finngall ^talk 22:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per AFD outcomes, this class of article is normally deleted as being non-notable. This one is no different. Nothing to say for itself. Atlas-maker (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costessey#Education where it is already mentioned - a normal and constructive solution. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 02:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZVL Leiden

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

Contested A7 speedy, notability concerns. No external RS references in article at time of submission. Tawker (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references to the article. (as I am not a regular user (yet) I hope I did it properly). If more information is needed Please let me know. ZVL is one of the waterpolo powerhouses in Holland. The team competes in the European competition for several years already. triple cup and 2x national final. With this history (and expected future) I think a wiki article is in order Grasyerba (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unable to find sources to establish notability of the subject. Well, it simply fails Wikipedia general notability guideline. Grasyerba is requested to find some wp:secondary, wp:independent and wp:reliable sources having substantial coverage of the subject to save the article for deletion, if there is some. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tried to research some other pages on Wiki to see what kind of info I needto add. I checked a couple of other waterpolo clubs as ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donk_Gouda ) and ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_Mediterrani ) but as these pages are correct, why is it that we need to submit extra info? The link on Mediterrani even doesn't work (but as a waterpolo enthousiast I know they are legit). It feels like there are different guidelines? I can ad the site of Manchester ( http://www.manchesterwaterpoloclub.co.uk/news.html ) or the LEN ( last year, poule C http://www.len.eu/Disciplines/water-polo/clubs-pages/euro-league-women.aspx ) but what else do you actually need? a link to the dutch Wiki site? Their is an extensive page of ZVL. This weekend the team won the dutch ManMeer!Cup for the second time in a row, third time in their (short) extinction ( http://www.waterpoloworld.nl/Nieuws/tabid/66/ArticleId/6711/news.aspx ) Meaby I do not understand properly what you are looking for in independent sources? Waterpolo.nl and woaterpoloworld.com are independent from ZVL, as is youtube and NOS (national broadcasting). And lot of sources are in dutch, is that the problem? But then again, for the Spanish teams they are in Spanish? Grasyerba (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Garsyerba, please do add more sources. The sources can be in Nederlands or in Spanish, they do not need to be in English. From quick review in Google news and in Google, the team seems notable, there is coverage. --do ncr am 18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet - I'm not sure, if there are some sources in Dutch or Spanish language media, but at least not in English (as per my attempt to find some). There are few sources, provided above by creator of the article. I'll not look up into Wikipedia articles. First source, manchesterwaterpoloclub doesn't even mention ZVL once. Second source, len.eu, is about some game schedule and it does mention ZVL, but only one time. Third source, waterpoloworld.nl is perhaps about the same game, and mentions ZVL twice (definitively, not substantial). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User talk:Anupmehra. I read your reaction. As per ManchesterWaterpolo: they refer to ZVL Leiden just as "Leiden" in their post of Wednesday 27 November, 2013. It is about last years round. So indeed only mentioned once. Year before ZVL played at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CW_Dos_Hermanas (why is this page ok contrary to the one of ZVL?) which is also mentioned on their page [1] LEN page is indeed very brief. They only mention teams at the tournaments. ZVL also played in the 2011-2012 season LEN in Sevilla [2] As per waterpolo world: You can see that at this moment ZVl is playing play off [3] for the national title A search at google with "ZVl leiden" indeed shows a lot of dutch pages. Also al lot of directions to LEN tournaments. Also this french page [4] Also, if you check out flickr [5] you will find photo's of our teams. All in all there is a lot of documentation to be found. This team is already for a couple of years competiting at the highest level in Holland, and in the top 12 of Europe. They list 5 internationals in their ranks. As mentioned, I see teams on wiki with less information and i do believe they should be here on wiki with other teams that i mentioened before. After all there is a referal on other Wiki page to ZVL as well?. Grasyerba (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of the above provided sources are having substantial coverage of the subject to establish notability as per Wikipedia general notability guideline. Creator either, is unaware of Wikipedia notability standard for inclusion or unable to provide any sources to satisfy Wikipedia general notability guideline. This non-notable article should be deleted. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Note, the tone of some of the comments in this AFD are pushing the lines of the civility policy. Participants are reminded to assume good faith and not to bite the newbies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Today ZVL became dutch champion. I do not know what else I can add to this discussion Grasyerba (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 11 May 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 May 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be no doubt that this is a top-level team in a recognised sport = notable. There could admittedly be more references, and if Grasyerba stays around (which is probably doubtful after this experience: apologies, Grasyerba) they could doubtless add more, but those already given are adequate (in my view). @Anupmehra, I'm assuming good faith (with some difficulty) but I'm embarrassed on behalf of Wikipedia by your attitude.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Sanjay Leela Bhansali. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao Mastani (film)

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

Too soon-from what I can tell has not started film either. Wgolf (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but a better reason for deleting this article would be nice. A fair amount of independent articles about this film, a couple even being cited here, do exist. The info should be included somewhere. 和DITOR E tails 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just looked like a too soon project-was unsure of what to make of this. Wgolf (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Have been reading stories about this film long since Bhansali made Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam in 1999.ref 14 years and i guess every actor must have been rumoured to have been cast in this film. Only constant has been Bhansali and given his style of work there is no guarantee it might happen even now. Although 14 years of news-making can flesh out a good length of article, that all would be trivial. If someone wishes, they might work on it in their own userspace. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea for a redirect then-its like how long tons of movies are in production-Benjamin Button was for a while. So was Tangled! Wgolf (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, existing coverage speaking about production might have been a decent reason to do pro-active redirect rather than a deletion nomination. But now we look further for more coverage that could have this meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and have it qualify for an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Bajirao Mastani (film) Ranveer Singh Deepika Padukone Sanjay Leela Bhansali S L Bhansali

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I think a redirect would be the best for now and/or a merge.Wgolf (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. By default I keep the article, and also per WP:BOLD I will move it, everybody is welcome to revert the move. I do not see any consensus for the redirects at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:NGO. The two citations from Corriere della Sera only name someone who claims to be secretary of said party and his belief that said party is useful, while others disagree. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris troutman and I thank him. The two articles concern the "Socialist Costituent Assembly" of the Italian Socialist Party (2007) and they don't talk about a Socialist Party founded by De Michelis--Maremmano (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I perfectly understand that the article needs more sources and, probably, a different name ("2007–08" might be inconsistent*), but the party existed. In 2007 the New Italian Socialist Party (NPSI) split over its participation in the "Socialist Constituent Assembly" (CS), which led in 2007–2008 to the formation of the Socialist Party (PS), now Italian Socialist Party (PSI). The faction led by De Michelis and Del Bue, who lost to Caldoro's in an internal struggle, initially continued to use the NPSI banner, until it decided to adpot the name "Socialist Party", coherently with the name of the party which would emerge from the CS, albeit with a different symbol. As such the "Socialist Party–De Michelis" is cited in the article on the PS/PSI. --Checco (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*=The founding congress of the PS/PSI was held in July 2008, thus the formal merger of PS–De Michelis into the PS/PSI happened at that point, hence "–08".

Ps: My good faith is vindicated by some comments from it:Discussione:Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano. For those who understand Italian, please read especially:

Utente:Bronzino, 16 July 2007: Per quanto abbia provato a sviscerare la questione, non sono riuscito a capire se il Nuovo Psi legittimo sia quello di Del Bue o quello di Caldoro. Il primo continua a usare nuovopsi.com, il secondo ha creato il sito partitosocialista.org. Cosa strana, poi, nessuno finora ha voluto portare l'altro in tribunale per chiarire la questione, sicché a tutt'oggi ci sono 2 Npsi. [...]
Utente:87.9.164.50, 6 October 2007: Il nome Partito Socialista Nuovo PSI rimane a Caldoro di contro il simbolo và a De Michelis il cui gruppo si chiama Partito socialista PS. [6] [7]
Utente:Whit&Black, 28 August 2008: Segnalo che il "Partito Socialista Nuovo PSI" nato nel 2001 ed il "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro sono soggetti diversi. Nel 2007 il "Partito Socialista Nuovo PSI" era diviso in due sulla decisione di aderire alla "Costituente Socialista" di Boselli e si crearono forti tensioni, fino ad arrivare alla celebrazione di due congressi con l'elezione di ben due segretari. La soluzione fu la divisione del partito: la denominazione "Partito Socialista" rimase a Del Bue e De Michelis, che aderirono alla "Costituente'"; la denominazione "Nuovo PSI" rimase a Caldoro e Barani, che aderirono al PdL. Ciò è provato dal fatto che sul sito nel "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro si fa riferimento al partito solo ed esclusivamente come "Nuovo PSI"; lo statuto del "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro è stato approvato nel 2007 [8], proprio la data della scissione in due; nel 2009 l'Ufficio elettorale centrale nazionale ha affermato che il "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro non è lo stesso partito del 2004, come poi confermato dal TAR del Lazio. [...]

Please also note that the www.nuovopsi.com was given back by De Michelis & Co. to the current NPSI (still led by Caldoro) a few years later.

I'm sure about what I have been saying, but I will look for sources. --Checco (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source that settles things once and for all! The NPSI's faction led by De Michelis was active as a separate party from the official NPSI led by Caldoro and was known as "Socialist Party". I will edit the article according to the source (even though I'm not sure about the dates given). For clarity, the article should be moved to "Socialist Party (De Michelis)". This AfD should be closed and the article kept. --Checco (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: It settles nothing. First, you haven't disproven my charge about notability. Second, GoogleTranslate tells me that you're participating in this same argument in itwiki, where there is also disagreement. If the Italian-language Wikipedians don't agree on the sourcing, why would we? One book alone (which might not even be independent) doesn't make out notability. It sounds like the subject could be mentioned in a section of the Italian Socialist Party article but it doesn't merit its own article. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It settles everything. The "Socialist Party" led by De Michelis was a real party and its notablity is beyond any doubt (two MEPs!).

Regarding it.Wiki, virtually everyone knows that it is hardly a reliable Wiki and that they have a totally different policy on notability (just think that they are currently discussing over the deletions of The Other Europe and European Choice, and several users support them). However, there is no active disussion in it.Wiki on our issue (it was settled once ago: two parties), I'm not taking part to any discussion there and I seldom contribute there because I disagree with it.Wiki's policies and customs. --Checco (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there might not be the optimum amount of sources, we have to be pragmatic and accept that there will not be an avalanche of sources about short-lived minor political parties.--Autospark (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It.Wiki is absurdly restrictive but en.Wiki is extremely elastic. I admit that I didn't know the information linked by Checco and that the source is very interesting. But there are some problems: the names "Socialist Party (2007-08)" and "Socialist Party (De Michelis)" are wrong, the source says that the "party" was led by Mauro Del Bue. The perspective of this party was only to join itself into Socialist Party. I think that these informations should be reported in the page of New PSI.--Maremmano (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Del Bue was the party's secretary, De Michelis was the party's president and practical leader. --Checco (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would those two names be "wrong"? The party was dissolved in 2008 and its main leader was De Michelis. --Checco (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The date of dissolution (2008) is supposed. And did two socialist parties exist in the period 2007-08?--Maremmano (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PS–De Michelis was merged into the current PS during the party's founding congress in July 2008. Before that, waiting for the formal birth of the new party, De Michelis' followers had organized themselves in the party this article is about. --Checco (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep and deal with ths content problems on the talk page. We normally do cover splinter groups of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the page should remain, however the redirects Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) and Socialist Party (Italy, 2007-2008) should be deletd, the date of dissolution is not at all demonstrated, the Italian Socialist Party (2007) was born in 2007--Maremmano (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to close the debate moving the page to Socialist Party (De Michelis) and deleting the redirects Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) and Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–2008) because are wrong, the date of dissolution has not been proved by any source, it is an original research. Okay?--Maremmano (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your arguments, but I agree with the proposed move. Would you take care of redirects? --Checco (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refer to the deletion of the redirects? --Maremmano (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the fix of all the links directed to the article. I also support the deletion of those redirects, but are you going to fix all those broken links? Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC) @Admins: Please close this discussion and move the article.[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Allen Ross

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

Out of wiki en scope, not noteworthy death Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This entry was not properly transcluded until today. Spinning Spark 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would it not be better to rename and reshape the article to Allen Ross? Is he not notable? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - here is seem to be the person himself that is notable not his death. So a namechange is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-forge as Samaritan Foundation. There are enough sources about this group and these events, but this is the wrong focus. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (not notable). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Burras

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

Fails WP:PROF. M. Caecilius (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE no evidence of notability of this particular individual. Amortias (T)(C) 21:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence is provided that he meets WP:ACADEMIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no evidence of notability given. Sigh. there are good student projects on Wikipedia, honestly. but this isn't one of them. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to be an asset to his university, but that's different from being notable here. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources either. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep I'm also going to rename this, as suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iron solomon

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

Rapper whose article makes no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability sufficient to pass WP:NMUSIC — it just asserts that he exists and has released an album, and is sourced only to non-notable blogs and primary sources (i.e. his own social media profiles). I'm willing to withdraw this if a substantive claim of notability, sourced to proper sources, can be provided — but this version, as written, ain't cutting it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what your rationale is. Bad articles should be improved by volunteers at the point of a gun? Nothing suggests you were interested in whether or not he was notable at any point. 78.18.102.158 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article fails to demonstrate, through the use of reliable sources, that he actually meets our inclusion rules for the notability of musicians. It isn't my job to "be interested in whether or not he was notable at any point", if that requires speculative guessing that isn't reflected in the article as written. The onus is on the writer of the article to demonstrate that he is notable enough to pass our inclusion standards — not on Wikipedia to keep an article that, as written, fails to meet our standards just because one anonymous IP thinks (wrongly) that a gun is somehow being pointed at their head. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notability is a property of the subject, not the article. So yes, it is your job. nobody at afd is interested in your reviews of articles. 78.19.99.71 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is not on the writer(s) of the article to demonstrate notability (though it helps), beyond the bare minimum WP:CSD A7 and A9 criteria. The AfD nominator is expected to check for sources: see WP:BEFORE — Gwalla | Talk 17:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the onus is on the writer to at least demonstrate and source enough notability to at least get the person past A7 and A9 (which this article, as written, did not — it was in fact entirely speediable as written, with the fact that it was two years old already being the only reason I opted to take this route instead of pulling the speedy trigger on it.) And I did follow WP:BEFORE enough to know that while outside sourcing isn't entirely nonexistent, there isn't enough of it to actually get him past WP:GNG in any substantive way (even you acknowledge in your comment below that the sourcing you found is "not spectacular".) Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was most certainly not speediable as A7 (or A9, which doesn't apply). A7 specifically says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." (bold in the original). That "even if" clause is important: no sources need to be provided in order to meet that minimal standard. As far as GNG goes, "not spectacular" is not the same as "not significant". There are multiple sources, independent of the subject, which discuss the subject as more than a passing mention. That's GNG. "Not spectacular" was me being self-deprecating about my cursory search. — Gwalla | Talk 21:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly was speediable, as it does not make any actual claim of significance at all — as written, it fails to actually claim anything beyond "this person exists", which is not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Iron Solomon. I found a few sources just in the first page of results from googling him, though they're not spectacular: [9] from Complex Magazine (review of a rap battle he participated in), [10] also from Complex (mostly an interview, but the first page is a brief history of his career), and [11] from Forbes of all things. Past the first page I get [12] from XXL Magazine, [13] from Vibe Magazine (interview with another rapper who beat him in a battle). I think that meets WP:BAND#1. I also ran across [14]. I should also note that the label he's on, Duck Down Music Inc., is clearly notable, though since he appears to only have one album so far he doesn't meet BAND#5. The article should be moved to fix capitalization. — Gwalla | Talk 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. No independent references just a few links to the artist's own website/facebook page Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, how are the references I found not independent? — Gwalla | Talk 16:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's own twitter pager, facebook page and Yout Tube Channel are not independent. The first reference is actually a link to the artist's record label/publisher so that's not independat. -Rehnn83 ^Talk 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the references I found that I linked in this discussion, the ones from Complex, Forbes, XXL, and Vibe. — Gwalla | Talk 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Iron Solomon per Gwalla ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Gwalla. Some of the sources that he's found don't go into enough depth to establish notability; but the Forbes piece and the Complex profile amply satisfy the notability criteria: coverage in some detail, in independent widely-circulated reputable media. Ammodramus (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to proper capitalization. Gwalla's links (Complex, Forbes, XXL, etc.) are dedicated coverage and sufficient for the GNG. czar ♔ 15:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After three weeks, there's no consensus regarding the retention, deletion, merging, etc. of this article. Regarding the merge !vote by User:Unscintillating, a discussion of such can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vasundhara Metro Mall

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

A shopping center in Patna like thousands of shopping centers in India which do not credibly indicate the importance or significance of it. The article was once PRODed and recent CSD was declined by non-admin editor[15]. The only reliable reference have a single passing mention which doesn't establish notability. Bisswajit 06:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy was declined due to WP:CSD#A7, which is to be used only for individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events.--Shivam (U-T-C) 18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shivam (U-T-C) 11:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Isn't a mall an organization? Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a mall is a mall. It might also be interpreted as a building or a place, but those aren't CSD A7 criteria either. The removal of the A7 tag was completely correct in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

We view a school as an organization. Why not a mall? Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While acknowledging that I think our usual practice towards secondary schools is completely bonkers, most of our "school" articles are not on the buildings, they're on the institutions that are inside the buildings. If this were an article on "Vasundhara Homes Pvt. Ltd", the company that owns this particular mall, then the article would be A7-able. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No argument on our practices in the school area. :::::::But I actually think schools and malls are comparable in this regard. In each case, I don't think we are writing primarily on the physical building. With private schools for example, we are writing on what the organization that runs the service of education within the edifice happens to offer (sometimes it is what a private school company offers as "school x"; sometimes it is a board of education offering it as "school y"). And with malls we are doing the same. We are writing on what the organization that runs the edifice happens to offer within the edifice. I don't think in either case we are writing primarily on the bricks and mortar, though that would be the case with historically significant buildings. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And... I think the fact we can debate about this, apart from being off topic, is a prime reason why it's not appropriate for the blunt instrument of speedy deletion, which should only be for absolutely straightforward, clear cut cases. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shivam (U-T-C) 11:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A look at Patna shows a picture of a mall, and the template at the bottom shows four malls. One of the current sources in the article discusses a list of malls in Patna. As per the policy WP:ATD, if this topic is determined to be non-notable, it can be merged to a new article, List of malls in Patna. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times of India article shows this to be the important mall in the city. In addition, per WP:OUTCOMES, a common outcome is that articles on malls are almost always considered notable.--Shivam (U-T-C) 18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Outcomes says that this is true for "larger" malls. The only metric I've seen so far is that there is one anchor. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to believe that a six-storied mall has only one anchor store; moreover, this mall is designed by the most renowned Architect of India, Hafeez Contractor, which is rare in case of malls (he is often considered as brand ambassador of the architecture of India [16]), is also a sign of notability.--Shivam (U-T-C) 17:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent notability doesn't apply here and the link[17] doesn't mention anything about "Vasundhara Metro Mall" either. Bisswajit 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that inherent notability does not apply here. And that the assertion that "articles on malls are almost always considered notable" is untrue.Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet any of our notability criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the notability is established by the India Times article. American malls such as this this and this all have articles with similar sourcing. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahto Buldas

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

Vanity article that fails both WP:ACADEMIC and general WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Only real claim for wiki-notability is being one out of dozen or so Young Scientist Award laureates, [18]. Sander Säde 07:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question What makes you say this is a "vanity article"? That's quite a negative assessment... As for claims for notability, I see several claims (university chair, chair of a foundation, inventor of something). Also, if I click the link to Google Scholar above, I find several highly-cited papers that seem to indicate some influence in his field. Could you perhaps expand on your rationale? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because it was created as such by the very first edit ([19]) by an editor who has barely edited anything else. This makes my COI-sense tingle - not to mention, for me it reads like a vanity article. If you think that my assessment is invalid or overly negative (especially for BLP!), I will remove it from the deletion nomination.

As for notability, he is not in a named chair (WP:ACADEMIC criteria #5 - I am actually not sure these even exist in Estonia), OpenKSI foundation (http://www.openksi.org/) looks to be basically an one-page website set up by his own company, Guardtime (offtopic: that company does deserve to be a bluelink/article for sure) and unfortunately I am not qualified to assess his contributions in the field of cryptography. Perhaps most telling (for me) about his notability is that there is no article about him in the Estonian Wikipedia - nor was I able to find any news articles discussing him. There are a few that mention his name, but they are about Guardtime and mention him as one of the founders/CTO.

--Sander Säde 17:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 12 (please correct if wrong) in a very highly cited area is not there yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON for his papers to have developed enough citations to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 and no evidence of other kinds of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Considering that the nomination was grounded in concerns about the article's sourcing, and a number of new sources have been added during the debate, the discussion does tend towards "keep", but it would be overreaching to say there was a real "keep" consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chulbul Pandey (character)

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

Not enough sources to prove notability. Also, the article is nothing other than plot summaries of the films he appears in. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, please see below. Multiple sources exist that were simply not used, article content and style would appear to be addressable through regular editing, and we rarely delete what can be fixed. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dabangg - there are only two films in which the charcter appears,not notable enough for an independant article, & as noted the article is nothing but plot summaries. It is also effectily unsourced.TheLongTone (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Chulbul Pandey Chulbul Pandey, Dabangg Chulbul Pandey (character)

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

Keep this BRAND NEW article and encourage the new article be improved, per WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:SOFIXIT... and WP:NFICT and the numerous available sources discussing and analyzing the chracter. A five minute search quickly found such as IBN Indian Express Bollywood Life The HIndu First Post Zee News NDTV (1) NDTV (2) NDTV (3) (and more) showing the character is spoken of quite a bit... and there are real-world considerations. The character is considered an inspiration by other actorssee Deccan Chronicle is to become a video game character see News Vala is being emulated in other films and by other actors see Times of IndiaDNA& ApunkaChoice, and even has a cult/fan following. I was prepared to opine a delete.... until my searches revealed how often this character is spoken of and analyzed directly and in detail in multiple reliable sources. If he were a real person, notability would not be in doubt. The topic needs expansion and use of available sources... IE: editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing salvagable in the current version, but if MichaelQSchmidt or some other editor wants to userfy , that is an option as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)

Keep and improve - Upon a source review of those provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt above, the topic passes WP:GNG. That said, the article would benefit from copy editing to be more succinct and the addition of sources to the Biography and Game character sections. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd go along with the keep suggestions made above. --ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stars in Their Eyes episodes

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

Unsourced cruft. Laun chba ller 19:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - ~~Unsourced~~ Unecyclopedic cruft. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Verifiable information (and actually has a source in the article); not random trivia (if this was meant under the derogatory word 'cruft'). No original research; pure list; useful historical info, for completeness sake. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument.--Laun chba ller 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "historical" about this list at all for completeness sake. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I always hate to see so much work go into pages like these, with all the linking and the, um, "research". But fancruft like this needs major sourcing, as people not familiar with the show must just take it at face value. — Wylie pedia 08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's sourced, and surely an episode guide for a primetime show that spanned two decades is worth keeping. Sweezely (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles go by notability, Not how long it's been running..... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this article is not notable then surely all episode/contestant lists of similar era talent shows should also be MfD (e.g. link) Sweezely (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you compare this tip to that article? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Laun chba ller 22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not about whether you personally like the presentation, it is about the notability. This was a very popular show that is still repeated on Saturday night prime time, therefore an episode guide is equally as notable as the article I mentioned. If it can be improved, it should be improved, rather than simply deleted. Furthermore, it is only marked for deletion due to lack of sourcing, therefore please keep the argument to the validity of the sourcing and not your personal opinions of its quality. Sweezely (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and this is not notable. It is cruft.--Laun chba ller 19:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there, you reiterated your opinion without offering anything to back it up. This weakens your argument. Further, you describe yourself as a "staunch inclusionist". Your words: "It's my belief that if someone has spent many hours on an article..., can back up its importance or significance and does not have a conflict of interest, then it's deserving of an article on Wikipedia." By your own rules, this article should not be deleted. What do you have against it? It has been demonstrated that it is notable, and you insist on calling it cruft despite it being sourced. So neither of those points are valid. Furthermore, if it were to be deleted, then all that would happen is that the information here would be transferred to the main article. Then it would be split because such a large page would be unnavigable. So deleting it serves no purpose.Sweezely (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a British talk show running for sixteen years and was notable in the UK. The list helps organization and traversability of information on Wiki. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara J. Fiala

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

Article about a person notable primarily as a commissioner of the state DMV and as a former member of a county executive, neither of which is a position that automatically confers a presumption of notability on its holders just because they existed. In addition, the article relies exclusively on two primary sources (one of which, furthermore, is a dead link), with not a whit of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that she actually passes our inclusion rules in any meaningful way. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and the notability claim can be substantively improved, but this version, as written, is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As County Executive, the subject was covered extensively in the Press & Sun-Bulletin. Likewise, as DMV Commissioner, the subject was and is covered extensively in the Times Union (Albany). So either find someone with a subscription who can browse those newspapers' archives online or show up at the Broome County Public Library or Albany Public Library and start pulling reels of microfilm. And those are just the obvious places to look for WP:RS. If you're going to AfD this one, then the zero-sourced or single sourced J. Russell Sprague, A. Holly Patterson, and Ralph G. Caso should go as well. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that the standard for some topics is that as long as you can verify that the thing exists, it's allowed to keep an unsourced article as long as it's reasonable to expect that sources exist somewhere, that is emphatically not the standard that Wikipedia applies to biographies of living persons. That class of article requires some reliable source coverage to already be in the article in its present form, and is not entitled to be kept just because it might eventually be sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To which clause of the lengthy WP:BLP do you refer? Is it the one that begins All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source...? We are talking about an article created in 2007, right? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between a BLP created after that date and one created before it is the article's eligibility for the specialized new WP:BLPPROD process. An article created before that date is still not entitled to stick around unsourced, and can still be deleted for being unsourced — it isn't eligible for one particular process for deleting unsourced BLPs, but it can still be put through other deletion processes, such as AFD, on that basis. However, I see that you have added some proper sourcing to the article, so consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DanielPenfield. Tiller54 (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, discussion regarding merge(s) can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Slaghoople

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

Fails WP:GNG. References within article point back to episodes of the cartoon and one link to the live-action movie, but none provide sources that meet significant coverage.

Google search provides no links within the first three pages of results that meet WP:GNG, instead providing links to fan wikis, Pinterest pages and Flickr pools.

Although Elizabeth Taylor's cameo as the character in the live action film garnered some press coverage, that coverage was more directly related to Taylor herself rather than the character. AldezD (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although first AFD was closed as Keep, the keep votes again reference Elizabeth Taylor's and Joan Collins' portryals of the character, not the character itself. These notations show that the actresses portraying the character are notable, but their portrayal again does not help the character itself meet WP:GNG/significant coverage. AldezD (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it might be an idea to merge this with some other articles on minor Flintstones characters, e.g. The Gruesomes (fictional characters), The Great Gazoo, Hoppy (The Flintstones) (none of which have much notability), to create an article Flintstones minor characters. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect There are several non-notable characters that get covered despite their general notability. The article List of The Flintstones characters already exists as a redirect, so this can be used to merge and remove non-notable Flinstones' character articles. Failing a merge, I recommend a redirect to The Flinstones character section, as this character is covered there. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vancouver#Transportation. The non-keep arguments cite that it does not meet the notability guidelines or if it does, the article fails our policy of verifiability (it is unsourced and thus does cannot demonstrate notability). The keep arguments, while asserting its status, otherwise fail to refute or address these issues with policy-or-guideline-based arguments; however, should sourcing be added to the article to help assuage the aforementioned concerns, the eventual redirect is free to be reversed and another discussion can occur at AfD over its notability as demonstrated by those sources should someone feel it necessary to start one. slakr^\ talk / 02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward Avenue (Vancouver)

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

No proof of notability. OKNoah (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major thoroughfare in Vancouver. I believe the prevailing consensus is that major thoroughfares in major cities are notable while sidestreets are generally not (excepting for ones with substantial independant coverage). Them From Space 16:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any special exceptions for streets in Wikipedia:Notability --OKNoah (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered highways in national or state/provincial systems are what are considered notable. Simple streets pass GNG or die. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only is this a major thoroughfare in a major city, but it's the location and namesake for the King Edward Station in the SkyTrain system. Such investment is only made at locations that are considered vital in a major transportation system.--Oakshade (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't an assumption about investment makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. --OKNoah (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited from the SkyTrain station, either from its location or its naming (people who have ships named after them, for instance, do not become notable for that). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be impossible for there not to be extremely extensive government reports with analysis, traffic and pedestrian patterns and the impact on the area of this street by having a station on this street, thus passing even WP:GNG. There is far too much investment and civic importance for such reports not to be done.--Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those are secondary sources, for one. --OKNoah (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internal government reports are primary sources. The notability of a road is demonstrated by media coverage in secondary sources, not internal bureaucratic analysis. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Vancouver#Transportation. We do not give streets, even major thoroughfares, a pass on notability; they must pass WP:GNG. This is a plain, common, unremarkable road with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. However, there may be some here that can be added to the section of the city's article regarding transportation, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable. This street is named after Edward VII and is a major thoroughfare in Vancouver. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited through name. --OKNoah (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's a major thoroughfare in Vancouver... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted repeatedly above, simply being a major thoroughfare in a city is not, in and of itself, a sufficient claim of notability to qualify a street for an unsourced article. The notability of a city street is demonstrated by the use of reliable sources which demonstrate that the street has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources, and not just by being able to prove that the street exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City streets, as a rule, are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, or even because they're "major thoroughfares", if the article in question does not actually cite any reliable sources to demonstrate that the road warrants coverage in an encyclopedia. This article, as written, only describes the road's physical characteristics — thereby failing WP:ROADOUTCOMES, which explicitly states that an article that explains and provides valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics. So while I suppose it might be possible that an article could be written about this road which actually satisfied our inclusion rules for roads, this article as written ain't it. Delete; no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write and source a good new article about it which gives any real context for why the road should be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect somewhere, possibly King Edward Station or Vancouver#Transportation. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Future_of_the_Russian_Navy#Destroyers. I leave it up to a subject matter expert to figure out how much information should be merged. In any case, leave a redirect behind. No bias against breaking this back out into a stand-alone article if at some future time, sufficient reliable independent sources emerge. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project 21956

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

This article is about a vessel concept identified by a project name or number. Typically, ship design companies create and publish concepts identified by some name or number every now and then, but only a fraction of them will ever be built. In this case, none of these "Project 21956" ships have been built or even ordered - it's just a concept that the ship design company hopes someone would buy. In WP:SHIPS, "proposed ships" are considered notable enough to warrant an article (i.e. not fail WP:CRYSTAL) when the shipbuilding contract is awarded (or was awarded but later cancelled) or there is (was) otherwise strong indication (e.g. strong media publicity) that the vessel will be (or would have been) built. This is not the case with this article and thus I have proposed it for deletion. Tupsumato (talk) 14:17, 24 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 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - until the first keel is laid, it fails CRYSTAL. Plain and simple. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reword - An alternative would be to reword the article so it talks about the project rather than as if the ships already existed (as it does at present). This would be appropriate if the project itself is notable which it seems to be as there are several references. It is certainly the sort of thing a reader might reasonably be searching for. -Arb. (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting plenty of page views, 13,600+ in the last 90 days. See http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Project_21956 -Arb. (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - we routinely delete pages that receive quite a lot of hits if they don't meet our inclusion policies. Ships that weren't built (and most of those that were cancelled after work began) usually don't merit an article (and when they do warrant an article, it's because they are discussed significantly by reputable naval historians, and usually merged in with related topics - as in the case with French battlecruiser proposals or German FK cruiser designs). At best, this article could be merged into a hypothetical List of destroyers of Russia and the Soviet Union if someone wants to go through the trouble of creating it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might be failing some kind of Wikipedia policy here by making this comparison, but in my eyes "Project 21956" is comparable to e.g. Aker ARC 100 HD, a conceptual design that was published last spring and was featured in a number of high-profile ship technology publications. While I wrote an article about oblique icebreakers in general and another about the one that is being built right now, I haven't mentioned it in Wikipedia. As a project, it is simply not notable enough.

By the way, of the "several references", 50% are from the design bureau's own website. Tupsumato (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of destroyers of Russia and the Soviet Union, which I plan to get a start on tomorrow. There's no hulls laid down so it's "WP:CRYSTAL unless WP:GNG", and GNG isn't met here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I started working on that and quickly went "Nope". But I did find a better target, where the ship is already mentioned, so redirect to Future of the Russian Navy#Destroyers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 26 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 03:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

legit article --Crossswords (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under what basis do you conclude that the article is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies? Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

————————— I take serious issue with the using the ship number (and lack of name) as a point against this article. The actual class and ship names are allocated by the Russian Navy, and done so after production. Just because French or American companies produce promotional names does not mean that this is the practice elsewhere. IMHO, it shows a degree of ignorance of Russian naval design to use this argument. There is no way that this design is significantly less notable than the DDG-X/DDG-1000 was before it was procured. Hrimpurstala (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Harmon (writer)

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

Contested PROD. This is a sportswriter who fails WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON/WP:NWRITER; I cannot find any significant coverage about him. BY him, a few, but ON him, insufficent to establish notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find coverage of him to show he meets GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found no significant coverage of him. Astudent0 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Library

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

Looks to go way back on the web, but I'm just not finding sources to pass WP:GNG. The majority of the article is currently links to lists that include the site (e.g. a section on "Library Recommended Lists"). Seems like it's pointedly trying to show notability but in the process hurting the article and failing in the attempt. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's kind of secondary to the sourcing, but the site is basically a web relic -- a website directory with heavy advertising. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the in depth cverage and independence needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find any independent reliable source with significant (or in fact any) coverage about the topic to meet WP:GNG. I admit I didn't search long; the name's generic quality makes it challenging to search. No sources are currently cited in the article. I read the previous discussion and simply disagree with the rationale that "keep" voters applied, i.e. that reliable sources are unnecessary because links on independent websites (Yahoo, NASA, etc.) that describe the site are sufficient. I'll check back here in case someone posts reliable sources that I overlooked. Agyle (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Pancho

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

Unsourced non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG since the only sources are links to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Weather Service locations

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

List of National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices exists, and is more complete. Probably redirect there. Frood 19:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Frood. (This probably could have been done without needing to come to AfD, unless there is some record of opposition that I'm not seeing in the article history.) -Arxiloxos (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, you're right... Haven't edited regularly in so long I forgot I could even do that! Frood 23:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3 blatant hoax, a10 (copy of Zarine Khan. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Hafeez

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

Blatant HOAX, and also this looks like a vandalism. The name states "Ahmad Hafeez", when searched with this name, a male comes up. Also, the picture states name as Zarine Khan. This is a deletion article please. Also look at this edit, it shows the use of "His", "Her", "Yuvraj", "Atif Aslam", etc, which shows the HOAX in it. Danke Vishal Bakhai - Works 19:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College–industrial complex

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

This article seems to be a short essay about a term I have not found used in any reliable sources. It does not appear to be notable in the ways that military-industrial complex or prison-industrial complex are. Novusuna ^talk 18:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not following what you mean by a "reliable source". google it (which i did before making the article) and you get 36 million hits, not tweets or rants, but bona-fide blogs, journals, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewax (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 May 2014

The terminology does seem to have some currency. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary? I didn't find substantial coverage to warrant an article.

Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- it took me about two minutes to find plenty of substantial coverage. google it.Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia's trashcan and doesn't accept neologisms with no evidence of real-world usage either. Angr (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "no evidence of real world usage" 12,000,000 hits. i'm not following what you mean by evidence.Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced article. We would need to have citations to significant coverage of this concept in independent , reliable sources to have such an article, and I'm not seeing it. A large number of Google hits does not show notability if these are passing uses of a catch phrase. So it is incumbent on those supporting keeping the article to furnish the references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- that's not entirely true. it's not really incumbent on anyone, that's why we call it Wikipedia. "A large number of Google hits does not show notability" no it does not, at least, not by itself, not entirely, it doesn't. but it does imply something about how important it is relative to myriad other articles that are already on wikipedia, and it definitely does make it real easy to find countless examples of a term that obviously is not a "catch phrase". OTOH, there is a good arguement to be made for changing it to "educational industrial complex" but then i assume the same objections would apply.Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The author didn't help us by including any references, and a quick google search doesn't show anything of substance. It shows the term being thrown around on a few blogs, but nothing that would warrant an article for a neologisms like this. Shadowjams (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 12,000,000. that's a real number, i didn't just make it up. let's do a little comparison with similar terms (also here on wikipedia) that you do seem to consider notable:
- peace industrial complex - 11,000,000
- prison industrial complex - 7,500,000
- military industrial complex - 23,000,000
- now if i had called it the education industrial complex (50,000,000 hits) you could still say that it's "a few blogs" could you not?Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put the search phrase in quotation marks? If not, your Google count will yield 99.999% false positives. Forget millions of hits, just give us TWO examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That's what I've done hundreds of times when I believed an article should be kept. Please produce, Mikewax Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewax, a "reliable source" is a publication, not related to the topic it is reporting on, with a reputation for accuracy. Scholarly publications or news media are usually considered reliable; blogs or other self-published work usually are not, but there are exceptions. To be deemed notable for Wikipedia's purposes, a topic needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For articles about words or phrases, that means publications analyzing or describing the phrase, not just using it. You may also be interested to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked online for sources (exactly one lonely Ghit on Google scholar, and quite a few regular Ghits, but not the millions alleged - virtually all of the book Ghits are false hits), but all I found were opinion pieces that use the phrase as an ad hominem attack on the media, supposedly rich college professors, etc. I can't see that it's been used for other than partisan purposes in opinion/ conspiracy theory blogs, and then only in passing. Oddly, there appears to be some sources available for pre-college industrial complexes in Korea and Japan, but I'm not going there. Bearian (talk)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anukriti Gusain

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Administrative listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 5 -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 19:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep person is notable and there are many RS, establish significance of Article. Let people add the information. 14.98.160.92 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC) — 14.98.160.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree. GKCH (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with first AfD because of consensus. But this time its with keep as per discussion logs due to many indications e.g. Her participation in Miss Asia Pacific World, RS and now she is well known beauty personality. With all aspect I think its now well justifiable to keep this article. GKCH (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article seem to meet WP:N even though many of them read like press releases. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I strongly think this is an encyclopedia detail about a person who is in Beauty pageant.Agsliil (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — Agsliil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always find Indian media hard to evaluate. None of them seem to resemble traditional Western quality news sources; they don't use the dry, cautious language to which I'm accustomed and I agree with Hobit that those sources read like press releases. I wonder to what extent they've been checked. However, I'm confident that if Anukriti Gusain was British or American or Australian and had similar accomplishments, then she'd have an article on Wikipedia. It seems unjust to deny her one because of the tone of the sources, so on balance I'm a weak keep.—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is notable. Reliable Sources are the references for information that may be use for significance of Article. 125.63.75.30 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — 125.63.75.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely she is notable as per Wikipedia guideline. 14.98.183.205 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution Out of deference to AGF I don't want to make any specific accusations, but I will remind any editors contributing to this discussion that sock puppetry is a very serious no-no on Wikipedia and a quick way to get blocked or banned. You may comment as often as you like, but please !vote only once in this (or any other) AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , the Times of India references alone are more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aljaž Cotman

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aljaž Cotman

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 79.7.4.12 (talk · contribs) who gave No fully professional debut as the delete rationale. I agree with this assessment, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. He does have two cup appearances for NK Maribor, but both were against a lower division club, meaning they don't confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - he was capped today in a match between Gorica and Maribor in 35th round of the Slovenian PrvaLiga http://www.nkmaribor.com/novice/?id=5504 Matej1234 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that Mr Cotman has played in the WP:FPL-listed Slovenian PrvaLiga, he passes the football-specific notability guideline. The relevant facts and a reliable source have been included in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why waste time trying to delete articles that would likely only be recreated shortly afterwards, as they are clearly on the edge of their professional debut. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated when there are sources showing he meets WP:NBASKETBALL -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tadas Sedekerskis

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

Contested Prod. Article creator claims that Sedekerskis has played in professional leagues, even though it is clear that none of the competitions he has competed in is anywhere near the ones considered sufficient to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. However, I do agree that he'll probably meet those criteria in the future, so I'd suggest userfying the article. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He already played in second-tier Lithuanian basketball league - National Basketball League. It definitely is a professional league with decent level professional players, which means he already is a professional basketball player and not an amateur. Sedekerskis also been a member of Lithuanian Under-16 team and was one of the team leaders. In 2013 he signed a professional long-term contract with Laboral Kutxa and due to his impressive performances in youth competitions, he will join main squad really soon. Without any doubt he is worth to have a Wikipedia page. -- Pofka (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (GMT +2)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Article was created WP:TOOSOON.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is considered as one of top European prospects of such age and already is known world-wide as he participated in Jordan Brand Classic and others competitions. Wikipedia rules are mostly adapted for USA/Australia, however Euroleague and Australia basketball league levels are just incomparable and it is unfair because I truly believe that some random Australian league player isn't better than Sedekerskis. -- Pofka (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2014 (GMT +2)

The key part is "of such age". Junior achievements don't show notability. The IP is right when he says WP:TOOSOON. He may become notable, but he's not there yet. Astudent0 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every junior signs 6 year contract with one of the strongest Spanish team. He already is notable. -- Pofka (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (GMT +2)

Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for basketball players. Astudent0 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Voceditenore makes a good case for it being spam, and no reliable secondary sources found. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma anti-bonding molecule calcium carbonate

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

Non-notable brand/formulation of calcium carbonate. (Calcium carbonate in various formulations is widely used as an inexpensive dietary calcium supplement.) Marahdeo Holdings, trading as Marah Natural, is the only company that sells it, and makes claims on their website for the superiority of its "formulation technology" to other calcium supplements. The website promotes it as a "preventative and therapeutic strategy" for Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis as well as "helping bones to densify [sic] for higher athletes' performance". The only mentions of this brand name anywhere are on the Marah Natural website and in a couple of articles in obscure Korean journals, where it was tested on "post-menopausal" rats and allegedly improved their bone density. Needless to say, the company's website refers repeatedly to these studies as well as to "clinical trials" on swimmers carried out by "NTS Research & Inc" who developed the formulation. Note that both Marahdeo Holdings and NTS Research share the same address [20], [21]. All but one of the illustrations in the article are from the Marah Natural website. It appears to be an attempt to use a scientific-looking Wikipedia article to legitimize their products, although the company is never mentioned in the article. See also this discussion at WikiProject Medicine. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. Thank you for doing the homework. Valfontis (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "Sigma anti-bonding" is an attempt to use a term that any chemist would understand in an entirely inappropriate way to convince people that this is real science. It is not. The use of the term is not explained. It smells of hogwash to me. As indicated above it is also promotional. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nominator -- SAMI ^talk 16:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as now written is making medical claims with references that do not meet the standard used for medical articles on Wikipedia. And a search of reliable medical sources does not show any additional references to support the claims. I see nothing here that can or needs to be merged. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need high quality sources. As non likely exists should be deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is pseudo-medicine, rubbish science, quackery, spam, nonsense, crap, rubbish, junk. Kill it with napalm, thermite, hellfire and brimstone, etc... Oh and give a soggy trout to the reviewer who accepted it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete marketing name only. Nothing useful extra here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony R. Mills

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

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

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

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable local politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN--Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" (emphasis mine). Valfontis (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. I'm sure he's a great person and does a lot of good things, but he's not notable enough yet for a Wikipedia article. Valfontis (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources are of the type to confer notability, and the "offices" he holds fail to confer notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Snow Delete Nothing that even vaguely resembles notability. Zero support here; recommend snow close. John from Idegon (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the highest level of office he's held is the county planning commission, then that's not an office that confers notability on its holders under WP:POLITICIAN — the lowest level of office at which a person automatically qualifies for an article just for holding it is the state legislature. (Politicians at the local county or municipal levels of government may qualify for articles in some circumstances, but are not entitled to an automatic "just because he exists" presumption of notability.) Article relies a little too heavily on primary and unreliable sources, and the few good sources about him are not enough to demonstrate that he's cleared the high bar for notability of local politicians. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed, not necessary to use AfD process. Valfontis (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Brilliant Transportation

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

I no longer work for Brilliant Transportation, they didn't want a Wikipedia page and I don't want this draft associated with my username Adamt123 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Brilliant Transportation Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamt123/Brilliant Transportation[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 May 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the user page User:Adamt123/Brilliant Transportation--next time just use a speedy deletion template. Cheers. Valfontis (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Iraq UFO Sightings

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced entirely to UFO conspiracy sites, the one BBC piece is a small note that can easily be made in a broader article on UFO sightings. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved this article to mainspace after pillaging Storm05's userspace. I do not currently have an opinion on the matter, though I am open to being swayed. What article did you have in mind?--Laun chba ller 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate of UFO sightings in Iraq, also poorly sourced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total rubbish like UFO sightings has no encyclopaedic value. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's consensus against keeping, but there's no consensus against or for a redirect, so feel free to create one, and, if opposed, the issue can be dealt with at WP:RFD slakr^\ talk / 00:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leyden Gun

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

Poorly sourced article about a Taser-like product. I am unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 11:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leyden ball, practically the same concept. Unlike the OP, I have been able to find reliable sources covering "Leyden Gun" from a simple google search, eg. this source. I think there is too much overlap between this and Leyden ball to keep this as a separate article, and there is no sourced content to merge. 109.79.127.244 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as previous no additional content and this is just them means of propelling a Leyden ball Amortias (T)(C) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect. Not enough reliable sources to meet "significant coverage" threshold of general notability guideline (WP:GNG), and no reliable sources make any connection between Leyden Gun and Leyden ball. I searched books.google (found nothing), scholar.google (found nothing), and a normal Google web search where I found only:

Wired.co.uk article
KIJK Magazine article in Dutch.

Agyle (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect Articles are from 2010 about an upcoming product that seems not to have ever upcome. Product website referenced in video has not been updated (still speaks of 2013 as the future). This is not a Layden Ball.Jersey92 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the article is one sentence ("Automatic stun weapon on the basis of discharge of the hidh voltage capacitor. The concept of a new type of non-lethal weapons.") There, now everyone can see what we deleted. Wheee.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. I don't think redirects with these titles would be much use. Number 5 7 12:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World MAX 2013 World Championship Tournament Quarter Final in Foshan

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

None of the events leading up to the final are notable enough for individual articles. Deletion would be consistent with previous years where there was only one entry for the final and the important information about these minor events have already been included in the K-1 World MAX 2013 World Championship Tournament Final article. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reason (non-notable events leading up to the final):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete all all fail WP:EVENT. And part of this endless series of articles of non notable fighting events. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a list of results which are already in the article on the final.Mdtemp (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redict Should -2014 in K-1 Events- page be created? Master Sun Tzu (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of K-1 events All of this article's information is already in K-1 World MAX 2013 World Championship Tournament Final and the event is already in the list of K-1 events. Papaursa (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citra (emulator)

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

Non-notable software per WP:NSOFT. M. Caecilius (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I did a lot of research, I am have been involved with emulation in the past and am fairly knowledgeable in this specific subject. In regards to emulators, RS in this niche topic, I believe, needs to be a little more lax. This emulator has barely been covered by in topic sources. To get to the point, this is not an emulator yet, it appears to be a work in progress and can barely run a few games. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Byggs

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

Ex MMA fighter and wrester turned journalist and, from the usernames, self-promoter. I can't find a single reliable source talking about Byggs. Seems to fail all of the requisite notability requirements. This is much more of a CV than an article. Peripitus (Talk) 09:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotional (dare I say) drivel. Non-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA, non notable wrestler, no independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Five secondary reliable sources for professional wrestling (PWTorch / F4Wonline / SLAM! Wrestling / WrestleView / PWInsider) produce exactly one result in total, and spelled his name wrongly while it was mentioned in passing, he didn't even wrestle a match but was a guest manager. When online databases like CageMatch and WrestleData (which has 23,867 wrestlers listed) produce nothing, he's got to be microscopic in fame. starship.paint "YES !" 13:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 18:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IOS 8

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL The ChampionMan 1234 09:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 09:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I added a prod earlier, but considering how many independent writing there are on the topic from the big writers about Apple topics, there is certainly enough to make this notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iOS, I would say Delete per TOOSOON but I have a feeling this'll only get recreated again ... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well referenced what it will be, a short stub (without rampant speculation) is appropriate. Prodego ^talk 19:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it a bit too soon. iOS 8 is upcoming and this article has some good sources to back up text. ///EuroCarGT 19:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate We should wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.109.5 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is substantial coverage in reliable sources (just google "ios 8" in quotes), establishing adequate notability of the topic. While it's short enough that it could also be contained within iOS, it meets notability criteria, it could be expanded to warrant a split already, and it seems likely it will expand significantly within a month anyway. If it's still a stub in a few months, coverage options can be re-evaluated then. Agyle (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Human rights in China#Ethnic minorities. Acxle has pretty much made this a fait accompli by adding the material into the article. No comment on whether or not this can eventually be cut out into a stand-alone article. Spinning Spark 20:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights of ethnic minorities in China

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

Article duplicates the topic of Human rights in China and Ethnic issues in China. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ethnic issues in China categorised as Category:Racism by country, Category:People's Republic of China culture. Human rights in China has small section about ethnic minorities in China. There are 55 ethnic groups in China. Acxle (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. The topic is perfectly covered within the scope of those articles. Also, why does it matter or should we care about how many ethnic groups there are in China? M. Caecilius (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If delete this article, there must be section "Human rights of ethnic minorities" in Human rights in China. Acxle (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page can be merged and redirected to either of those two pages (Ethnic issues in China, Human rights in China); much of what is covered in the Human rights of ethnic minorities in China article can be covered in those two pages. The topic is a legitimate and notable topic, however the amount of information presently available would probably suffice as an article section, rather than a standalone page. If the content becomes expanded in the future so that it becomes too large, it can be split off into an independent page again. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge as per Benlisquare comments. This shouldn't really have been posted as an Afd as duplication is not a reason to delete. See Wikipedia:Merge for how to deal with duplicated topics. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Acxle (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article violates WP:LINKFARM, WP:SOAP and WP:RS for alot of its content, such as Dr. Paul George and Habib Siddiqui's articles (they have absolutely no credentials in the area). Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a certain cause or agenda. The article is essentially a one sided, random criticism of China thrown together without any context. If the article gets merged, most of the content on the merged article is going to get deleted anyway since it already violates WP:SOAP and WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Rajmaan, that WP:LINKFARM and WP:SOAP are not valid reasons for deletion and while WP:RS is a valid reason, it is not shown that there are no possible reliable sources, only that many of the current sources are not reliable. Delete in the context of a Afd does not mean delete the content rewrite a better article later. An Afd deletion means there will be no article with that title at all; not now and not in the future either. Before deleting, we should look to see if an article can be improved. If it can, then that is the course of action, even if every line or text is replaced and even if it takes years to do. It may be suitable to incubate an article while it is improved. Alternatively, write a quick stub and place that over the existing article thus removing the content you find objectionable until a longer article develops. A third option is to blank and redirect. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Substantially covered in numerous sources such as Equality, autonomy, and development: The pattern of protection of the human rights of ethnic minorities in China Xinhua Chubanshe 1998 as well as other book sources. Also numerous articles on this subject. Sufficiently distinct from human rights issues although there is some overlap. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially covered in numerous sources has nothing to do with the current article. The article, as it stands, is a badly written non-POV compilation of attacks on China, promoting a certain POV, a linkfarm, and sourced with articles written by people who have zero credentials in the area. If you feel you have reliable sources, then rewrite the article yourself after the current one is deleted. The source you just named is not currently being used in the article, it is a red herring to say the topic of the article is notable and well covered in sources not even used in the article, while the current article is written horribly.Rajmaan (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge if there's content worth keeping where the topic is already covered, as stated above. As it stands, the article is a fork and a soapbox. --Cold Season (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the title. There should be an article on this topic. Topic ban for User:Acxle for linking news stories that abuse the facts to summary that abuses the sources further. [22] and [23] The facts scream out at this tortuous treatment. China allows two children per family in rural areas. All rural areas. To everyone. http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f13d6f42.pdf The article claims not just the reverse, but that a specific group, Han, are given two in a specific area, Xinjiang, while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one. An article on Islamic terrorism is used to justify this rich and complex falsehood. Either way you slice it, whether as bad faith or some sort of excellent ineptitude, this is harmful to the encyclopedia. Same for the sentence at the end of the article: An article which unwisely uses its mind-reading powers to discern a "hint" in a speech, is turned by the article summary into a fact. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy as "keeping" a title, the policy is, that if the topic is notable but the article written about it violates policy, we delete the existing article and someone can create a new, neutral, non-POV article on the topic.Rajmaan (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchangel: "while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one" Where are you getting this information from? It's quite contradictory to well sourced information on other articles. Non-Han ethnics are not limited by the one-child policy, according to Affirmative action in China and related pages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what Anarchangel said, he explaining that what Acxle wrote is wrong.Rajmaan (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Redirect per Benlisquare and Rincewind42's comments. As for "keeping" the title, if it becomes a redirect it is automatically "kept". Philg88 ^♦talk 07:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Rajmaan created Chinese propaganda articles: Migration to Xinjiang, User:Rajmaan/Migration to Xiniiang. What is purpose of these articles? Are these aricles necessary? There are many articles about human rights in Tibet but very few articles created for other ethnic minorities.

Acxle (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make double votes, as this makes it difficult to gauge the number of editors in support of each side and could be perceived as cheating the system. As for Migration to Xinjiang, there is no similar overlap with existing pages, and I'm not sure why you called it a "Chinese propaganda page", given that you are more than free (and I would encourage you) to add the Uyghur viewpoint in an NPOV manner into that article. I do think that more coverage on human rights of ethnic minorities in China other than the Tibetans is necessary, but we must consider the availability of reliable sources (which, by the way, a very large number of yours I don't consider to be). If there are a very large number of reliable sources covering what is clearly a very salient issue in popular discourse, then make it a separate page dealing specifically with the region/ethnicity, like "human rights of Uyghurs". If not, then integrate it into existing pages like human rights in China and Uyghur people. What I don't think is necessary is a separate page specifically on the human rights of ethnic minorities in China in general, especially since as it stands now that page more or less deals exclusively with the Uyghurs. Hope this clarifies my position. M. Caecilius (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reject User:Acxle's ad hominem attack (see WP:NPA). In fact, what I wrote on the article Migration to Xinjiang is the exact opposite of Chinese historiography. In China, the Qing attack on the Zunghars is viewed as a heroic endeavor by the Qianlong Emperor while the Zunghar Khan Amursana is villified as a rebel. Mongols have called out China on this issue, China downplays the Qing genocide of the Zunghars while I created an entire Zunghar genocide article, and if I was a historian in China, I could potentially be permanently banned from academia for that. And in fact only one source used in the article is from China. Is Acxle suggesting that western historians who work at western universities like Professor James A. Millward, Peter C. Perdue, Christian Tyler, and Ildikó Bellér-Hann are Chinese propagandists?Rajmaan (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acxle's characterization of Rajmaan's article Migration to Xinjiang as Chinese propaganda is utter nonsense. In that article Rajmaan covers extensively the important and often neglected Zunghar genocide, probably not one of the most glorious moments in Chinese history. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Ethnic issues in China. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK that contains little useful information that hasn't been covered in other articles. -Zanhe (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Benlisquare comments, possibly merge into both articles. Looking over the laundry of arguments on all sides, this article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:LINKFARM but the subject matter is clearly notable and something worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. I personally don't see a legitimate deletion reason stated at all but there are some very good arguments for a merge. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Kalchugin

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

Non-notable boxer, even his amateur record is about people he beat that later went on to something. WP:BOX and WP:NOTINHERITED Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Junior championships do not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart-Picker Pro

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

Non-notable software product per WP:NSOFT. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like the creator removed the tags without addressing all the issues. Deb (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious advertising or promotion, is CSD g11 suitible for this. Perhaps not. --The ChampionMan 1234 09:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable start-up, a lot of promotional text and less signs of importance and significance. ///EuroCarGT 19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few Google hits. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Becker (athletic director)

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

This person is not notable for anything tennis related and seems non-notable to me. Perhaps all athletic directors and philosophy professors are notable as I have no idea the qualifications from other wiki projects. There is an LA Times article link listed but it was because he was dead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Becker is notable for significant association with founding and developing of California State University, Fullerton, originally Orange State. One way is that he was highly involved in the spectacularly successful 1962 intercollegiate elephant race that put the university on the map, nationwide. There are numerous Orange County Register and/or Los Angeles Times articles significantly about him; i have added some and there are now 3 and 1 of each type; there are more available. One unfortunate way that he was repeatedly in the news was for tragedy of his son being killed in the campus library in a mass murder incident. Becker, as a salient university official and as personally directly affected, in numerous stories was repeatedly quoted for his views, e.g. on the convicted shooter's alleged insanity, at repeated hearings for parole. The article could use more development, but this is a solid keep situation. --do ncr am 17:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- obituaries in L.A. Times (major national newspaper) and Orange County Register (major regional paper) are sufficient for GNG, regardless of WP:PROF. Sourced w/ enough other minor references to be sufficient. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per past comments at wikipedia notability I would say that is untrue. Obituaries do not impart automatic notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) that conversation was 6 years ago. there are other conversations that have come to a different WP:CONSENSUS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we tend to keep articles on non WP:BLP articles with obituraies in major sources as they meet WP:GNG. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources more than meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person - an athletic director - should not be judged per WP:ACADEMIC, but rather per WP:GNG. And it is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE that obits in major regional papers make you notable; I have only heard that argument advanced for the New York Times, and even for the NYT it did not achieve consensus. I'll evaluate GNG and come back with a recommendation for this subject, but both of these rationales, for delete (PROF) and keep (what are we calling it now, WP:OBITUARY?), are invalid. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has plenty of coverage (thank you, Doncram), not just his obituaries. He was the founding dean of his university and played a major role in its founding and development, which is significantly reported in major publications. (I added another one.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourcing seems to show notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple editors, easily meets WP:GNG; nom doesn't really cite a specific reason why article does not deserve inclusion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Legend of Korra episodes. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Korra (Book 4)

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

The creation of this article about a future season of a TV series is premature. Nothing has been published in reliable sources about this season except the fact that it is in production. Plot, airdate, title and cast are unknown. The article has problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. A redirect to the series overview was reverted. Sandstein 05:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There has been some level of discussion about the content of this article (the future season), as indicated by the multiple online publications on the topic, some of which are listed in the references section of the article. With regard to WP:CRYSTAL -- the article is not "a collection of unverifiable speculation". Everything in the article has been sourced. When I reverted the edit in which you blanked out the article (and replaced it with a redirect), initially it did not have any sources. Then, I took up on myself the task of verifying each and every single statement made in the article (by performing a Google search), and adding citations to article, for each of those assertions. So I think your statement that the article has problems with WP:CRYSTAL is untrue. Secondly, as you said, this is an upcoming season, and the plot, along with other such information, has (obviously) not been revealed yet. However, this does not necessarily warrant the deletion of the article. Wikipedia is replete with stubs, and this page can serve as a placeholder that other editors can add and expand upon, as new information about the season becomes available. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Legend of Korra episodes. Too soon, we need a "slated" date or even a season, something more than "the writers are done."— Wylie pedia 07:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with history. I do think that it is too soon, albeit probably just slightly. Right now there's not really anything here that can't already be mentioned in the main article for the episodes. Will it release? Yup, given how insanely popular it is, it probably will. However we can't guarantee that and more than a few shows have received setbacks that have prolonged release for months or even years. We can only go by what we have now, at this point in time. As far as other shows/seasons having articles, that doesn't really mean anything per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because those articles could have reasons to exist separately from the main article or they just haven't been found and deleted/redirected at this point in time. Right now it's just a waiting game and we don't lose anything by just redirecting to the main episode page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwas Mudagal

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

Only has written 1 book so far which does not even have a page on here. Seems to be too early for this guy as of now if ever. Wgolf (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Fails WP:BASIC. Harsh (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The Hindu article is entirely about this author and his book. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Was it a major book or something? Granted I'm not Hindu or Indian so I am not sure about that-so yeah was it? (I've seen odder ones get tagged from people nominated for an Oscar to even someone that might of been in the Olympics but was nowhere near getting a medal! Just being nominated in any category at the Oscars or being in the Olympics is good enough for a page IMO) Wgolf (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book and author have received substantial coverage. In addition to the article in the Hindu and other articles already cited there'scoverage such as this. I don't think Olympic athletes should automatically be notable and I think that's changing. Nominations for awards are not enough in and of themselves. I think substantial coverage in reliable independent sources is really the key. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOVonomy

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

I had tagged this article for a G12 speedy, but tag was reverted by a third party whose only other edits appear to relate to the company's founder. Company may be notable, but at best article needs a complete rewrite. --Finngall ^talk 06:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
delete may be notable, but nothing salvagable. Let someone without a COI create an article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Free Tarot Reading Software

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM. List is entirely a collection of external links, with not one item notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a directory for free software. topic is unlikely to ever develop into even a list of commercial software. free is even less notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software list article of unclear notability, as above made up of entirely non-notable entries and basically a linkfarm. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank A. DeMarco

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

Borderline notability; probably copyvio. WP NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have no reason to doubt his notability. See for example list of 6 or so significant awards given at Frank A. DeMarco#Honours. --do ncr am 16:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, if copyvio concerns are an issue, that is a matter for posting at article itself and with appropriate wp:copyvio processes. --do ncr am 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with do ncr am on notability and awards and honors. Also notability is associated with firsts and founder role and not straight academia. Should be no further concerns by DGG because - can state unequivocally there is no copyvio here, and that this is not a memorial (living person).Ammiamm (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page received positive feedback from reviewer/editor on creation as follows: Wikipedia editor Prof. Mc just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you "A good start to the article."Ammiamm (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof#1. Not much else. The article contains so much puffery as to be an embarrassment to its subject and his institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ~~does not pass WP:PROF or GNG; would reconsider if the significance of the awards could be explained.~~ Copyvio or not (assuming good faith) is irrelevant in any case. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

changing to Weak Delete -- the Essex College principal is almost enough, however the school was only founded the same year and immediately incorporated into the University of Windsor (Assumption), so it seems more like a Dean role than a President/Vice-Chancellor role. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

changing to Keep -- it's a case of nearly passing many different elements of notability (for awards received, awards named after him, mentions in books that are slightly dependent on the institution but basically independent of the subject, close pass on the WP:PROF president level, etc.) -- I asked a week or so ago about clarification about the community consensus (on WP:PROF talk page) about whether nearly passing a number of criteria where any one of which would be sufficient for WP:N would be enough. I didn't get any discussion going, so I'll go with my gut; passes the Average Professor Test of WP:PROF for contributions to the founding of a notable school. Ammiamm did some convincing on my Talk page; I do wish there were some more sources that were truly independent; my feeling is someone will AfD this again if the article's sourcing isn't improved. An Obit in a paper? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re query on notability of awards and honours- I see several very prestigious Canadian/Commonwealth awards are listed here- these are awarded by the Queen through the government of Canada or directly from the government of Canada to recognize individuals who have made a significant contribution to Canada and their community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4276point (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — 4276point (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Agree with Cuthbert that Principal role alone is almost enough- DeMarco was appointed inaugural Principal of Essex College in 1959 and held this position for 4 years until 1963 when University of Windsor was established. So in the post for four years and effectively in charge of Essex College from 1956 as chair of staff committee before Principal position was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4276point (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the clarification 4276point. I have re-checked sources and re-visited wording to reflect Essex College's autonomy until 1963.Ammiamm (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive comment posted to article's talk page from an involved contributor to the article if one or more editors would like to assist the involved parties with respect to policies and ummm whatever needs to be done (or not done as the case may be) as far as the article is concerned. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Thank you for the careful reviews, and advice.

I am working with someone who is uncovering relevant newspaper articles, numbering literally in the hundreds, in the Windsor Star archives, and in the Canada-wide The Globe and Mail. I am a rookie in Wiki, but getting some of these additional citations into the article is our top priority. We have completed some, and are working on more. There is not a great deal of the institution’s fifty-years-ago history in print in books, so far, but we understand there is some in the works. We do cite a present-day printed periodical of the University of Windsor, called ['View' ] that is available in on-line form.

Also, regarding the comment from Candleabracadabra, about the talk page: Yes, I did post some background commentary there, because I thought that was what the page was for. Did I do something wrong? As I say, I am new to this, and I do welcome advice.Ammiamm (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great work you are doing. Unfortunately it confirms that the subject is of local interest only and of no national or international interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure where in WP:GNG the words national or international appear. The regional sources seem to me to be independent, reliable, and (w/ recent additions) multiple. Isn't that enough? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree borderline international interest but definitely of local, provincial and national interest- see notes about prestigious national and Commonwealth honours. National level particular noteworthy for DeMarco's involvement with Prime Minister Trudeau when DeMarco was a governor for the International Development Research Centre from 1980 to 1984. He also met frequently with several Premiers of Ontario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4276point (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North River Avenue

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

Unremarkable street CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No claim of notability, found absolutely nothing in English on a Google search for references. --Finngall ^talk 04:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Probably a real street but no indication that it's notable. A quick look at the map and 河北大街, 'Hebei St' might be what's meant.--JohnBlackburne

^words_deeds 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-verifiable, non-notable thoroughfare. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable road. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (constabulary) @ 21:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Rick Berlin. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Airlift (band)

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

Non-notable local band. Article relies on the notablilty of Rick Berlin who has marginal notability at best. I can find very little about him in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources with an occasional bit of coverage by local small newspapers and other local media. Ridernyc (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Rick Berlin. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rick Berlin per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Berlin

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable local musician. I can find very little about him in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources with an occasional bit of coverage by local small newspapers and other local media. Ridernyc (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not the most distinguished singer-songwriter, but I think the following four sources add up to meeting WP:MUSICIAN, if only by a hair. (Disclaimer: I have one of Berlin's songs on iTunes, so I may be biased toward keeping). Jinkinson talk to me 01:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this in particular is a reliable source that establishes notability [24]. I think your sources range from marginal at best, to downright comically short. We have a blog, a local newspaper calander of events, a very short article on a local newspapers website, and I'm not even sure what robertchristgau.com is. Ridernyc (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ridernyc: The article Robert Christgau explains who he is. — sparklism ^hey! 11:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the existence of Christgau reviews is probably the most notable source in that bunch. Mrmctorso (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but when checking the link provided all I see are a few listing of reviews, no reviews. Yes it appears he war reviewed by a notable reviewer, in some notable publications but really all we have are a few listings. We are still way short of the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources can be found through the usual searches. More examples: [25][26][27][28][29][30] -Arxiloxos (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Arxiloxos - Passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Upon a review of the news sources in this discussion, the subject passes WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Aurthohin. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aushomapto 1

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

Doesn't indicate notability. Laun chba ller 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable album. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aurthohin, the band's page, where this album is covered. Gongshow talk 05:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Aurthohin. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Cao

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

Resume-like biography that depends on references that are largely trivial mentions and press releases. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 18:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Another article I've been wondering if I should put a AFD on for a while-not sure, but I think I'll go under Delete. Wgolf (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very poorly cited with newswire sources. Everybody in Italy claims to be born in Roma; their maternity wards must be filled to the hallways. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 30 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 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Highbeam article may or may not be enough to establish notability, but it does suggest that Cao's been involved in something more newsworthy than the current puff would suggest. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 00:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaztetxe of Vitoria-Gasteiz

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

Seems to be a giant advertisement, even contains email addresses for contacts, now this could be a very interesting article if done correctly. Wgolf (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning delete) - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The fact that an article reads like an advertisement is not relevant at AfD, because it can be cleaned up with editing. What is relevant is whether or not we are able to clean the article, particularly through adding reliable sources. To do this, we have to look at the availability of reliable sources--the notability of the subject. So far, I'm not seeing any such sources jumping out at me. It looks like the Spanish name for this is "Gaztetxe de Vitoria-Gasteiz". That may be helpful for finding sources. Mz7 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra Luna (album)

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

Non-notable Band. I can find very little about them in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources. Their main claim to notability seems to that they released a non-charting album on Epic, and they opened for a few notable acts. Their all music bio is mostly about their producer and other famous people he worked with. Ridernyc (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rick Berlin. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I see three options: delete, merge, or keep. Without any substantial discussion, I see no other outcome than 'no consensus'. A merge discussion can continue at the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra Luna

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

Non-notable Band. I can find very little about them in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources. Their main claim to notability seems to that they released a non-charting album on Epic, and they opened for a few notable acts. Their all music bio is mostly about their producer and other famous people he worked with. Ridernyc (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Rick Berlin. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Orchestra Luna was a controversial and arguably influential entity in the pre-internet world, and it would be unfortunate if we allowed this content to be removed. It's hard to produce on-line sources, but Allmusic has a substantial writeup for their one album [31] (I disagree with the nominator's characterization of this article); and here's a substantial (and critical) 1975 piece in the Village Voice. [32] As recounted in a 1994 Voice article, Glenn Branca credited Orchestra Luna as the true inspiration for Talking Heads. [33] More about Orchestra Luna can be found online in articles about more recent endeavors by Rick Berlin [34][35] and Karla de Vito [36]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Rick Berlin per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Rick Berlin. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luna (Boston band)

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

same band as Orchestral Luna.

Non-notable Band. I can find very little about them in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources. Their main claim to notability seems to that they released a non-charting album on Epic, and they opened for a few notable acts. Their all music bio is mostly about their producer and other famous people he worked with. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Rick Berlin. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rick Berlin per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rick Berlin. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star 4000

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

Way too much trivial information and questionable use of YouTube videos as "sources". If there are notable details about the hardware that can be obtained from reliable sources, it could be covered in a much less in-depth fashion. (that FCC document on phasing out earlier models because they cannot produce aural alert tones would be a good place to start) ViperSnake151 Talk 21:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Targ

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

This article has superficial referenciness, but the references are not actually about the subject, they are about her half-brother Bobby Fischer; there's not even much coverage from sources on her husband Russell Targ, the goat-staring proponent. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the nominator's comments about superficial references about her brother, and have been working to add more references that are primarily about Targ's own work on computer literacy. As well as a local-newspaper obituary that probably doesn't do much for notability (but at least sources her death) I added several book and contemporary magazine sources that cover her directly, not in the context of her more notable relatives. However, I may have too much of a COI to express a keep-or-delete opinion in this AfD, as I went to high school with her sons, was friends at that time with others who had gone through her programs, and was personally acquainted with her although I did not go through those programs myself (they were at the middle school that I would have attended had I moved there earlier than I did). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would merge a couple sentences into her husband's article. I don't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources to justify an independent articles on this individual.~~ Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If a merge, why her husband as merge target? We have better sourcing for the connection between her and her brother. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a Google Book search does turn up some discussion of her career. And since there is not a single merge target (her brother is very famous and her husband also has a separate article), perhaps it's best to leave it as a stand alone article. Not super notable, but there's enough for a short article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article focuses too much on the organic farming stuff and not enough on her activities as an educator, but as an educator she was truly notable. Even I had heard about her brilliant idea, in the early 1980s, of employing high school students to teach computer basics to elementary school teachers. (I added that to the article.) Her notability is quite distinct from that of either her brother or her husband. I see that the article has been considerably improved since being nominated. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
week keep the IS [37] and her peer tutoring programs seem to have gotten a bit of press back in the day and she is named pretty widely as an advocate. And while it is focused on her brother, there is the ability to build a pretty detailed biography of her early life.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved by others commenting on this page (thank you), and this woman serves as a relevant and significant historical aspect of technology and Silicon Valley / California. --estephan500 — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 1 June 2022 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtra times

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

I find no evidence to support the notability of this publication. Claims of playing a "vital role" during the emergency (which emergency?) or of being "one of the most read weekly newspaper (sic) in Delhi" cannot be verified. Its website consists of a single static page with a telephone number for contact. There are no mentions of this publication in any other reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although I accept that offline sources might exist for this, I cannot find anything that suggests this is likely. I can only find it mentioned in lists of newspapers. No citations to articles, no description of its history, no evidence of significant reporting... Moswento ^talky 11:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also can't find reliable sources about this, other than a mention in a list of papers, and its editor being on a Press Club committee (here). I also tried searching for राष्ट्र टाइम्स, but don't read/speak Hindi, and didn't turn up anything. Someone who reads Hindi might find more about the newspaper. Agyle (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weekly newspaper that has clearly been running for quite a while. I'm somewhat suprised by the claim that "There are no mentions of this publication in any other reliable source". Book references for being a Hindi weekly from Delhi includes http://books.google.com/books?id=SqkxAQAAIAAJ . http://books.google.se/books?id=SV7gAAAAMAAJ , p. 299, has circulation numbers, I can't read it well (text too small). http://books.google.com/books?id=NV_gAAAAMAAJ , p. 269 has a claimed circulation figure of 72,250. http://www.rni.nic.in/webreport.asp gives circulation as 72,600. And the Emergency refers to Emergency (India). --Soman (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, while one-line mentions in lists of newspapers is a good indication that it exists, it falls short of the significant coverage by independent reliable sources required by WP:GNG. Agyle (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if there are multiple refs indicating that it's a regular, weekly publications with a circulation in thousands, that can work. Notability criteria are subjective, and as per WP:GNG, if we have a stub saying that it's a) Hindi newspaper 2) weekly 3) published from Delhi, claimed a circulation of 72,600 in 2004, then that's covered per the references given. --Soman (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria are subjective, but can't be ignored; that is not "significant coverage". Agyle (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable newspaper with no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under CSD#A7 Nthep (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anamol Sapkota

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. I tried to nominate it for speedy deletion, but unfortunately it got removed. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambigous vanity page, no notability claim in article nor anything found on google. --Soman (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Autobiographical and Speedy Delete removed by the autobiographical author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mink (printer)

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

I do not see any evidence that this is yet notable--as of May 2014 it has not yet been actually released, nor has a date been set. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the article with the intention of expanding it. There are multiple sources out there which report on this, so there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater per se, as I haven't expanded it yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JUst added sources and wiki formatting 91.143.110.90 (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Blue Hill eruption prank

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

trivial event, unless there's a lot more out there than it looks like. NT DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Google and GBooks searches of the string <"Great Blue Hill" erupt> show (see "find sources" link above), this prank did get considerable attention at the time, and it continues to show up in books and articles about notable Aprils Fools pranks. The prank is already mentioned at Great Blue Hill, and I am inclined to think that's good enough. I might suggest a merge and redirect, but I am not sure if there's anything to merge that isn't already in the Great Blue Hill article, or that "Great Blue Hill eruption prank" is a likely search term. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Blue Hill, where it is already perfectly adequately covered, basically as a one-liner. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, or delete. There doesn't appear to be enough here for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's only mentioned there because I put it there. I am planning on expanding it in the future, and hopefully will do a Did you know hook out of it, since there is coverage to scrape by there. Regardless, I don't mind a merge for now, as I can easily re-create it in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The event has received significant coverage beyond the original news cycle and outside of the local area including [38][39] [40]. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The article has been expanded a great deal since it was nominated for deletion [41] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Possibly too local. Also, the best time for a DYK suggestion (April 1) has passed. — Wylie pedia 16:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The plan is to do it next year, since I discovered it on April 1 of this year, just so you know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of South Korea#Sixth Republic. This is without prejudice to the question of resplitting the target section back here based on our normal editorial processes. I have not deleted the history under the redirect here, . PWilkinson specifically argues that point, and I don't see content so problematic that it can't sit in the history. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Republic of South Korea

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

The Sixth Republic of South Korea is the same as the Republic of Korea, so there is no need for a separate article on the Sixth Republic. BucaFan3 (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best idea here would be to just redirect it to the actual South Korea page. Badger2424 (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you look at it comparatively, we do have a separate article for French Fifth Republic apart from France... so conceivably, there can be a separate article here as well. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment in response to the last comment, I would like to point out that the article for the French Fifth Republic is a well written article, where as the Sixth Republic of South Korea article has next-to-no content, cites no sources, and is all together not well written. The name of the article isn't even the correct name (it should be the Sixth Republic of Korea, as South Korea's legal name is the Republic of Korea). Also, the main article on the Republic of Korea has information about the Sixth Republic in its current version (see Republic of Korea#Government). BucaFan3 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no value in the current article. The strength of the French 5th republic article is that it addresses the difference of government and is sourced. The current article is unsourced and for that reason alone it should not stay. The subject itself deserves study but there's no point retaining a poor article about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My thoughts:
(1) When I looked at Republic of Korea it was a redirect to South Korea, & has been since 8 December 2008. The latter is the general article on the country in all respects beyond simply the country's history & politics, whereas I believe Sixth Republic of South Korea would cover only a specific period of the history of its government. Would the nominator be thinking of another article?
(2) If this article is deleted, would a redirect be put in its place -- in other words, in this case would a merge have the same result as a delete? (I'm asking this to satisfy my own curiosity, not to make any point.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite or Redirect/Merge to History of South Korea#Sixth Republic, from which this article seems to have been split out about nine years ago. At least by the current terms of WP:SPLIT, that was then probably premature, but this would not be a problem except that almost all subsequent expansion and adding references have been done in the original article rather than here. The best solution would probably be to redo the split properly, replacing most of the text of this article with the relevant referenced text from the original article as it now stands and leaving a summary there. But, failing that, a redirect (perhaps leaving the history available, in case there is anything like infoboxes or the list of presidents that might be usable later) would certainly be OK. PWilkinson (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: Delete/Redirect As the creator of this discussion, I have been looking at each of the responses in this discussion. Seeing as how everyone has mixed feelings about the deletion of this article, everyone seems to have suggested a redirect as a compromise. I'm NOT going to retract my proposal about deletion, but I will suggest that a "Redirect Resolution" be put in place as a result of this discussion. BucaFan3 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Ward

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

Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER criteria, also unreferenced ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete (you could have BLP-prodded it). No reliable sources. No real claim to notability, one student film that I've also nominated, and Hollyoaks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, and this person's credits do not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE at this time. Gongshow talk 06:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10 attack page. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab College Okara

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

(Since A7 apparently does not apply to schools, here goes...) Does not demonstrate notability/significance, it look like someone is trying to look so that the school looks bad, with things like The unlucky students [...] get the worst ecperince of their lives.. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to only be created to insult the school. Therefore, there is no need for the page. Badger2424 (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article biased and made on personal attack. Dr meetsingh Talk 14:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly made to attack the school .... Pretty dumb really.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will mark it for G10-speedy. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing Touches

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

Dictionary definition, something for Wiktionary? Polyglot (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~~- Wiktionary sounds the perfect place for this!.~~ →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. It's an actual dictionary definition (e.g. [42]), and already exists on Wiktionary (see [43]), so no need to transwiki. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Harsh (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A simple dictionary definition that probably couldn't be expanded on in a meaningful way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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