Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 May	13 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 Speedy Deleted by Hahc21 (G3: Blatant hoax). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Knokke presents: Beyoncé Live![edit]

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

There's no indication that these upcoming performances are notable (if they exist, which I couldn't find any sources to establish). Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Beyoncé. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:04, 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microbreweries in korea[edit]

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

All entries on this list are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, so this list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea Barth Jorgensen[edit]

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

Not sources to indicate notability per WP:NMODEL. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 10+ sources, including Vogue Italia, Harper's Bazaar and W which are massive fashion magazines. --MirandaKeurr (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after adding of the 10 sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Team Organization[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of the existence of the organization. Possibly vanity stunt, possibly hoax. Soman (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 and tagged as such. Aside from having zero coverage in reliable sources, the fact that the organization's logo appears to have been made on MS Paint doesn't help. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Grupa[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of this article meets notability criteria. I don't agree that text of the article is advertisement.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP OR HELP - I have edited the newest version of this article. It is practically the translation of Croatian version. I have tried very hard to give all the information correctly, but if there is some parts that are arguably inappropriate, please, first let me know how to fix them or why do you find that this article is (advertising?!?) --Suradnik:Tmilicic, , 13 May 2014 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmilicic (talk • contribs) 10:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, any advertizing in the content that may need to be cleaned up does not negate the simple fact that this is a generally notable entity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is largely both factual and appropriately sourced. It is far from being overly promotional, so deletion is not the way to go. Editors are free to challenge promotional content, but frankly I don't see anything worth mentioning. GregorB (talk) 17:45, 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 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Impressionism[edit]

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

Non-notable art movement; unclear verifiability. Practically every Google hit for intense impressionism leads to Daniel Wall himself, with no indication of a movement. Even as confined to Daniel wall, the topic yields little in the way of coverage in independent reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, non-notable subject. --Drm310 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no evidence that this is a generally recognised artistic movement: as noted, many hits relate to the work of one entirely non-notable user of paint.TheLongTone (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To avoid being skewed by Google, I searched through DuckDuckGo.com, but "intense impressionism" appears to have virtually nothing beyond offers of paintings for sale and social media references that all lead back to Mr Wall. He's certainly been a busy bunny as far as self-publicity goes, but this doesn't equate to notability. RomanSpa (talk) 17:36, 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!} 09:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audax (Movie)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:FILM or WP:FFILM. Unmeaningful coverage in unreliable sources, and one local news report. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for being premature and failing WP:NF and WP:NFF. It's a student film getting almost no coverage. If or when the thing gets released and receives coverage, the article can be undeleted or recreated. By the by... under WP:NCF I moved the article to its proper article name. I also included the modified find sources above and cleaned it up some (good practice). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:46, 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 and recreate as a redirect to The Contender 4. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akinyemi Laleye[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage by the media unless someone can find evidence he was on the contender what proof do we have of that? Seasider91 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Contender 4 Does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Only notability comes from the show. Papaursa (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD A7 (no explanation of significance). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Kidd[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources cited to prove notability, the only source is the website of his club. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is all over the place, each paragraph appears to be about a different person, for example the paragraph under Altringham is about an ex Oldham Athletic player whereas the personal life section is about a music graduate? In fact this could be given a speedy delete for been a blatant hoax Seasider91 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment decided to put a speedy delete notice on for nonsense as that is what it is Seasider91 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's most certainly not "nonsense". A "nonsense" article is one that is totally incomprehensible, essentially a bunch of random characters. As the policy states, this excludes "poor writing", and "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." I declined the speedy. I make no judgment as to whether the article merits inclusion in general terms, however. -- Atama頭 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Put on speedy for vandalism as it obviously contains misinformation Seasider91 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have some doubts about the article myself, e.g. cannot find mention of team called Ardwick Rovers, but even if not complete fabrication not notable as has not played football at serious professional level. PatGallacher (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though not, technically, nonsense, it appears not to meet the notability guidelines. Deb (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not, by definition, nonsense. But it clearly satisfies speedy deletion criterion A7. I have deleted it on that basis. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:04, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New River, Nanjing[edit]

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

Not notable. Largely based on the encyclopaedia Baidu Baike which like WP is crowd sourced so not reliable. The other source is a local directory which supports little of the content or does nothing to indicate notability. Numerous searches have turned up little, just a few nearby businesses and other buildings, while the Chinese WP version is a stub with a dead link as a source. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I have moved the information over to User:CaroleHenson/New River to mine for information for the Jianye District article - which I will add when or if I am able to come up with better sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I've been working on another article within the Jianye District, I keep running across "Hexi New City" on the web and in wikipedia, with Nanjing International Expo Center in the center of it. I'm wondering if "Hexi New City" is the same location as "New River".--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Hexi (河西), literally west of the river, is not the same as 新河, New River. You might find the reference in my !vote below useful for the Jianye District article. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The town doesn't appear as an official subdivision of the Jianye District according to the National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China. See this link. Thereby fails verifiability. No reliable source found to justify retention as a stub, probably an informal name for part of the Jianye District used by locals. The Baidu and Aibang references are not considered reliable and I can find no others. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:52, 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 delete a7, web series, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MEET THE MATES[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL WP:GNG unreleased youtube tv series. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non notable fails WP:GNG and clearly just an advert for a future film. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Haskvitz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. School teachers are not usually notable unless they show exception achievements. Not quite here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It is correct that high school teachers are usually not notable unless they show exceptional achievements. However, in this case such achievements are indeed present. In particular, the subject received several national-level honors: an indictee of the National Teachers Hall of Fame [1], 1990 Reader's Digest American Heroes in Education award [2], 1989 National Council for Social Sciences award [3], Baylor University's 1996 Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teachers[4], 1999 USA TODAY's All-USA Teacher First Team [5][6], etc. The National Teachers Hall of Fame page about Haskvitz lists a whole bunch of other awards as well, see also articles about him, e.g. [7], [8], etc. Certainly passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the awards are of the recognized prestige that render Haskvitz notable per se. I thought maybe his election to the National Teachers Hall of Fame (NTHF) might suffice, but when you look at that page, you find almost none of the >100 people listed have WP pages, the few that do are notable for other obvious reasons (e.g. Jaime Escalante), and that the only sources there are NTHF's own web pages. (The NTHF article itself should probably be tested by an AfD.) Other aspects of notability claimed in the article, like being rated at ratemyteachers.com are not significant. I don't see his book Motorvation: A Math Book for the Unmotivated listed in WorldCat, so it may be unpublished. He sounds like a great guy, but he's not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think that the fact that most members of the National Teachers Hall of Fame do not yet have Wikipedia articles implies that being a member of NTHF does not automatically make a teacher notable. We only currently have WP articles about a fraction of notable academics, and the presence/absence of such articles is more of a reflection on the who the active WP editors are than on the actual notability of the subjects. It is generally accepted, I believe, that being an elected fellow of a professional national academic society makes an academic notable. However, being a fellow of something like the American Mathematical Society is a much less selective honor than being a member of the NTHF. There already several hundred fellows of AMS (in just a couple of years of existence of the program), with about 50 inducted each year. By comparison, there are only 5 inductees in the NTHF per year, while the number of school teachers in the U.S. is much much bigger than the number of math college professors. My understanding is that being a member of NTHF is the highest degree of professional achievement and recognition in the U.S. for school teachers and it is a much more selectve honor than being a fellow of a national academic professional society. Also, the presence of multiple other national-level professional awards (and not just being a NTHF member) in Haskvitz case, is, IMO, certainly enough to pass the WP:GNG and WP:BIO bars. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being elected a fellow of AMS or any of the other discipline-specific societies is enormously more prestigious than election to National Teachers Hall of Fame – the annual number of inductees has absolutely nothing to do with selectivity. (This is confirmed by any thought experiment that finds an individual creating a new national society and inducting only himself.) Rather, it has everything to do with the hierarchy (like it or not) of the scholar/educator infrastructure. As has been observed many times, being a scholar at a first-tier university or institute is extremely exclusive and most of those people are notable (whether they have articles or not) by the very activities required to obtain those posts. This is comparable to our policy that athletes who compete in the highest professional leagues are notable per se. Selectivity/prestige decrease down the line, which is not to say that such individuals cannot be notable, but rather that they are not notable per se and require more clear evidence of achievement/notability/etc. Your assertion that NTHF is the highest honor for teachers is highly debatable, especially since there are countless national teaching awards (AAPG Excellence Award, CEE National Teacher Award, CCSSO National Teacher of the Year, NCSS Teachers of the Year, VFW Teacher of the Year, the several dozen national awards from NSTA, Guilder-Lehrman National Teacher of the Year, ACTFL National Teacher of the Year, and well you get the idea). Regarding the National Teachers Hall of Fame itself, this organization was founded in 1989 by local organizations in Emporia, Kansas (including the Emporia Area Chamber of Commerce) and is housed at Emporia State University. It's coverage seems to consist mostly of articles in the local Emporia Gazette. Again, this is hardly comparable to the national societies like AMS, which represent scholarly activity at the highest level and for which reams of archival sourcing are available. Could we have articles on Haskvitz and the others in NTHF? Probably, at least for the fraction for which some acknowledgement of their membership in NTHF could be found. Would this be WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Yes, absolutely. Agricola44 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    - Yeah, I was probably too rush in saying that NTHF is the highest national honor for teachers. However, it still appears to me to be quite a significant honor. E.g. this year President Obama had a reception for the 2014 inductees at the White House[9]. While it does take quite a bit more training and a significant publication record to become a tenured university professor than to become a teacher, I think notability within a profession should be judged mainly by the degree of accomplishment within that profession, and not compared with any other profession. Selectivity of a particular award is determined both by the reputation and prestige of the award (as viewed by others) and by how difficult/easy it is for the practitioners of that profession to get the award. Being a Fellow of AMS myself, I must admit that I don't view it as a particularly high honor, and I am pretty sure that I am not going to be invited to the White House any time soon -:) Let me also stress that apart from NTHF, Haskvitz has a significant number of other national-level honors verified by independent sources (see my first post above), such as the 1990 Reader's Digest American Heroes in Education award, 1989 National Council for Social Sciences award, Baylor University's 1996 Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teachers, 1999 USA TODAY's All-USA Teacher First Team and others. Taken individually, it could be argued that none of these awards, but itself, makes a teacher notable. But I think that collectively they do. At a minimum, the detailed bio of Haskvitz at NTHF and the other links provided in my first post, seem to me to satisfy WP:GNG in his case. Nsk92 (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the delete notes are done probably done by non-educators. Ignoring the value of the National Teachers Hall of Fame, USA Today, Learning Magazine and others is simple wrong headed. You must compete for these awards. His acknowledgement as alumni of the year by institutions of learning is significant as well. I would suggest that the editors take the time to learn about teachers and the honors and awards that are offered and what it takes to earn them. As for the Cherry Award, being the only public school teacher to be so honored is certainly deserving of mention as well as the award itself. The fact that other teachers don't have entries in Wikipedia is of no merit. Wikipedia was developed as an inclusive, populist publication that does not negate an award or honor because the editor(s) don't feel it is significant value even though it was rendered by a panel of experts. You site the selection to honors by other groups as more impressive and are thus comparing apples and oranges. I would strongly suggest that you not downplay accomplishments because of your bias. As for your comments about academic accomplishments at the highest level being reason for inclusion in some groups is based on a set of standards. The same standards that USA Today, Reader's Digest, the National Teachers Hall of Fame and others have. Indeed, the Cherry Award, according to its website, recognizes his achievements with such a set of standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.88.220 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but the assumption stated in your first sentence is flat wrong – I am approaching 20 years as an educator (HS students and college level), but that is irrelevant. The problem in this case is that the awards themselves are not widely recognized, so it clouds matters tremendously. To furnish some context, the kinds of awards that conclusively demonstrate notability are Nobels, MacArthurs, et al. It has nothing to do with whether his awards were "rendered by a panel of experts". Yes WP is inclusive, in a sense, but this should not be confused with being indiscriminate. As I said above, there are countless national and regional awards in secondary education and WP is not a directory of every educator who has won some of these. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - assuming sources can be found, this may be rescued. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Nsk92 -- these are the types of major awards for secondary school teachers that go far beyond the typical or even exceptional teacher. MacArthur and Nobel prize are as irrelevant to secondary school notability as number of World Cup goals is to a professor. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but with all due respect, I'm surprised that the implication was lost on you. Said more plainly: there simply aren't any awards at the secondary level that render a secondary school teacher notable per se, not the "Cherry award", not NTHF, nor any of the other obscure awards listed in this bio. This means that WP:GNG is probably the most appropriate guideline and this requires solid WP:RS. Teachers that we do consider to be notable have this, for example Jaime Escalante who's teaching career was depicted in a motion picture. This bio does not and crosses the line into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep, I don't believe that these awards should be considered confer automatic notability. However, in the specific case of Haskvitz there seems to be enough media coverage in reliable sources to just barely push him past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP On the Cherry Award: Selection Criteria

"The Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teaching honors outstanding professors in the English-speaking world who are distinguished for their ability to communicate as classroom teachers. Individuals nominated for the award should have a proven record as an extraordinary teacher with a positive, inspiring, and long-lasting effect on students, along with a record of distinguished scholarship." http://www.baylor.edu/cherry_awards/ Haskvitz apparently meet all of these standards, the only public school teacher to ever do so.

He also received the National Council for Social Studies award as National Middle Level Teacher of the Year, National Exemplary Program, and Christa McAuliffe Award. They said they has never been done by anyone else in their memory.

The California School Board Association indicated that they could not recall any teacher that has three Golden Bells, which are based on the success of his program and students. Larry Martz, national affairs editor of Newsweek wrote Making School Better and Haskvitz included a chapter about his program. He also has been featured in school and college textbooks, on NPR, on all major television networks, and in editorials from CBS and from the Los Angeles Times. His research has been cited in several works and was published in Phi Delta Kappan, the top education journal. He was on the first page of USA Today as one of their All American educators. As an aside, his website, www.reacheverychild.com is apparently one of the oldest educational websites (1997) and his work was noted by Tech Learning as a technology leader. His work was also noted in Time magazine and a section of Newsweek was about his program. The Los Angeles Times has 15 articles about him. He has been selected as an outstanding alumnus at two colleges and his high school. As for the argument about the National Teachers Hall of Fame, when President Obama is part of the ceremony that tells you the significance of the honor (http://www.emporiagazette.com/latest_news_and_features/article_0a6a0835-30c7-5c86-8a60-bcfed1f012b8.html) and it should not be downplayed. As for the book, Motorvation, it is a workbook, not a textbook. I don't know why anyone would want to delete someone with this record of achievement. And, the listing is apparently incomplete. The California Water Agencies gave him their highest education award, the California Department of Agriculture did as well and he also received the George Washington medal from the Freedom Foundation. Reader's Digest not only named him a Hero in Education, but made a video about his program.

There is more. Someone wrote "delete" because public school teachers are usually not worthy of inclusion. That may be true, but what accomplishment has he failed to earn? It makes no sense for Wikipedia to exclude public school teachers. I found this article that might provide some insight (http://www.wvusd.k12.ca.us/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=269064&id=1) and includes honors not mentioned.

I would suggest that the page might be trimmed a bit (rate your teacher is silly), but delete it never. By the way, Jamie Escalante is also a member of the National Teachers Hall of Fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.88.220 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just So You're Aware. You've now made 2 unsigned edits from an anonymous IP, but you should know that this actually exposes a lot of information like what location from which you're editing ;) "I don't know why anyone would want to delete someone with this record of achievement" – this is not at all the issue, rather, it is one of sources. Agricola44 (talk) 05:58, 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 Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vernon Meat Grinder[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, and there are 0 relevant Google or Google Books results for "Mount Vernon Meat Grinder." Potential hoax, but not blatant enough for CSD. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Googling any part of this comes up with zero relevant results. I'd even go as far to say as this qualifies underneath the 'hoax' speedy deletion criteria. Tutelary (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Snowball close as delete.~~ Delete. WP:DUCK. Quack, quack quack. M. Caecilius (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. A google search failed to turn up any results, as Tutelary mentions above. G S Palmer (talk) 18:17, 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 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TPG - Toilet Paper Gun[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the ludicrous rationale "The TPG is a weapon of the Super Underwear Man. It is his primary weapon. It was a prop used at the 1997 Comic-Con convention and was a big hit" PROD ratinale was "Non-notable weapon used by non-notable cartoon character" TheLongTone (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Underwear Man .TheLongTone (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete GNG. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Underwear Man, and the fact that this is even less notable. G S Palmer (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty obviously non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete A non-notable weapon used by a non-notable superhero. This article has zero chance of being kept, so I recommend deletion per WP:SNOW. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Langford[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer/trainer Peter Rehse (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography and no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources = No BLP. --Rob (talk) 05:03, 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 delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Underwear Man[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book character. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages per TheLongTone:

Super Underwear Man is noted here in the ComicBookDB: http://comicbookdb.com/search.php?form_search=super%20underwear%20man&form_searchtype=FullSite

And, Super Underwear Man is noted here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Super_Underwear_Man_The_Californian_16-Jul-1997.png

And other references here: http://makeitsomarketing.tripod.com/popularcultureblog/index.blog?start=1369085667&topic_id=1085515

Why does the anti-small press bot want to suppress the Super Underwear Man?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaDubbU (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 May 2014

SeaDubbU, none of those are reliable sources that establish notability. We don't descriminate against small presses, but the subjects of articles must be notable before they can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find no evidence of notability. See alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/TPG - Toilet Paper Gun.TheLongTone (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also propose adding

If the character is not notable, this is a list of non-notable comics.TheLongTone (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete GNG. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article's sources are (at best) questionable. G S Palmer (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And this is pretty obviously non-notable, too. When you have to depend on the commons and tripod.com, it's probably time to just give up. About 50 Google hits total, which leads me to believe there's not going to be any coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Non-notable, there is no way this article is going to get kept. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Source searches are not providing any coverage in reliable source. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 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 delete. SNOW, but A7/G11 applies as well. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muwema & Mugerwa[edit]

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

This law firm does not appear independently notable per WP:CORP. Cited coverage is either self-published, WP:ROUTINE, or WP:TRIVIAL. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete all sources either self published, or not about the firm. Does not pass GNG. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 21:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To my opinion plain advertising (and an IP had removed the AfD-template). The Banner talk 20:48, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collabro[edit]

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

Nominated for db-band, but as the user has expanded the article since then, pre-emptively AFD nominating as it may no longer qualify for CSD.

Delete | TV talent show band, no releases. Their performance went semi-viral, and they have gotten PR appearances around, but WP:NMUSIC and Wikipedia:Notability_(Reality_Television_participants) (I know its a failed proposal, but it shows that they don't even meet the proposed standards for reality tv) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep | I believe this article does meet the criteria for WP:NMUSIC: "a musician or ensemble... may be notable if it... has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". In addition to the PR appearances noted by the other user, they have been the subject of articles by major news outlets such as STV, The Belfast Telegraph, ITV Regional News, Metro and The Daily Mirror, entertainment websites such as Entertainmentwise and Telly Mix, and local newspapers. Although their progression to the semi-final stage has not been publicly announced, it should be noted that bookmakers are placing them as second favourites to win the competition and future appearances look highly likely --Rachelpadden (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reality tv contestants that will disappear almost certainly. If they don't recreate at that time. Szzuk (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is coverage, but it's all related to the one set of appearances, hence WP:ONEEVENT applies I think. Can and should be recreated of course if they continue performing and gain additional coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:26, 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 keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social consciousness[edit]

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

Article seems to be talking about a form of collective social conscience, yet social conscience itself, which should have an article, redirects here. Some sources found on Google books but it is not clear that they are all referring to the same thing. I think it needs a discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – entire books are dedicated to various aspects of social consciousness. The article is quite expandable:

Language, ideology and social consciousness: developing a sociohistorical approach
Theology and the social consciousness: a study of the relations of the social consciousness to theology
Literature, social consciousness, and polity
Awakening to Race: Individualism and Social Consciousness in America
Children's Social Consciousness and the Development of Social Responsibility
Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Volume 102
Social Consciousness in Legal Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives

– Many more sources exist. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But can you find a RS that defines the term? The reference there is behind a paywall and it is not clear what it says if anything about the definition of the term. The article has existed since 2004 and has remained undeveloped since then despite plenty of edits. I suspect that the term is not in general use despite its use in book titles, and that is why the article has not been expanded. A general Google search is not encouraging, producing mostly low quality and psycho-babble new age type sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable concept. User:Philafrenzy: yes, just search google books for "Social consciousness defined". Writing Wrongs and Imagining Change defines it as " a dynamic process involving a conscious awareness of the social-historical context, thinking abstractly about time and place, and beyond the immediate everyday conditions to understand one's own experience as embedded in a broader system of social relations". The Indian Journal of Social Work defines it for example as "preparedness to help non-familial others in need". The very same definition is repeated in Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. Poor definitions, overall, but still useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two definitions are not the same are they, which sort of proves my point that it is not an established term with a clearly understood meaning? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I turned the redirect social conscience into a separate article and found this useful page on social consciousness which discusses the debate about whether it can exist outside of individual conscience or social conscience. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No clear established definition does not mean it is not notable. It just means it's a pain to write about. See Wikipedia_talk:SOCIO#Social_position.2C_status_and_role: some key articles about social structure topics have similar problems with contradictory definitions, but we are hardly going to delete them, are we? This is a similar case IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with ambiguity as long as it can be precisely defined! It can be kept as long as we can list the different meanings in use with reliable sources to back them up and make clear how "social consciousness" is different from consciousness, conscience and social conscience. I don't think that has been done yet. The article I linked might enable that to happen. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to ask the nominator: if this is not an issue of notability of the concept, as we all agree that such a concept exists, and that it is significantly cover in several authoritative sources, why did you AfD then? Shouldn't this be just discussed in that article's talk page, or the relevant Wikigroup? 舎利弗 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was an issue of notability as searches found no reliable sources that defined the term and the sources that did exist were not clearly talking about the same thing. Some of them were very low quality too. That was reflected in the way the article had remained undeveloped for a very long time. Could you have defined the term closely and referenced that definition with a reliable source before the Questia source emerged? A phrase merely being mentioned in several book titles is not really enough and I don't agree that the meaning of the term is self-explanatory if that is what you are suggesting. However, based on the Questia source we have at least one definition to hang the article on and know the source of that definition (Karl Marx) so I am happy to withdraw the nomination and hang the article on that unless anyone disagrees. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 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 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Myth Cloth Legend[edit]

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

WP:PRODUCT WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - WP:PRODUCT and WP:FANCRUFT. Jun Kayama 12:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - a "new line-up". Bearian (talk) 20:32, 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lee Smith[edit]

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

Non notable person. Vast majority of refs are self published youtube etc. Although the individual seemed outspoken, and is now dead, WP:BLP applies, particularly WP:BLPPRIMARY for the court records etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article. Ronnie is a notable person. You are wrong about that. There are no refs that are self published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AA20:4801:6CAF:A171:BAB2:34EF (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references were self-published by me. There's many article references used, as well some youtube clips that have Ronnie Lee Smith speaking himself, and Ronnie Lee Smith is used as 1 of many references about his own life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.86.241 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self published doesn't mean self published by you. It means they were published by someone individually, not a reliable organization. WP:RS for a WP:BLP (recently deceased, but still) will exclude all blogs, youtube, WP:PRIMARY sources (especially about legal actions), etc. LEaving you with one or two local WP:ROUTINE coverage articles. The guy does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't mean he was a bad guy, but his life was not of encyclopedic notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was silenced in life so it's no surprise he would be silenced in death too. Many would love to just delete Ronnie Lee Smith's entire presence upon this planet... and if he wasn't notable, why are so many folks so angry at him? He didn't hurt anybody. He just had beliefs that Colorado and Washington both believe in. And he ran for the highest public office in a Kentucky county to put those ideas into practice. For some, the truth is subjective. I do not believe this. Either something happened, or it did not happen. His autobiography is relevant to his biography, and who are you to decide who is encyclopedia worthy, or not? I've seen threads on Wikipedia where they had no references at all, and the only objection listed is "there's no references" to this article. It seems like I would have been more successful doing it that way. That's Howard Zinn's way. But wouldn't you rather know where the information came from? 1 example of where I used something Ronnie published himself was on "comedian", right after his name on the very first top paragraph. To prove that he was a comedian, I posted 4 video references of him at comedy clubs telling jokes. What reference would you deem plausible to "prove" that one was a comedian? An article by New York Times is weaker evidence for "proof" than a video of them actually doing their work. So instead, I combined elements of public news clippings, and his own words... one's own autobiography, while not a biography, does have merit to the biography. Of course they are biased towards themselves, but to silence their own words is to allow their enemies to define them. Ronnie Lee Smith changed the game completely, and being for the legalization of marijuana, he was treated poorly, mocked, disrespected, sent into exile, and eventually politically assassinated, which led to him being on the run, in Arizona, without his family, little resources, and eventually, possibly, even his death. His radical ideas only received 4% of the vote, but just the possibility of him winning caused so many to attack him, silence him, stop his medication, and then he died. There's questions about his death too. Some say he had a bad batch of hemp oil. Others say the Arizona jail didn't allow him to have his cancer medication, and that was the cause of his cancer resurging. Of course he is notable, for his life, as well as his controversial death. Ronnie pushed for Hemp Oil to be legalized, and Kentucky legalized it. He is the first Libertarian to run for Sheriff, and Jackson County, Kentucky had a Libertarian Sheriff touting the same ideas Ronnie was putting forward, which ran counter to Obama's attempt at gun control, gaining national headlines. I have also heard from other folks that their cancer, or seizures, or other issues were cured by his hemp oil. Where's the evidence for this? Youtube videos. Witness testimonies are one form of evidence that a thing either did, or did not, happen. And lastly, if curing over 150 people's cancer isn't noteworthy, I wouldn't know what is. The proof that he did... is between the conversations and actions between his clients and himself. No books. No newspapers. And with Kentucky being #1 for all cancers all across the board, somebody should investigate these probable leads, and maybe one less grandmother won't have to die of an ailment where there is a known cure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AA20:4801:6CAF:A171:BAB2:34EF (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet criteria for WP:BIO particularly WP:ANYBIO & WP:ARTIST. Being outspoken doesn't make someone notable. Judging by the content on the article page and here suggest it's been written as a fan page rather than a notable encyclopaedic article Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No evidence he ever received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curing cancer is not notable. Delete him! Delete him now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AA20:4801:9026:9155:1202:ECDE (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curing cancer is very notable. Claiming to cure cancer is a dime a dozen. When reliable sources say Ronnie has cured cancer, come back and try again. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (could go either way yet). "Ronnie Lee Smith donated $500 to the Crystal Lake Fishing Tournament" isn't merely non-notable, it's trivia at best. It's hard to see the core of this article for such fluff. This article is hard to judge as it has a great deal about "RLS did <foo>" and much less about "Senator <bar> said it would be a hard race against candidate RLS". We need comment from outside RLS and his entourage. Did independent commentators pay attention to him? Not merely the anonymous apparatus of the state grinding him down as an individual, but did independent, separate and free-thinking (i.e. not just traffic cops reacting to his plate) make comment on him?

So far I'm not seeing this – it might be there, but it' not leaping out at me. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - awful story support - nothing would be left after improving the story Mosfetfaser (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Semi-coherent hagiography about a possibly colorful but completely local "celebrity". The run for sheriff produced a smattering of press releases in the local Kentucky Enquirer, so nothing much there. The one hint of actual news is the coverage on a local Fox affiliate of some bizarre "breaking my cousin out of the hospital" story. That's a single source, and if another could be found it'd run around on WP:ONEEVENT issues. There's nothing redeemable here. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the cited 1998 article in the Cincinnati Enquirer is independent, and reliable (editor Hirolovesswords's comment above notwithstanding), it does not appear that Smith meets either the general notability guideline or WP:BIO. --Bejnar (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources to support WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a candidate in a minor election and he came last. And he apparently believed he could cure cancer, though quite how he did this is unexplained. I suspect it will remain so. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone just speedy WP:SNOW this so we can stop wasting time cleaning up the RS and other violations in the article and move on to real work? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet our notablity requirements. I've removed some of the really badly sourced stuff (something about him starting a lawsuit - so what? - sourced to a pdf on someone's site, and a quote from him sourced to a comment on a media article). Left that really trivial bit about a donation although that would never last in a biography. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable. --bonadea contributions talk 19:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wanted to sit this out while I looked for sources, and thankyou to everyone for removing the most egregious BLP violations, but I can't find anything that will make this article stay, no matter how much I would like to "stick it to the deletionists" and improve it. There simply isn't enough national coverage out there to meet our notability guidelines. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. Do NOT snow delete (what's the hurry? Discussion is ok, right? And maybe someone finds something interesting in the remaining 3 days, no?) - Nabla (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsuccessful fringe politician, but lets not snow this one, lets do it by the book because I have a feeling it will end up with more non-constructive bickering at DRV if the usual process is short-circuited. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete not notable. the sources are not suitable for any article, let alone a BLP article. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable notability. The article also contains trivia that is not of any interest. E.g., "On September 11, 2010, Ronnie Lee Smith donated $500 to the Crystal Lake Fishing Tournament"Jersey92 (talk) 19:00, 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 merge to FamilyMart. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FamilyMart in Taiwan[edit]

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

Non notable subject. All refs are from Family Mart, except one. Redirect back to FamilyMart Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to FamilyMart. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into FamilyMart. Rename section "Popularity of FamilyMart in Taiwan" to "FamilyMart in Taiwan" in the FamilyMart article and merge content there. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to FamilyMart per above. No independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 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 speedy delete per WP:G5. No prejudice to anyone wanting to recreate this, as long as it's sourced with RS to show how it merits an article separate from disaster film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction disaster film[edit]

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

Duplicate of Disaster Film Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason

Not a valid reason why to delete the page,it doesnt meet any of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy list of 14:Reasons why to nominate a page for speedy deletion,this article is for list of Science fiction disaster films not a copy of List of disaster films.Message to Administraters,maybe the article name is wrong,do change it to-List of Science fiction disaster films.

Note, that this was not a speedy deletion, but just a regular deletion. Wikipedia:REDUNDANTFORK Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many disaster films are not science fiction (e.g., The Towering Inferno, The Posiden Adventure, Earthquake, Airport, Dante's Peak, etc.) Whether the more specific topic satisfies LISTN I'll leave here for the rest of the discussion.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator has now been ifdef blocked as a sock, this article may qualify for speedy deletion as G5. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:38, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Dewi Soerijo[edit]

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

This fails WP:BIO. Neither of the two references support any claim in the article - the first one doesn't seem to mention Olivia at all, and the second one is a dead link. I couldn't find any other sources online. I originally nominated this for WP:PROD, but the template was removed by the page author. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete not inherited. a runner up in a competition died. Not of encyclopedic value. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable drunk-driver who was once runner up in a (seemingly) non-notable modelling competition which has no Wikipedia article. Indonesian media often shows plenty of coverage , but even the Jakarta Post and the Jakarta Globe, who have excellent searchable archives online only have articles on Olivia Dewi's death, making it WP:SINGLEEVENT, and absolutely nothing else about her other than how she died. Mabalu (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly non-notable Davidelit (Talk) 02:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know she's deceased so this is no BLP, but WP:1EVENT still applies to deceased people right? Even if she were still alive, just being a runner-up in a competition (which is itself not notable) is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:05, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Lez Show[edit]

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

Fails WP:WikiProject Television. Non-notable release. Wudumindif (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to have been written by an immature fan of the series. Not notable. AbsoluteMack (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete in the absence of any quality sources showing notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources or Notability presented whatsoever. I think it may have even been originally written by the creator of the series. Not notable enough to be on the site. IAmTheBrainwasher (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Water safety in New Zealand[edit]

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

This is an editorial, not an encyclopedia article, however well-researched it may be. Possibly some of the less polemic material could be incorporated in a general article on water safety. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article consists of the information that New Zealand has a high rate of drownings. This in itself does not seem worthy of an article. The rest is a lot of "how to" information to improve water safety. This should be included in Water safety since it is not specific to New Zealand. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete the opening statement is a massive uncited claim and then uses original research to blame it on lack of swimming education in schools which again is unqualified. The article also uses WP:SYNTH with its interpretation of statistics. LibStar (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 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!} 09:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Panic! at the Disco EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 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 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 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!} 09:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Goldfrapp EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 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 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Switchfoot EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (PJ Harvey EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (The Gaslight Anthem EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Colbie Caillat)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Down with Webster EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (The Black Keys EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Gorillaz EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Billy Talent EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 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!} 09:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session EP (iTunes Exclusive) (3OH!3)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 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!} 09:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session EP (Cat Power album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 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!} 09:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Rodrigo y Gabriela EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 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!} 09:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Turin Brakes EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 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!} 09:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Sampler[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 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 delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Jeremy Camp EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 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!} 09:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Sara Bareilles EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 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!} 09:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Lifehouse EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 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!} 10:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session EP (City and Colour)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 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!} 10:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Imogen Heap EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 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!} 10:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (The Weepies EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 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!} 10:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Papa Roach EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 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!} 10:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (Tinie Tempah EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 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!} 10:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (The Sword EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 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!} 10:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (Scissor Sisters EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 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!} 10:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (Paloma Faith EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 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!} 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (Ozzy Osbourne EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 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!} 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (Frank Turner EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 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!} 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (Florence and the Machine EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 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!} 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live from SoHo (The Good, the Bad and the Queen EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 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!} 10:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from SoHo (Secondhand Serenade EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 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!} 10:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from SoHo (Ladyhawke EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 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 redirect to Jonas_Brothers_discography#Extended_plays. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be Mine (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonas_Brothers_discography#Extended_plays. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:29, 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!} 10:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from SoHo (Jonas Brothers EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 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!} 10:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from SoHo (Goo Goo Dolls EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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!} 10:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from SoHo (The Fray EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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!} 10:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from SoHo (Florence and the Machine EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 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!} 10:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from SoHo (Counting Crows album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 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!} 10:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Foreign Exchange[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 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!} 10:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2012 (Haim EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 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.

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. → Call me Hahc21 16:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2012 (Andrea Bocelli EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 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!} 10:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2012 (Rebecca Ferguson EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 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!} 10:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2012 (Labrinth EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic (Coldplay EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2011 (Coldplay EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to having significant coverage, coverage in The Times is not independent. --Bejnar (talk) 23:43, 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!} 10:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2011 (My Chemical Romance EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 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!} 10:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2011 (Kasabian EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 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!} 10:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2011 (Jimmy Eat World EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2011 (Linkin Park EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 14:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable release. SilentDan297 talk 18:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cooney[edit]

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

I confess my knowledge of US local politics may be deficient, but I fail to se how this person is notable and, particularly, how he satisfies the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Seems to have no position now or in the past beyond being a county commissioner; only ref is to an article that is not actually about him personally. Emeraude (talk) 12:13, 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 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Krakower[edit]

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

Has little to no primary sources about him. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete in addition to GNG, having this much unsourced content is a violation of WP:BLP even if its all true and neutral. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. In a search for Bob Krakower or Robert Krakower, I found only primary sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Harijan[edit]

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

I cannot find reliable sources establishing notability. It is being edited by what appears to be 3 SPAs although of course it may be just one person with 3 accounts. One edit, [10] added 4 sources which I can't verify mention him, and for one of them I found the full name, Portes, Alejandro, and Adreain R. Ross. 1976. “Modernization for Emigration: The Medical Brain Drain from Argentina.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 13:395-422. - which suggests that it has nothing to do with this person. I can't find Dear Mr Gorbachev either. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete i have failed to find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC being met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically, a teacher who who wrote a doctorate thesis that was not published and a minor locaal politician. No chance of being notable. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence of notability offered, despite considerable effort by various editors. Maproom (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Bali88 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) Can't find any sources to verify notability. Harsh (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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. In this form, certainly not an encyclopedic article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geodetic plotting[edit]

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

Not remotely encyclopedic and should be deleted per WP:NOT. Also, Navstar55 (talk · contribs) is making a large number of similar edits around Wikipedia and I hope a public discussion will help him to slow down before he gets blocked. GDallimore (Talk) 09:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the comments of GDallimore. The material was first added to a talk page and moved to a new article after deletion. Talk pages and main pages are not a repository for computer code, particularly code which is under development and not even verified (according to the editor's own comments). See WP:TPG. Peter Mercator (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While title topic may merit an eventual article, what is currently present would need a fundamental rewrite to achieve a basic understanding of the subject. This article appears to be some sort of self-published text book or tutorial in plotting, which is what Wikipedia expressly is not (see WP:NOTGUIDE). --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 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. Possibly one of the strongest "delete" I have seen. Due to recreation, it will also be salted from further recreation the panda ₯’ 11:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Maloo[edit]

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

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

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

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

Despite appearances, there is nothing to show notability here. Although the article has been re-worked since the previous AfD, all the references are either passing mentions, or don't mention the subject, or are not independent. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:BIO or WP:N. —SMALL JIM 09:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having a large amount of facebook, twitter following which clearly display curiosity among crowd( including Wiki founder Mr.Wales), despite having more than 2 dozen "passing mentions" and being MD of a nearly 10 billion dollar empire which has been built from scratch and stuff some people know about his contribution to society, I don't know why SmallJim is after this page so badly. Please refer to my debate with him on this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaibhav_Maloo Left it upon merit. I can provide more links and massive media exposures on their way, I hear from my sources. Beats me ! Alongside, I want to submit that these are the best publications, both in India and abroad. All the issues have been flagged by just one person who doesn't see things my way. Request someone to mediate and end this argument. Please note that circumstances w.r.t. media requirements has changed in the last 2 years since the first recommendation during which too SmallJim was after this article. Kindly note. There is no comparison between what I read must have happened in 2012 and now. This person is of Indian origin but resides abroad now. This SmallJim is using JSTOR which gives zero results for Indian Prime Ministers. I mean, has he not taken wikipedia training? 89.150.19.3 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)89.150.19.3 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)— 89.150.19.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Kryptonite1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Half of the comment was added by the IP and the other half by Kryptonite1234 (see page history), who are both SPAs, so I tagged both of them... Thomas.W ^talk 21:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia notability isn't inherited. So even though Vinay Maloo, who apparently is the subject's father, and Enso Group seem to be notable, that notability doesn't rub off on the subject of this article. Who seems to be not notable on his own. Thomas.W ^talk 21:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO: none of the provided reliable sources convey the requisite significant coverage required by WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how do you know he is not equally notable, age? just because he is second generation? sure go ahead in that case. if you see the articles, his sources are more credible and more descriptive with his quotations showing he matters. How does wikipedia work? I have read a bit but this bit is unclear.Kryptonite1234 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MD of a large firm who took time out of college to build the empire, seems like software isn't the only place where people made money. Doing good community work and MD of Tour De India. Definitely noteworthy. Typical case of being overshadowed by father.Crazybots (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Crazybots (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Keep I agree with Crazybots , very impressive profile and doing noteworthy work.Hakunamatatalk (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hakunamatatalk (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Keep I support too. Why you after this page? just relax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allahthegreat (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Allahthegreat (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Comment While it may be completely coincidental, please note that Crazybots and Hakunamatatalk both seem to have established their Wikipedia accounts specifically and only to comment on this AfD, and did so within a span of 5 minutes. Likewise Allahthegreat was created only 5 minutes later. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People relax, I don't know who all these people are. I am in talks with Tea House and other people. There is still a day or two before the verdict, lets wait and watch. If its deleted, its deleted. Thats all. Kryptonite1234 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as canvassed per this admission, and so marked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of significant coverage. Does not appear to be notable on his own. Huon (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of secondary source notability, which a bulk of social media mentions doesn't provide. doktorb _words^deeds 03:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Huon --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources, and significant coverage. Not notable in his own right. Mifter (talk) 22:43, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Zeus[edit]

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

This article has been around for eight years and has clocked up 484 edits. How come no one has provided decent evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neutral/weak keep BBC review is a decent sign. could be more out there. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and I am very tempted to remove all bar the lede as unsourced.--Laun chba ller 22:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think subject passes notability threshold. I have added several references after this nomination and first two votes. He has given music for at least 3 films. Some of his songs have been chart toppers. Though I could not find a direct reference i.e. charts or something, some of the citation which I have added, mentions his song "Kangna" as a chart topper. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recently added sources establish notability. Grayfell (talk) 04:32, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Stone[edit]

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

This is very much just another BLP1E of a non-notable scientist who happened to have the misfortune of having been involved in a freak accident which ended up in the presses for the wrong reasons. Company is non-notable, TED talk is non-notable. Article also suffers from massive WP:UNDUE. Alison ^❤ 08:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. If Stone were covered only for her accident (about which much was written, e.g. [11]), I'd agree that this woud be a BLP1E case, but the additional coverage in the Guardian about the outcome of her PCC complaint ([[12]) makes her notable for pursuing this issue of press regulation / transgender nondiscrimination. If one looks at the press section of the Novalia website, there's probably enough there for independent notability of her company as well.
I agree with Alison that it would be very much preferable if the article would talk more about her work and career and less about her accident and its ramifications, but WP:UNDUE requires that our article covers what reliable sources write about, and in this case the sources do focus on these recent issues much more than about Stone's work in general. But that is an editing issue, and if editors find sources to flesh out the rest of her biography, then I'm all for that. Sandstein 12:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by Sandstein --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete If she passes WP:ACADEMIC then sources should be provided to show that. Otherwise this is a clear WP:BLP1E and WP:SENSATION Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic WP:BLP1E. Sandstein (talk · contribs) should have known better, but even he is not immune from making mistakes. I have checked and she does not currently appear to be an academic working at a university, making it essentially impossible for her to meet WP:PROF. Classic WP:BLP1E and not WP:FUTUREPROOF, but might be WP:TOOSOON if she becomes a prominent campaigner for transgender rights over a long period of time. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not she's currently working as an academic is 100% irrelevant. Notability is not temporary. If she's made a significant contribution/held significant roles in the past she's still notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Colapeninsula (talk · contribs), it is relevant, because normally to meet WP:PROF a person has to go through several years of working in academia, and rise to professorial rank. Having only recently completed a PhD, which is step 2 (step 1 being a BEng), she needs to get to about step 15 before even being considered to meet WP:PROF. Not being in academia, we can fairly safely predict that not only does she not currently meet WP:PROF, she's not going to meet WP:PROF in the next 20 years, by which time she'll be of retirement age. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a subtle point, I disagree that one must be active at university to be judged on the basis of WP:PROF (as the numerous articles on long-deceased or retired academics and scientists demonstrate). That being said, it appears her academic credentials are minimal. The WoS query "AUTHOR: (stone k*) Refined by: ORGANIZATIONS-ENHANCED: (UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH" shows 7 papers, none of which seem to be from Stone. Sources seem instead to focus on the sensationalism of Stone's transgender. I think the basic question is whether we can have a BLP based essentially on the transgenderism of an individual. I think not, since it is not notable per se. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that searching for papers by her (and hence h-index) is difficult if she published under her previous male identity, which isn't apparently public information. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the previous identity is unknown, thats a pretty good indicator it isn't notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for notability is not based on Stone's academic credentials, or her gender identity, but on the broader criterium of being the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources (and, therefore, public interest) per WP:GNG. This overrides any failure to meet more specific notability guidelines. Sandstein 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage is all under the goring incident isn't though? That would be WP:BLP1E ,unless you are going to argue that the goring, and lawsuit regarding the coverage of the goring are separate enough incidents. That would be an argument which I personally don't find compelling as I think they are all rather the same event myself. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sandstein - being referenced in the yellow press on some sensational story does not notable make. You can't just handwave away WP:SENSATION, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. And it is just related to one story, not two - Alison ^❤ 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do think it is two stories. First, the goring incident (which is merely a human interest story and, as you say, ended up in the press likely in part for the wrong reasons but, still, major coverage not only in tabloids but also in reliable mainstream media including five separate stories in the BBC) and, second, the Guardian coverage about the PCC complaint, which is not about angry stags but about Stone's role in addressing problematic behavior of the British press – a rather different issue. Sandstein 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. Move the content to Novalia and rewrite the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Novalia may pass GNG as WP:CORP based on the media links above, and a founder/ceo bio may be appropriate, but unless the goring/lwsuit stories are discussing Stone bring up Novalia it may be WP:COATRACK or WP:UNDUE to bring the current content over - the article would actually have to be about novalia. On the other hand, once there is a valid article, the barrier for additional content is much lower, so it could go either way as long as it wasn't pure WP:COATRACK Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the company could well be created and some text could be reused (but nothing about the stag accident and its coverage, as that has nothing to do with the company). But that's a matter separate from the question of this biography's notability. Sandstein 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete because it is the right thing to do, and per WP:NOTATABLOID She is well known for one thing, that of being trampled by a stag. She may have academic notability. However the rest is just juicy gossip reminiscent of publications such as the Sunday Sport. Wikipedia should be better than this. In addition Dr Stone clearly wishes privacy, and we should respect that. Martin451 17:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that she wishes privacy? She made herself available for the reporting about the incident, and then spoke to the Guardian about her PCC complaint. That's what makes her notable, not the tabloid-y stag issue. It doesn't look as though she just wants to be left alone, and she has little reason to want this: as an entrepreneur, media coverage is generally in her interest. Sandstein 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She has specifically complained to the PCC about the coverage of her life, and specific things in her life. That complaint is about her personal privacy. We now have an article that highlights the very things she was complaining about, because she asked for privacy in those matters. This is exactly what WP:BLP was written for. Martin451 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was created only recently and there is a potential it can be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Expanded, how? A careful search has already determined that there's little, if anything to be said regarding academic contributions. That leaves only the sensationalistic aspect of Stone's accident and and subsequent gender row, neither of which are notable per se. Because the only actual source-able information is associated with this one event, "keep" would amount to having yet another tabloid (rather than encyclopedic) article on WP. Agricola44 (talk) 13:06, 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 00:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth unification movement[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR. Frankly I have never heard of such a movement. The sources given in the article don't talk about the possibility of "unifying the Commonwealth", they reference statistical facts about the countries possibly involved or (in the case of the two Canadian references) they call for the dissolution of the Commonwealth of Nations, not its unification. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence that there is such a movement. Sources seem to be mostly talking about free trade, not unification.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources are not directly discussing the topic at hand, if at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above. Even if we had a few a sources on the topic, Commonwealth of Nations would be the place to put such information, and a separate article would only be justified if there was so much content, that it needed a separate article. But, we're not even at the point of having a single quote from a single notable person suggesting such a thing. --Rob (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found mention of such a movement from a 1909 New Zealand newspaper, the Otago Daily Times. There does not appear to be anything more current there. NealeFamily (talk) 08:41, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G.Brown[edit]

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

From his IMDb page, this action is known for 13 credits with the largest being twelve year on General Hospital and a doll of some sort. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the author is a single-purpose account (with possibly a COI) based on these edits and the pages that have been deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion. Claiming that a doll has been made after one is not an assertion of notability, alas. M. Caecilius (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's an assertion. I mean, it's possible that someone who played a character for that long could be notable. But I'm a stickler. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Note that the source for the action doll does not even mention Brown, only that some of the dolls are called Cliff. --bonadea contributions talk 07:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if he did pass the standards cited by Bonadea, a totally new article would have to be drafted. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 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 Delete most likely a hoax. Note deletion discussion being skewed by sock/meat puppetry, BLPPROD and AFD deletion templates removed from article, inaccurate/baseless claims of article having been approved by an administrator. The article itself has deficient sourcing, suggestions abound this is a hoax and it generally fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:BLP policies. Nick (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Romanov, Grand Duke of Russia[edit]

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

The sources are very poor quality for a WP:BLP. It's not clear, even from the bloggy sources, what this person's lineage is, and that's the only claim to notability given in the article (he's only 14 or 15?). He's not listed in Line of succession to the former Russian throne. Although Russian isn't my language, so I could easily be missing something. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But Why Didn't you just Request a BLP:PROD? Dudel250 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the sources are poor, they do exist. BLPPROD can only be used if there are no sources at all (or if the sources aren't about the subject of the article). Also, the article was already prodded, right? I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if a prod is removed a different method of deletion should be used. Grayfell (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information found on this page are 100% true and legit. Although, the sources are poor but that doesn't mean they are fake or should proposed for deletion. I'm a Russian, and I remember when there was a small event at the Winter Palace in St.Petersburg and Rani attended and he was honored as an official member of the House of Romanov although this page's tag says pretender. so my point is that this page shouldn't be deleted, also his name can be found on international wikipedia pages as well... and I also found this link which was posted back in July 2013 http://woahmagazine.net/history-the-romanovs-dynastic-succession/ ..... 02:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.119.234 (talk)

This page should stay up and not get deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudialev (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this page and I want it to stay on Wikipedia because it's true and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.210.32 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" as hoax.--Yopie (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:House of Romanov#Fake "official website", where the sources have already been discussed. This eliminates any doubt I had that this is a hoax. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the site like any other memorable site for the Romanovs which included Rani's name. If you see the content as fake, then it's the problem with the website nor Rani and his family. And that doesn't mean it's fake or Rani's article is a hoax. Content contributing needs wise thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetriaauthor (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Wikipedia is based on verifiability. If the only sources supporting something are fake, then there is nothing to build an article on. So far the only sources are websites made up of copy/pastes of other websites with this person's name inserted into them clumsily. There's also this useless bit from iReport. There is no reliable proof this kid even exists. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is closed and the page will not get deleted. The page has been approved on and been fixed by one of the administrators. Thanks for sharing your ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetriaauthor (talk • contribs) 11:03, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EWU World Super Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The promotion which owned the championship does not have an article, how could its championship be notable? LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. starship.paint "YES !" 13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the professional wrestling promotion which owns this title is apparently not notable enough for an article here. A title can't be more notable than its promotion. starship.paint "YES !" 13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:55, 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 Speedy deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DR. ROBERT H. BLACKBURN[edit]

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

Author writes in all caps when not necessary. Article is not clear. Akifumii^Talk 05:18, 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 speedily deleted by User:Alexf per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaycie Lyn Fajardo[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant contestant. Being a weekly finalist (aka a minor winner) on a weekly contest on ABS-CBN or winning a local (municipality)-level pageant is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Also content seems to be directly lifted from their respective sources. E Wing (talk) 04:54, 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counterparty (technology)[edit]

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

This service does not fully demonstrate notability despite an better effort being put to make it jump the hurdle of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Citation Needed | Talk 03:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Minyanville appears to be a reliable source and has a whole article regarding Counterparty - it is referenced in the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What condition of the WP:GNG is this article supposed to fail? ~~There are even more third-party articles about Counterparty hidden in comments of the article.~~ - Coinburger (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coinburger: I move the hidden references to Talk:Counterparty (technology), here people and see and discuss them. To keep the article editors will be looking for mentions in the media especially non-cryptocurrency specific press and mainstream media.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured that there was a better place to put that material. ;) On that note, the talk page now lists mentions of Counterparty in both Bloomberg and Business Insider. Is coverage in 'mainstream media' a requisite for notability, though? -- Coinburger (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the quality references, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of 'notability'. Check out the table half way down Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Primecoin_(3rd_nomination), which gives some indication of what is sort. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned by mainstream media, let alone any periodical, is not required by Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Significant coverage by mainstream media could help establish notability, but it's definitely not required. Agyle (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Borderline adequate coverage in reliable sources. I don't consider most of the currently cited sources to be reliable (e.g., coinssource.com, cointelegraph.com, letstalkbitcoin.com, or a project creator's blog), but I would count the Minyanville article, which is particularly detailed, as a reliable source, and I'd count CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine as industry-specific reliable sources. The Counterparty project is mentioned to varying degrees in multiple articles in both CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine. Counterparty's mention in a Bloomberg article is extremely trivial, in a sentence listing several of "the most well-known projects" that utilize the existing bitcoin blockchain, but it does reinforce, at a minimum, that this is a well known project in this field. Agyle (talk) 01:49, 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 Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Seddon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPEOPLE. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:MUSBIO "is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are correct. I think the notability of at least one of those ensembles is pretty questionable, but I'm not at this point prepared to argue as much. And, regardless, wouldn't want to create a situation in which one AfD was at least symbolically dependent on another. I'll withraw it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 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 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commoditys In Disputed Seas in Court[edit]

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

Needs to be moved to Wikisource As WP:PROD Tag Got Removed By Author Of page Dudel250 (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and thereafter do not move to Wikisource. The article is a (poorly) paraphrased report of a law suit, to which neither of the references relate, which makes it unverified and thereby a guideline failure for verifiability. User has also created a redirect from BRENDA JUSTICE v GUOLI TIAN, Chairman of the Board, Executive Director, Bank of China Limited, New York,, which apart from the article under discussion, is the only result returned by a Google search for " BRENDA JUSTICE, 14-CV-1843". Philg88 ^♦talk 07:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page also probably doesn't meet WP:COPYVIO standards since the whole thing appears copied word for word (talk pages shouldn't even be used as random content dumps anyway). --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article doesn't really cover a topic, it's just a reworded lawsuit, as mentioned above. There are probably other avenues for this, but creating an article isn't one of them. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a nightmare of flotsam and jetsam of legal urban legend, Chinglish and word salad. Non-notable case. Commodities are misspelled. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Describes a lawsuit based on a single subscription source, with no additional citations to indicate why the lawsuit would be notable. Djembayz (talk) 23:16, 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 Moombahton. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moombahcore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant independent coverage in reliable third party sources. STATic message me! 01:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to moombahton. NN on its own. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the cited material to Moombahton. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources for "cited" material are RS. Delete per AFD rationale. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge to Moombahton as a sub-section mentioning Moombahcore as a sub-genre break-off/variance of classic Moombahton. Also cite influences and pioneering artists of the genre.Outrider15 (talk) 05:07, 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, at least until reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Beauties[edit]

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

An article with no significance whatsoever, no sources identifying the supposed structure (single source is a link to a newspaper website). Possible hoax. Phill24th (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's an actual hoax, I found this page, a sock company that gives its office location as "behind the three beauties". That said, both notability and verifiability are sorely lacking for this WP:MILL building. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starblind is right. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:34, 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.