Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 April 27 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to MasterChef Junior. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Hahn[edit]

Riley Hahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: non-notable child chef. Ten years old now. Maybe he will be some day but for now I do not see sufficient notability for his own article. Quis separabit? 00:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable as youngest chef in history of the show. Is referenced and sourced. Article does need to be beefed up. Note google news sources do not show many references as full name was never used on the show. This link is probably a fairer search. Glen 04:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to multiple feature articles in reliable sources. The search link provided by Glen provides many of these. Ross-c (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MasterChef Junior: He was a participant in an elimination-contest "reality" cooking show. Fails WP:1E, and see in particular this passage: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event." As he was eliminated early, he didn't even play a "major" role. Pax 08:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MasterChef Junior. I agree with Pax, one event only and eliminated early. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2015 (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. Rationales for deletion are that the subject does not meet notability guidelines and that the article qualifies for deletion as per WP:BLP1E. Rationales for retention include the notion that the subject meets WP:BASIC and that the person has received media coverage for two events, as opposed to one. Ultimately, no consensus has emerged in this discussion. North America1000 10:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Weinstock[edit]

Maia Weinstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trifling notability. Fails WP:BLP1E and therefore fails WP:GNG. PROD declined. Safiel (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: insufficiently notable to merit an encyclopaedia article, online or elsewhere. Quis separabit? 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Nominated it for speedy deletion. Not notable. Self-referential about Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zig, How does WP:CSD is met in this case? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a) this link: refers to a Wikipedia "Edit-a-Thon"
b) this link: HuffPo link referring to a "gender bias" on Wikipedia, statung "Editors Are Trying To Fix Wikipedia's Gender And Racial Bias Problem" -- is this article part of the solution to that problem?
c) this link: details Weinstock's penchant for creating Legopeople.
d) this link expounds upon Weinstock's "custom-designed" Lego "mini-figures" of female SCOTUS justices Quis separabit? 23:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that there are multiple references to her and her work in reliable news sources. This satisfies WP:BASIC in my opinion, and therefore the subject is notable and hence the article should not be deleted. The basic guidelines do not say that coverage has to be or cannot be for specific types of events (such as an edit-a-thin), just that such coverage has to exist. Hence, it isn't an argument to start discussing the content of the articles in reliable news sources, we just need to know that they exist. Note from WP:BASIC "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. ". Ross-c (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Has not received significant coverage outside of one event. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It cannot be excluded under WP:BLP1E for 2 reasons. The first is that WP:BLP1E reads requires that 3 conditions be met, and the second is: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." I assert that this young science write is unlikely to remain "low profile". I assert this with great confidence because this 2015 Supreme-Court-Lego media spike is the second such even in her career. The first was a burst of publicity around getting women better represented on WP in 2013. Both topics sparked media coverage not just in the U.S., but in the Eastern and southern hemispheres. In major news sources easily found by typing her name into a google news search. [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertions regarding the future of this young writer may prove accurate but for now they are just that ... unfounded assertions, and a bit heavy on the OR. Quis separabit? 21:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I intended irony, and freely admit to using a crystal ball. Nevertheless, my point that this subject fails exclusion under WP:BLP1E stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the example at Wikipedia:What is one event, BLP1E can still apply to a person who had been mentioned infrequently in the news prior to receiving coverage for a single event. Unless I am missing something, I don't see why BLP1E wouldn't apply here as well. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Hirolovesswords There have been 2 events in Weinstock's career that produced media spikes. #1, the 2013 edit-a-thons taht she helped lead to get more female scientists covered on WP; #2 the 2015 Supreme Court Legos. There has, however, been coverage of her activities between these events. She simply does not qualify as non-notable under the rationale provided by the Nom, who was mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irony: In 2014, Weinstock was cited by Judith Newman in an article in the New York Times on how AFDs are work as, "a Wikipedian who has been instrumental in raising awareness" [2] of the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. An article that immediately provoked yet other Wikipedia editors to create a page about Newman.[3]. Someone should immediately alert Judith Martin that we are discussing deleting Maia Weinstock.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to gender imbalance is not tokenism or lowering standards (we've already done that with current POTUS). And there are, to my knowledge, few (I can only think of one, off hand) serious Wikipedia editors (i.e. interested in anyting other than self-promo) who have their own articles on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 22:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WP metric for notability is coverage. Weinstock now has stuff like a lenghty Q&A in Newsweek [4], this write-up [5] on MSNBC, and Marie Claire gushing over her [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than enough sources here from two significant events, as E.M.Gregory wrote above. If I wrote it after she was covered in one major event, than the one event rule would apply. However, the Supreme Court thing generated significant coverage, and coupled with the gender gap coverage, it clearly shows two events being discussed here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Her journalism gets cited. For example, she is cited several times in a book I have not read, in Chapter 5 "Chicks with Bricks: Building Creativity Across Industrial Design Cultures and Gendered Construction Play," by Derek Johnson, in LEGO Studies: Examining the Building Blocks of a Transmedial Phenomenon (who knew LEGO Studies was an academic field?!), edited by Mark J.P. Wolf and published by Routledge, 2014.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Hashtag: navelgazing. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The major-media attention for her Lego judges would clearly and obviously be enough for WP:GNG, except only for the facts that it's recent and only a single event. But I think there's enough attention for her past works as well (examples: an edit-a-thon in Slate; an art exhibit that she curated in the Austin American-Statesman) to avoid those issues and keep the article. As for some of the earlier comments: it's very difficult to treat as unbiased the opinion of an editor who characterizes Obama's election as an instance of tokenism (there's a different -ism that I think clearly applies to that comment) and we have the usual "it's about an editor of Wikipedia so therefore it's automatically not notable" reactions that, while understandable as a mechanism for preventing us from focusing on our own navels, are not based in policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:- I have no idea of how WP:BLP1E applies. Two significant events are involved and not one. However, subject of the article clearly meet WP:BASIC. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:11, 5 May 2015 (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, local coverage exists, no consensus at this point whether this coverage is sufficient to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Hutopilă[edit]

Vasile Hutopilă (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:BLP from long ago. No references at all, and literally all of the eight external links are now dead with little chance of being found. All of them seem to point to local media outlets from his area. - Andrei (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2015 (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 deckertalk 15:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the existence of the eight references at some point suggests notability. Here is the first one from the Wayback Machine. I don't read the language but it seems to be fairly in-depth. This article does need to be cleaned up, but that is not cause for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a brief interview he once gave to a local news reporter, not something you would normally use as a reliable source to establish notability. In the intro, the interviewer states that Hutopilă is not a wonderful talent... [nor] a celebrity that makes a fortune from art,... [or someone who] transforms art into something never tried before; [he is] just a man who dreams of a beautiful world and paints. So even if we would use it to establish notability, the comment itself is a bit discouraging.--- Andrei (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what coverage there is is highly local and transitory in nature. There simply is no convincing indication that the subject passes any of the WP:ARTIST criteria. - Biruitorul Talk 03:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Errr ... what the hell? A lot of articles written about him in local papers, some of which Google Translate plainly turns out to be substantive articles? And what the hell twice -- these aren't weekly supermarket freebies. Evenimentul Zilei has an English Wikipedia article and is a nationally-circulating daily with a hundred thousand subscribers. Crai Nou's a Bukovina daily. Who cares whether he meets the subordinate notability criteria of WP:ARTIST, he meets the GNG. Period. Nha Trang Allons! 18:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To your "what the hell?" question: you are mistaking Evenimentul Zilei, the national daily, with Evenimentul, a local paper. I don't know how Google Translate translated those articles you read, but the best mention is the one analyzed in my above comment. This is really far from meeting WP:GNG.- Andrei (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:32, 26 April 2015 (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 deckertalk 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geri King[edit]

Geri King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly NN musician where several editors have been unable to uncover any WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG (see discussion on talk page).

Article created by SPA Kkaulani (talk · contribs) who is a now-blocked sockpuppet of Lotusmediadesign (talk · contribs), Geri King's promoter. The Dissident Aggressor 21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've tried to find sources to back this article up, they just don't exist. The artist in question just does not meet notability standards. 79616gr (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches of HighBeam, ProQuest, and Oxford Music Online turned up very little, and nothing that wasn't a trivial mention or press release. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Worldbruce (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2015 (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 deckertalk 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations and Evaluation: Contexts and Practices for Effective Philanthropy[edit]

Foundations and Evaluation: Contexts and Practices for Effective Philanthropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable textbook. Somewhat promotional tone, no independent references provided. --Finngall talk 21:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Cited by 35 according to Google Scholar. How does that measure up with respect to WP:TEXTBOOKS? —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found a review. If the citations are like this one, which specifically highlights the book, then that could probably be argued as a sign of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tokyogirl79 I looked at that link. It's to an essay in the book that is co-authored by one of the editors of the book. That's not insignificant, but it's also not the book itself. And personally I don't find 35 cites a large number -- at least, not large enough for this book to rise to WP status. There are undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of textbooks or books of academic essays with that many cites. I'm not getting notability vibes off of this one. Delete LaMona (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another textbook without wider impact or recognition. Renata (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I agree w/above. Neutralitytalk 16:27, 28 April 2015 (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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Bandy Association[edit]

Lithuanian Bandy Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable association. Can't find anything on it other than the directory listing at the website of Federation of International Bandy. I have two-volume encyclopedia on Lithuanian sport, and it's not included there. Renata (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find anything else about this organization or anything bandy-related about its contact person. Does not meet WP:ORG. Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2015 (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 - the discussion converged towards the consensus that there is insufficient notability. Deryck C. 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mini-Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, and has had no consensus at 2 AfDs, mainly due to low participation. I think if it is no consensus again, the notability tag should be removed. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Cullen328, Unscintillating, MelanieN, Warren Whyte, Moonriddengirl, Realkyhick, 009o9. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (recycling my January, 2014 comment) A 1978 attempt at a standardized sailboat design. No more than a few dozen were ever built. Not notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, design for a home-made boat? Fail to see notability. Renata (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first Popular Mechanics reference is a substantial article which is unambiguously about the subject (i.e., not a trivial mention). Plenty of search engine presence with people still building them today. With kit cars and homebuilt aircraft as precedent, such articles are generally kept. Pax 08:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I agree that the first Pop Mech article is a good reference, for the reasons cited by Pax. But, that's not enough. One of the other Pop Mech refs is an advertisement, and the other is an inconsequential mention (it would carry more weight if it was in a publication independent of the first ref). I found a couple of other mentions in a google search, but nothing I would consider to meet our standard as a reliable source. If somebody could show me one (or even better, two) additional, solid, sources, I'll change my tune, but given what we have now, I'm going to have to go with delete. I would not be opposed to leaving this debate open for another week to see if somebody can find more sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It states that only a few dozen were made. I didn't find anything about them still being made. But "mini-cup" is very generic and is a prize for a lot of contests, so it's possible I missed some RS. Elgatodegato (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Раціональне анархіст, boy is that WP:Search engine test essay ever old and outdated. This topic is the perfect reason why. A large majority of the Google hits have to do with an entirely unrelated auto racing topic. Who knows? Maybe that auto racing topic is notable. Yeah, there were a couple of articles in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science about 35 years ago. But those magazines have published speculative coverage of non-notable topics for 70 years. Flying cars and underwater houses and all. Those articles there plus a few blog posts is not enough in my view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 9 May 2015 (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 deckertalk 05:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania national beach soccer team[edit]

Lithuania national beach soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable team, did not participate in international competitions. Looks like it played only a handful of friendlies. I have two-volume encyclopedia of Lithuanian sport; the team is not included there. Prod declined due to word "national" in the title. Renata (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design and production of The Crystal Maze[edit]

Design and production of The Crystal Maze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page consists solely of trivia and fancruft; it contains 5 sources, but none of them are reliable (nor is anything in the external links section). Even if it was reliably sourced, the article is not notable, as notability is not inherited from [the notable topic] The Crystal Maze. It was created by copying and pasting a large amount of detail that was on The Crystal Maze, which should have been removed rather than split into a new article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is almost entirely unsourced and as is said above, is pretty much just fancruft. Typically we don't have separate articles for things like this on Wikipedia, mostly because the coverage just isn't there to merit such a page. I don't see where this is an exception to that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:01, 26 April 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1333 Cevenola[edit]

1333 Cevenola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It has a spectral study and a light curve, as well as being mentioned as a candidate binary in several other papers. At least a weak keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two papers with this object in their title [7] [8] and several more with it in their abstracts [9] [10] [11], and the suggestion that it is a binary, push it above threshold for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2015 (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 Greg Benson. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarded Policeman[edit]

Retarded Policeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, Non notable web series, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Greg Benson. There are some mentions of the webseries here and there, predominantly in relation to Benson, ([12], [13]) but not really enough to show notability for the series. Considering that the series has been out for about 7 years, I don't really think that there will be any more coverage forthcoming so the best option here is a merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may mildly warrant a salting since this is the third time it'd been re-created, but since the prior two attempts were in 2007 and 2010 I'm not entirely sure if this is really warranted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of Genesis[edit]

Oath of Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game, no claims of notability and only primary or self-generated sources available. Declined speedy since A7 does not apply to software products. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of notability for this recently-published game. The WP:SPA contributor is also the item's author and publisher. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NSOFT. The article is based on primary sources and only talks about gameplay, plot, story and release. The article has nothing to suggest that it is notable and a Google search did not help. — Yash! [talk] 02:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Dolescum (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Game is currently in review under IMDb and other game rating sites. Also provided official website and fan page. Search about "Oath of Genesis" and "Oath of Genesis ML" and you can learn about it. Game information is available on Wiki. So, there is more reason to delete this article. KevalPandya (Talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: IMDb rating is ready for insertion into wikipedia article. KevalPandya (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: Is there anything I need to prove that my article has notability ? KevalPandya (Talk) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Question: Some days ago a article was released in newspaper about owner and oath of genesis game by writer. Can it be submit as evidence as notability and independent source ? KevalPandya (Talk) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • @KevalPandya: It depends on various factors like the newspaper, who wrote it, what the newspaper is in relation to the game/owner, and so on. For example, if the LA Times wrote about the game and was not just reprinting a press release (or basing the bulk of the article on the press release) then that could be used. However if the owner's college newspaper wrote about the game/owner then that cannot be used since the owner attends the college and they would have a vested interest in writing about him. Similarly if the game is only briefly mentioned in relation to something else and/or is only 1-3 sentences long, then that won't show a depth of coverage and would be a WP:TRIVIAL source at best. The only way to really know is to see the newspaper article in question, to be honest. I also want to clarify a bit on the IMDb ratings. Since these ratings are the result of anonymous users logging in to the system and leaving a rating, they cannot be used as a reliable source for notability. At best IMDb can be used as a trivial source to back up basic information like cast lists and release information and even then that can be debatable. For example, at one point this one woman managed to successfully insert a profile in IMDb that asserted that she was going to play She-Hulk in one of the previous Avengers movies. This ended up being false and it was removed, but it took a really, really long time for IMDb to catch this- and this was on a very high profile film. That's kind of the reason why IMDb is kind of unusable for most data, let alone notability purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically what you need right now are reviews in outlets like IGN, PC Gamer, and other review outlets that would show up as critical reviews on places like Metacritic. Examples of this can be seen here and here. I'm not really seeing this and to be honest, it doesn't look like there is any coverage at all for this game. Primary sources (anything released by the company itself) cannot show notability and to be honest, you really shouldn't be showing merchant links in the article at all. Not only can this be seen as an attempt to promote the game, but a large reason why they're considered inappropriate is because including these links can be seen as an endorsement of the product and the sellers/websites and Wikipedia wants to avoid seeming like they endorse any specific product or seller. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/move to AfC. Right now this game does not pass notability guidelines. There has been no coverage of the game in any outlet, at least in any that we can verify. There is apparently a news article out there, but that one news article will not be enough to show notability for the game. I think that the best course of action right now is to move this to the draftspace at WP:AfC. Not only will this give the editor a chance to work on the article while more sources become available, but AfC will allow another editor to look at the article and approve it before it gets resubmitted to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/move to AfC. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Pax 09:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Information, details, sources and references are updated. Check and review. KevalPandya (Talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • You cannot !vote "Keep" more than once in the same deletion debate. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I haven't found any coverage in reliable, third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Additionally, as some others have pointed out, judging by the article creator and game creators same name, there's very likely some WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION issues here as well. (Sidenote: Also strange that all the characters of this game take character names from this game.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have submitted IMDb source. Also I have submitted Wikia Article. But both has removed it. Also, owner of game can submit article to Wikipedia. The point of view of article writer should be neutral. So, I have submitted as view of normal editor. Also, I haven't put any promotion links or text for game promotion. Soon I will submit rating from game rating sites as notability and independent source. So, there should be no objection about this article on Wikipedia. KevalPandya (Talk) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC+05:30)
  • Again, please stop writing "Keep" before every comment you make. Its only done once per discussion, so the discussion closer can roughly see the number individuals who contributed, and their stance to go with it. You've said "Keep" once already, so you shouldn't any more. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Icekings25 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)I don't think that this page should be deleted. Its obvious that this guy is a new user so it takes time for the independent sources and I think that soon it will pass notability guidelines. So he must get some more time to prove himself.[reply]
  • That's not a valid reason to keep an article. I don't mean to be blunt, but if he doesn't know what he's doing, he shouldn't be trying to create entire articles all by himself yet. But regardless, the fate of the article is decided by the third party reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail, not the skill-level of the editor. Additionally, I find it rather suspicious that your first edit in 2 years, and your 3rd edit all time, was to leave a comment here at a deletion discussion. Please be aware that this is not a vote, and that editors are not to be asking for people to comment just to defend their article for them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keval Pandya (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC): @Sergecross73... Hello, Icekings25 is my companion and i told him to give review about my article. I didn't tell him to defend my article from deletion. As I mentioned before, I will submit reviews by game rating sites as they approve it. What we want is little time to edit article. So, I request you to remove deletion tag from article. And in future if you see any text related to game promotion, you can delete my article even without notice. So, I request you.[reply]
  • That is not how Wikipedia handles things though. If no sources exist during the course of these discussions, then the article would be deleted for now, and recreated only if/when enough third party sources cover the title in detail. If you wish to pursue creating the article after it gets deleted, you can still work on a WP:DRAFT and then get it approved through the AFC process - Articles for Creation. (This is what the editors above were referring to.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft. There are no hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, which is definitely a bad sign. If we move it to draft space, the author can work on it in peace and add sources as they become available. That's a viable alternative to deletion, though I kind of doubt that it will become notable in any reasonable period of time given its current lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NinjaRobotPirate... Hello, I saw a Wikipedia page like mine game. Ys: The Ark of Napishtim. Can you differentiate that page and mine. Both page has given same sources. Also, admin has just put "verification" tag on that. There is no speedy deletion tag on that page. On other hand, i have also given information from IMDb. One editor has complained me that, that I have edited every thing. But, i have just put plot correctly and my profile small bio correctly. Everything else is generated by IMDb. So, Please remove speedily deletion tag from this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KevalPandya (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IMDb is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated. It doesn't matter if you add a link to the IMDb. The other article is notable because it has coverage in reliable sources. If you do a Google search for that article, it turns out there are many reviews listed at Metacritic, including IGN. Notability is intrinsic to a topic, and sources merely need to exist rather than be listed in the article. That means that nobody is forced to add sources to the article, but they should. If no sources exist, then the article can be deleted. That's what's going on here. We need coverage in reliable source, and the IMDb is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, a simple search shows that there are all sorts of sources available for the Ys article you listed above. There's 35 separate reviews at the PS2 version's MetaCritic page alone. The difference is that there are zero reviews available at MetaCritic for Oath of Genesis, and zero sources available at all for it that aren't connected to you. I assure you that, if someone nominated that Ys article for deletion, someone would point out all the sources that exist but just aren't on there yet, and the deletion discussion would be dismissed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, there is a difference between a badly written article about a notable subject and an ariicle about a subject that is not notable.--64.229.166.24 (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-I can't even find a page on Gamefaqs for this. The IMDB page does not sound like its a video game either looking over it. Wgolf (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2015 (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. WP:CSD#G10 attack page JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Connolly (rugby player)[edit]

Michael Connolly (rugby player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax Bamyers99 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does appear to be a hoax, as Connolly is not mentioned in any of the cited sources and Googling his name in conjunction with the club he purportedly plays for turns up nothing reliable (mostly Facebook posts). Everymorning talk 20:39, 26 April 2015 (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) –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1747 Wright[edit]

1747 Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. delete /redirect per NASTRO, to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a surface mineralogy study and a light curve analysis available. I think it's sufficiently notable to keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not convinced that the light curve analysis says much to distinguish this from other asteroids. And the minerology study (apparently a poster at a conference) indicates that it's not a rare A-type asteroid as was previously thought but instead Sw-type (apparently a variant notation for the common S-type asteroids). So yes, there is in-depth study specific to this object, but does it tells us anything special about the object? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a sizable Mars crossing asteroid that is not confined to the main asteroid belt. -- Kheider (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2015 (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 deckertalk 05:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily St. Lake[edit]

Emily St. Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources about her can be found. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NACTOR. IMDb credits her in two shorts, one of which hasn't been released yet.[14] That is all. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. When she appears in more things and gains coverage enough to pass NACTOR the page can be re-created, but right now she just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-don't need to add anything. Wgolf (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1692 Subbotina[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1692 Subbotina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG, not notable. Should be deleted / redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 April 2015 (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. The article's subject is found by the community to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Kumaran[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Uma Kumaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability, sole claim to fame arises from candidature at the upcoming election. RaviC (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed since the last discussion? Except that the election is now imminent?Rathfelder (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct Nothing has changed since the last discussion, which also means this article hasn't noticeably improved. My opinion remains the same, and I refer all to my comments previously. If she's elected, which is possible in this seat, then we can restore material. But until then, these sorts of articles attract partisan and non-encyclopaedic editing. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion closed "no consensus", not "keep" — so it's not a question of anything having changed, it's a question of nothing ever having been settled in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete or Speedy Redirect. Does not pass any relevant notability guideline. Pure electioneering, which is why this AfD should close promptly. Softlavender (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Softlavender and fails POLITICIAN is only a candidate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaran appears to be a notable person in the British Sri Lankan community, and will continue to be so whether or not elected. There is nothing in the article which constitutes electioneering. Quite the opposite.Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to find a source in order to back up that claim. --RaviC (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
articles from a variety of sources including the Daily Mail and the Tamil Guardian were removed before this discussion was restarted.Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you used were not relevant (in the case of the trivia in the Daily Mail article), or are simply inappropriate for an encyclopaedia (such as the candidate's own LinkedIn page). Please take the time to read the criteria at WP:RS before creating any more articles. --RaviC (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article under another inclusion rule before they were named a candidate, then they must win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. I'm not going to deny the possibility that she might have sufficient notability as a community activist to qualify, but what's been written or sourced here completely fails to demonstrate that in any substantive way — as written, it's a "campaign brochure" backgrounder on a person whose notability is tied entirely to her candidacy, which fails to claim or source any credible reason why she'd qualify for an article independently of the candidacy. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if she wins her seat next week. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2015 (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 deckertalk 05:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Super Girl[edit]

Seven Super Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this is notable enough for Wikipedia. It has 2 million subscribers though-but not sure if it should stay or not (not sure what the policy on Youtube channels is) Wgolf (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2015 (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; nicely improved as well. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pesarattu (2015)[edit]

Pesarattu (2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FILM, apart from a review, no other coverage. Esquivalience t 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: this is nothing but an OR-filled run-on sentence about a barely-known film. Could have probably been speedily deleted. Quis separabit? 17:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Pesarattu Mahesh Kathi
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:CSD#A7 (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Shook[edit]

Allen Shook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources provided for notability. Appears to be a self-bio page. Not the first time this user has done this. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Terry Shook and Terry A. Shook for example. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Melanie Specht. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also please consider salting, based on prior history. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this justification by the article creator on the talk page for why the article should be kept:

You can't find nothing online on this person...because it hasn't came out yet. To say this person isn't important of significant of any any source is a moron.

--‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 17:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close Have speedied. Unsourced BLP - with no assertion of notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Creator's claim is test edit. Widefox; talk 00:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete already done. ― Padenton|✉   16:12, 27 April 2015 (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 under WP:CSD#A7. Glen 05:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miscnew[edit]

Miscnew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax or something made up one day, searching the magazine yields no results that it even exists. Esquivalience t 15:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete db-web. If it even exists, it's completely non-potable. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. Since this is an e-magazine (and especially since I cannot seem to find it at all on the web or any mention of it aside from this article), this can be A7'd. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 28 April 2015 (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/keep. By a straight count of votes, the deletes would have this by about a 2:1 ratio. This, however, is not necessarily a good measure of consensus, and we have run into that dilemma here.

In many ways, this AfD reminds me of the controversy over whether to host an article on the-then recently deceased Adrianne Wadewitz. The arguments against hosting this article include WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the related general notability guideline. Those in favor of keeping the article believe that Fredinburg passes the latter. The claims to notability include obituaries in two high-profile international news sources (the New York Times and Guardian), being mentioned in Google-related news articles, and having been romantically involved with a prominent actor (and the accompanying press attention). Given this discussion, it seems abundantly clear that Fredinburg would not pass the general notability test without the obituaries, but Wikipedia has no black and white guideline on whether high-profile obituaries should be taken into notability assessments. Having gone back and read Wadewitz's AfD, this is an identical scenario faced by the closer there, which ended in a keep. In the absence of similarly strong numbers in this discussion, this will slip to a no consensus/keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fredinburg[edit]

Dan Fredinburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one for which we really need a BLP2E justification, but "Sophie Bush's former boyfriend was killed in an avalanche" is not much of a life story, and adding "and he was a middle bigwig at Google", which ought to be his real notability, is not much of an addition. He's a line in the earthquake article, perhaps. Everything else is covered by "Wikipedia is not People magazine." Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As creator, Support a revert to original redirect at Google or to the List of people who died climbing Mount Everest. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I support this article's deletion or reversion it has nothing to do with some justification under BLP2E, since that's not a Wikipedia policy. Instead, if the subject is notable, it would have to be based on something he did in his life (e.g. instituting some privacy policy at Google, or creating some new privacy capability that affected users, etc.), not the manner of his death. The earthquake itself is notable, but people die in notable events every day, and since "Wikipedia is not 'People'", they don't become notable because of the event in which they died. Vertium When all is said and done 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This article's notability is without question. It's not everyday a Google employee dies in an avalanche. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2015,, this user turns out to be part of a large sockfarm.

(copy paste from Talk:Dan Fredinburg)

  • Delete: On the assumption that the article didn't exist before his death. However, if his family prefer the article to stay, then I'd say Keep:. --Rebroad (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dan is not an exec, he is a program manager. The media is wrong. Symultaze (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The person might be a Google executive, but is still insignificant and does not require an extra article just to tell people how he died. His name is mentioned in the 2015 Nepal earthquake article, and is enough to convey the message. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article reports that he 1) was a Google executive 2) once dated acctress Sophia Bush 3) died in the 2015 Nepal quake. None of these facts make him the least bit notable. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable person 117.216.151.225 (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dating an actress, working for Google and Dying in an earthquake isn't really significant enough to warrant an article, which is unlikely to end up being anything more than a Stub in any case. His name listed as a casualty on the earthquake page would seem sufficient Trex21 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragic way to die, but sadly not notable enough for an encyclopedia --Zerbey (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. It's not everyday a Google employee dies in an avalanche, please. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I've changed my mind, I'm swayed by the above arguments. Scaravich105nj (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Everest is notable, the deadliest mountaineering disaster in its history is notable, and the fact that Google had four employees working to map the mountain's climbing routes—one of whom lost his life—seems to me an important component of a larger story. Media around the world have already zeroed in on Dan Fredinburg and the article seems likely to expand as significant new biographical and narrative elements emerge. So immediate deletion seems premature. (And isn't there an obligation to flesh out his story? People seem to be looking to Wikipedia to provide more information on Fredinburg: Wikipedia page view stats for 26 April 2015 show more than 44000 hits for the Dan Fredinburg article; by comparison, there were only 98000 hits for the larger 2015 Nepal earthquake article. While I appreciate the argument that every life lost here is important, that merely dying in an exotic disaster does not merit "notability", we nevertheless relate to large disasters by telling individual stories—and it is inarguable that Fredinburg's story received immediate and broad media coverage. For very human reasons.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While each and every death in this natural disaster is tragic, from a policy standpoint, he's not notable at all really.--Rockchalk717 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely covered by the press. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the main facts alone or combined constitute notability here. - Simeon (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a clearly notable article. as it is a widely covered death. The deletionists on this discussion fails to bring up good reasoning beyond DONTLIKEIT.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seriously, is this even a debate? If he didn't die, there wouldn't have been an article about him. But because he died, there should be one. Are you serious? If the reason for his inclusion is merely because the disaster was notable, then shouldn't we create an article for each of the victims? where's the logic in that? I have a friend working in Google, why isn't there an article about her? I have a friend who used to date an actress, where's the article about him? I have a few friends who died in the 2004 Tsunami, why no one was debating to create an article for them? Also creating an article about him but not the other people who died alongside him is disrespectful. What makes his life more notable than the other victims? People are so narrow minded, so easily driven by emotion, trends, media and fads. Think!--Rtj182 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Comment: If it's decided to delete the article, then deletion could be deferred until information on more foreign casualties has arrived, that this article's content could then be placed into something like Foreign casualties of the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Another option is to rename the current article to just that, given that many foreigners were climbers. Since climbing the Everest is a rather expensive sport, then many climbers were reasonably notable. -Mardus (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore in support of keeping, there are articles about Dan Fredinburg in three other language-projects. -Mardus (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't see why Foreign casualties need a separate article from the rest of the event. Could you elaborate? As for other articles about Dan Frediburg, that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ― Padenton|✉   17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: feel like his death in the horrific Nepal earthquake is the main claim to notability. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, however. Quis separabit? 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found the article useful and well documented, including references from NYT, USA Today, and The Guardian. Comfr (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Does not seem notable, and Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of people who died climbing Mount Everest though. ― Padenton|✉   16:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that would be for WP:1E as all of them appear to be about his death. So, we redirect and include him in the list linked above. ― Padenton|✉   16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but from WP:1E, quote = However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. quoteend. Also notice he was there last year during the avalanche which killed 16 sherpas, he was not only a victim, he was there for a cause - that was the reason for his expedition. prokaryotes (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • His role in this event isn't large at all, and I haven't seen a Wikipedia policy stating that someone who dies while supporting a cause is more notable than someone who dies in other situations. ― Padenton|✉   16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, coverage of the event and his person is growing, again meeting notability guidelines. And you could also argue that the event and his activism are related to each other. prokaryotes (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant. We don't make articles for people that may become notable. See WP:BREAKING. And the earthquake is unrelated to him being an activist, he did not cause the earthquake. ― Padenton|✉   19:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You constantly cite guidelines, which contradict your arguments, from your WP:BREAKING, read: Don't rush to delete articles. prokaryotes (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Read the section, it says the solution should be to move it to the draft/user namespace, not keep in article space. And that's mainly based on there being a chance of the subject of the page somehow becoming notable. By all means, provide a possible scenario where Dan Fredinburg could possibly become notable within this event. ― Padenton|✉   20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, he was notable before the event, for his social and climate activism, his businesses, his work, his appearance in media prior to the event (which includes video, print and online). Now with the event his coverage increased, including a fundraiser with atm 46k$, literally thousand of articles in almost every media source - all this underlines notability, the need for an article. This man was special, and the current media coverage is echoing this. I think we are done arguing here, maybe you might change your opinion, you might even consider to re-read the article there have been substantial additions.prokaryotes (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you have yet to present any sources for this information. Subjects aren't notable based on the size of their fan clubs. Being "special" does not entail someone's notability. I don't change my opinion based on appeals to emotion. 4300 died in the earthquake, forgive me if I don't weep for how a single one of them was "special". ― Padenton|✉   21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then i suggest you start reading, and to acknowledge the work of Fredinburg. prokaryotes (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN's on you. ― Padenton|✉   23:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is met per my first comment on this editor vote, i was wrong to respond to Padenton's claim that this is only a WP:1E case, which it is not. There have been multiple events when notability was established in the past couple of years. There is extensive coverage in reliable sources about the person. I will later add some more of it to the article. prokaryotes (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the person is an engineer and businessman who has made a lot of contributions with Google and there is a lot of information about him I don't see why he wouldn't be considered notable. Redsky89 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Rtj182 and RockMFR. Some of the arguments are quite funny IMHO. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are thousands of mid level managers at thousands of companies this one was not notable until Everest killed him and that doesn't make him notable. 107.77.75.125 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, there are not thousands of head executives who get full fledged feature coverage in print, online and in motion picture. And there are even less people who died for a cause. prokaryotes (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, in my opinion. Relevance has obviously been established. This Google executive dated a prominent actress, and he worked for one of the largest multinational corporations in the world. I think he deserves his own article. GreenMan642 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) User is blocked for sockpuppetry, same sockmaster as scaravich above. Also, be alert user previously attempted to remove some users' comments ― Padenton|✉   14:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For the people shouting Keep, By that argument, an average employee from Infosys in India who dated a prominent <insert Indian language> actress is, deserves an article. Being employed in Google does not make him notable, nor does dating an actress, which comes under Notability is Not inherited, btw. Saying he deserves an article because he died in the earthquake [which is again, not entirely true, he died in the avalanche caused by the earthquake], is an insult to all the 2000+ victims, who also then should get an article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an silly and wrong argument, and everybody who researches or closely looks at the dates of his coverage on various topics will understand this. For instance he was at the same place last year, he barely survived then, in that aftermath his identity got media coverage, similar to today. Also read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) prokaryotes (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this guy was a major player at Google, not some file clerk. His death is being heavily reported in the media. HesioneHushabye (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What does major player mean? And how does it help with making him notable? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough coverage of the person before his death to pass WP:GNG. The argument of "what about the other 2000+ victims" is redundant. Each of them may be notable in their own right. It would be a case-by-case basis. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He wasn't notable in life, and his death was WP:1E. Pax 09:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in life or death. It was not his death which is notable but the earthquake and the loss of life in Everest. AshLin (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As of April 28, 2015, less than three days after Fredinburg's death was announced, some 880+ people have donated more than $63,000 through a Crowdrise campaign, Celebrating Dan, to support two Nepalese orphanages. Many if not most of the comments come from people who never knew him. Whatever some Wikipedists might feel, undoubtedly these donors feel Fredinburg's life was "notable".Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not donating to his family, they're donating to Nepalese orphanages following a disaster. ― Padenton|✉   14:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. "Our friend Dan Fredinburg was climbing Everest on behalf of OrphanGift in support of two Nepali orphanages when the earthquake struck. Please donate to honor his memory and carry on his mission." Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is basically converting this page into a memorial. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, the main argument of the people who want to make Dan's life work vanish, argue that his notability is only tied to 1 event. But the work of numerous Wikipedia contributors made in the last couple of days shows that his persona is connected to several events, and that he is notable for his remarkable work, which meets notability several times over. Editors who keep suggesting that he is only connected to 1 event are plain wrong, that is a fact, so stop and move on. Peace. prokaryotes (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think anybody here wants his "life work" to vanish, though in all honesty there is not really any "life work" that could vanish. Millions of people have studied at university and worked at a company. Thousands of people have climbed (easy) mountains. Our concern is that he does not meet the policy for notability. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hallward's Ghost:Where did J. Patrick Fischer use a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason? ― Padenton|✉   23:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His entire rationale basically boils down to his last line: "That stinks." He doesn't like that the Fredinburg has been covered (even when he was alive) by multiple reliable sources, and is even MORE well-covered by such sources now. He thinks it "looks like an[sic] promotion campagne[sic]", whatever that means. His rationale is entirely based upon the fact that he just doesn't like that this article exists. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hallward's Ghost: I didn't say, I do not like the article genarally. I said, the article has the smell of a campagne, because it just raised up now. The relevance i artificial. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of people seem to be forgetting that WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE all still say "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not."― Padenton|✉   19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • i'm certainly not. There is enough sources about his life, not just his death. Fredinburg is not just notable for a single event. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are sources about others aspects of his life but none of those aspects were at all notable (dating an actress and being a low level manager at Google is not notable regardless of the number of sources). Those sources only exist because of his death and so he is only known (not notable) for being killed on the mountain. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Guideline states: For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) If someone who climbed several major mountains, dated a famous actress, working for one of the biggest companies and extended the scope of technologies like GoogleMaps, founded several social causes, and invented things as he went, is not remarkable and interesting, then i don't know what is. And this is not just my personal opinion, a fundraiser and media reports clearly show that, and even mention it. prokaryotes (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inventing things as he went and founding several social causes? Why is this article becoming more and more like a fluffy memorial? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing user: Several !votes at the beginning of this AfD was made when the article was simply a short stub. Since then it has been heavily improved and clearly in my opinion pointing to notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:1E. The substance of the article hasn't changed since it was a stub so that doesn't negate those !votes. The article has more filler now certainly, but still has the same lack of relevant material and notability necessary to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both his work at Google and other ventures merit some degree of notability and recognition - his 2013 interview with Time magazine (taken before the disastrous accident) is evidence of that. He is internationally known for WP:1E, but this should not be used to take away the subject's prior notability. -A1candidate 19:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & comment - Subject is only known because he dated a famous person (which many other do) and died in a deadly earthquake (which killed thousands of other people). There are plenty of people who work for Google and its projects. In no way does any of this make this article pass WP:NN. Keep advocates seem to be using a bit too much WP:ARTN, but if there is more significant media coverage (which I don't think, but if) than the article should be kept. Till then delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, he was in People before his death for dating a famous actress, but she has never merited more than a line in his Wikipedia article, and was not the reason news organizations the world over covered his death. Far more relevant to this discussion is Fredinburg's 2013 Time interview, and the fact that he was documenting his climb in a way that would allow computer/Internet users the world over to experience "virtual" ascents, as well as to see changes in the mountain's ice profile which have undoubtedly made recent ascents far more treacherous.
Believe me, we've not heard the end of coverage of this deadliest day in Everest history: nearly everyone on the mountain was carrying camera and recording equipment, and the films, books, and documentaries about that deadly day are sure to follow. Fredinburg's distinction—and I will hardly be alone in making this point—is that he wasn't filming in some small personal capacity, or (at best) creating a documentary destined for a limited audience, but "bringing it home" with unprecedented technology and connectivity, with a razor-edged focus on the very issues, climate change, glacier loss and ice instability, that arguably contributed to his death. Ask yourself, if we think Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Sky, and a whole host of spin-off products merit Wikipedia entries, would we have relegated "Google Mountain", "Google Ice", or "Google Vanishing Planet" to non-notable status, had one or more of them come to fruition? Is it not relevant, even important, that Fredinburg died in a dangerous undertaking taken in our stead, attempting to serve available knowledge in the broadest possible way?
Wikipedia gives ample space to its historical cartographers, even to those who "failed" or "got it wrong." Everest reveres its noble Mallorys. Deletion would be both unwarranted and premature—and in any event, his notability was not established by having dated a famous actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vesuvius Dogg (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Vesuvius Dogg a noble undertaking indeed but there are many journalists and adventures who died in the quest to expand our knowledge and there are no articles of them on Wikipedia. There were also several companions of Fredinburg and once again there are no articles on these individuals. If the coverage proves to be truly significant the article should be kept, but where it is at right now it does not meet WP:NN in my opinion. Thanks for the feed back though. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for a separate article. The article wasn't even created until after he died and just looks like a memorial to me. TL565 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Several of the keep voters seem to propose that Dan Fredinburg was also notable before his untimely death. I disagree but beg the question: if so, why was there not already an article about him? --Jeppesvinet (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many people who were notable during their life and yet only had an article written after their death. Using this as a criteria to delete is preposterous. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a "criteria to delete" but it certainly weakens the claim that he was notable before his death. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The answer to your original question is that he was already notable before his death, but grabbed international headlines because of the tragedy. As I've said before, his 2013 interview with Time magazine [19] (taken before the tragedy) is evidence of his prior notability. -A1candidate 16:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not pose a question as to if he was notable. He was not. I asked: how you would explain the lack of an article about him? You have provided no explanation. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're being sarcastic, but your analogy is ridiculous. George Washington isn't notable for his death and is infinitely more notable than Dan Fredinburg. ― Padenton|✉   19:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no article about him, Jeppesvinet, because nobody had written about him yet. :) It says nothing about his notability either way. Wikipedia is nowhere near complete; there are many notable subjects not yet covered. See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST; while a slightly different issue, the root cause is the same: "Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should." This article could be one of them (or could not; this comment is on the validity of the question "Why did no article exist before...?" and not on the notability of the subject at hand). For one of many examples, we have had an article on Lizzy Hawker for less than a week, even though she has been a world record holder for 4 years. She didn't just become notable; she just got an article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He lacked notability before his death, and he was only one of many thousand people who died due to the earthquake so no notibility for him through that. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete He died, when he did his job. How many articles about firefighter who died 9/11 when trying to rescue people exist? --Ochrid (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability per wp:gng. It's generally a bad sign when the first line in an article's lede throws everything and the kitchen sink in trying to make one: "executive, climate activist, inventor, explorer and entrepreneur". None of the sources establish that he had notability in any of those fields. Speaking of sources, almost all of them currently in the article are from after his death, further underlining his lack of notability previous to that. Well, except those from the time when he was a boyfriend of actress Sophia Bush, which would be a great example of wp:notinherited. walk victor falk talk 21:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't the interview in Time essentially prove his notability? Also, there are a number of bad arguments and comparisons in this page. Whether he had an article on him before his death has no bearing on notability, and it is a bad comparison to the firefighters at 9/11 because there was at least some importance for him before his death. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single event which makes him notable, but the sum of the different topics. His name is still in the news, there is no consensus to delete the article. prokaryotes (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is for content which is remarkable and interesting, further notability through 2015 event and 2013 Time interview, and his work on Google Maps, which he lead. prokaryotes (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to me like his life was notable enough. The article's pretty well-written and well-sourced; we certainly have worse articles about less notable topics. This one's pretty good. NekoKatsun (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable till he died. How does his death make him significant. This is not a memorial. --Ranged Enigma (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with most of proposing for Delete as per WP:N(E). Notability caused by single event, previously, I couldn't sense any notability. Also, if death is the notable concept, I'm afraid things will look more memorial. Comment: If notability could be established, then we can keep this article. But for now, Delete. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He wasn't notable before the one incident where he died; he isn't even notable based on that, as he is one of thousands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanic1c (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia does not use paper and the article is well written and sourced according to input above, If someone has issues with the way the article is presented "memorial", than please specify your concerns, and i will change things. The work and Fredinburg's life has been special, and numerous different aspects highlighted in the article establish this, this is a notable article, there is no need to delete it. prokaryotes (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can replace the word with remarkable or significant or interesting. But maybe you got issues with the person added to Wikipedia, because you are jealous of his accomplishments. How else would someone just ignore those and linking broadly to a brief mention about WP is not a memorial. Ofc it's not, and claiming this article is just that is ignoring the notability at hand. prokaryotes (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The delete recommendations (particularly the more recent ones, since the article has been expanded) are simply ignoring that this article is more than BLP1E now, and can basically be chalked up to WP:BUTISTILLDONTLIKEIT--which is an essay in need of writing. Interestingly, I normally lean towards deletion of "fluff" articles. This is not that. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that every single one of the sources is either not a reliable source, is covering the subject's death, or only mentions the subject. That is why people are voting delete. ― Padenton|✉   15:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true, and reveals that you judge on your personal opinion rather than judging from the facts. Thus, i challenge you to provide an example for your claims. Notice, Padenton|✉  recently also tried to lecture me on my talk page, suggesting i should stop posting here again, which is rather ironic looking at his own edit history. prokaryotes (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I said was that you don't need to say the same argument over and over again with your comments, per WP:BLUDGEON. Almost all of your comments are saying the same thing and using the same argument. It doesn't help you. As for providing an example for my claims? Every single source in the current version of the article, is either a self-published source, covering the subject's death, or only has a brief mention of the subject. What is it you want me to provide an example of? ― Padenton|✉   16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Every single source in the current version of the article, is either a self-published source, covering the subject's death, or only has a brief mention of the subject." @User:Padenton, that's false. His death prompted full articles in both The New York Times and The Guardian, as well as prominent pieces in People, Mashable, and other outlets. True, there were more than 2,500 articles around the world in dozens of languages that mentioned his basic biographic details, name, age, nationality and profession, as part of the larger coverage of the earthquake, but they are not linked. None of the sources here are "self-published," which would be rather difficult given that the subject is deceased.Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples actually prove the point of User:Padenton that the not self-published sources that do not only briefly mention him are only about him dying. His death is not enough for making him notable. What has he done before dying that created notability? What articles have been written about him before he died? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the misunderstandings here stem from the fact that the current coverage not only reported his death, but also highlighted his work. There are even article which focus on his work and only briefly mention that he recently died in the avalanche. There are also articles prior to the accident, which outlined his work or that he was at the same location last year and almost encountered an avalanche at the time. And there is a even video coverage of his work in various reliable sources (i.e. The Guardian, The Washington Post), and not only about the accident. prokaryotes (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An obituary usually focusses on what a person did during his life, not on how he died - that is normal. After a plane crash like MH17 you will usually find reliable sources (i.e. The Guardian, The Washington Post) describing the life of some of the victims, where they graduated from university and where they worked or the names and ages of the kids they raised as housewives. A housewife does not become notable by having a reliable sources (i.e. The Guardian, The Washington Post) telling where she lived and how she was a good mother raising her kids. Notability of Dan Fredinburg must be discussed based on what he did and the media coverage that created before April 25th. LoveToLondon (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure I've alerted Flyer22 to this afd as the reporter of the socks above. ― Padenton|✉   18:43, 6 May 2015 (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) — Yash! (Y) 10:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miyuki Kanbe[edit]

Miyuki Kanbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable actress and musician. Quis separabit? 13:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that her life was not long enough to build up a major career, but she was famous enough to get the coverage to pass WP:GNG: [20]. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. Most of the entertainment/sports papers covered her death. She was not only famous for Sailor Moon but was a regular on hit TV variety shows like Urinari. Michitaro (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It is true that her life was not long enough to build up a major career" – that says it all. Quis separabit? 13:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@[email protected]: I don't want to invoke WP:OSE here, but we have thousands of articles on bands and musicians who arguably never had "major careers" but nevertheless have articles due to passing either our notability guidelines or being covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can invoke WP:OSE, who's stopping you? I assume you're scouring all pending AFDS accordingly. What your point is, however, I don't know. If something seems non-notable it should be rehabbed or tagged for PROD. If those don't work, what other option is there but AFD? Quis separabit? 14:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sourcing found by Michitaro. She passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Enough references in the article now to support the content. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Arguably she passes WP:ENTERTAINER for the fact that she performed theme songs for several series, as well as playing the lead role in that Sailor Moon play(?). Her death was also widely covered in sources, but this coverage merely showed that her notability was established even before her death. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:36, 2 May 2015 (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, without prejudice towards renaming. Good example of Heymann standard here. Deryck C. 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique[edit]

Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referenciness in this article is provided entirely by recycled press releases. There is no substantive independent coverage of this business, and the fact that the same or similar IPs have been spamming links to its website rather suggests that its intent is promotional. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • i was certain that when I was working on this last year that there were multiple international sources covering it and that there was coverage over several year span, but my memory seems to be deceiving me - all i see for international coverage is the daily fail, and all the coverage is from Nov 2012. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert article to original title and generalize it - There was quite a bit of press coverage about this when it first came out. The article, when accepted at AfC, was called "Caviar vending machine". As soon as it was moved to its current name, problems started with promotional links being added. If the article was once more about caviar vending machines in general, then information could be included about machines in Russia, ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) This isn't a new idea - here's a 1947 article [34] and a 1955 article [35] . A more general article wouldn't need information about specific locations and prices, so it could be more neutral.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that soda vending machine is a redlink just suggests that no one has written the article, not that it is non-notable. It almost certainly is notable. Indeed I would suggest you could go a step further and write a valid article just on Coke vending machines. And we do have Gumball machine, which is much the same idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per Northamerica1000 along with the extra sources provided here by Anne Delong (unless something comes up about how caviar vending machines make great punchlines - setting them apart from other vending machines) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the incongruity of the luxury product in a fast-food dispenser, plus the very high value of the contents of the machine, plus the frozen product. The large amount of press coverage when the machines were new seems to indicate that the journalists thought they were notable. Also, the Vending machine article is getting pretty big. However, a merge is better than an outright deletion.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but the proper title is simply "Beverly Hill Caviar") - the business has received reliable source coverage mostly for its vending machine, sure, but that coverage spans a period of time (i.e. not all stories are from Nov 2012 when it attracted a lot of attention - regular coverage has continued with multiple sources appearing in 2014) and is often in depth. [36] It has also attracted RS coverage at least twice (once by Forbes) for it pet food cavier line. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter why a business got reliable source coverage, only that it did. If reliable sources think vending machine caviar is an interesting enough idea to give Beverly Hill Caviar in depth coverage, then it is not our place to decide the business remains non-notable.
If promotional links by IPs remain a problem, the article can be semi-protected, so that is not an issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain as is. Don't merge. This company was notable in 2012 because it set up caviar machines in Beverly Hills, of all places. If the were set up in Moscow they wouldn't have been Notable. Even if they were taken out later (and I don't know if they were or not), they were still notable, so they deserve an article here. I don't believe we will get consensus for the complete removal of this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Barnstar to Anne Delong for improving the article with sources to meet WP:GNG. From my own search, it appears to have non-trival coverage in Forbes, Yahoo Food, Wired, Village Voice and LA Times. Dates cover a period of 2 years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:01, 8 May 2015 (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 - article creator agrees the subject is non-notable, and has been saved as a draft for such time as they are. GiantSnowman

Aidan Grant[edit]

Aidan Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, has not played in a Fully professional league JMHamo (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I honestly thought that playing a league match for a professional side as a professional footballer qualified for notability. I was sure that I read somewhere that players playing for professional teams national levels of the league structure were eligible and hence I created the page, has guidance changed or did I misconstrue something? I see that the Conference Premier is not listed on the list of leagues at WP Football but it is a fully national league with ~50% professional sides so wouldn't playing for one of those be considered as notable as playing in League Two? Maybe not. Mountaincirque 11:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, sorry for wasting everyone's time. There is a draft page at Draft:Aidan Grant that I worked from, that can presumably remain until he potentially plays in League Two. Mountaincirque 12:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mountaincirque: That's what the Draft space is for and you've wasted nobody's time. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mountaincirque: @JMHamo: - if you're both happy, I can close this AFD, and then merge the article with the draft, before deleting in mainspace (i.e. so that it's only present in draftspace)? GiantSnowman 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me... JMHamo (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed from my side, I have already updated the draft page. Thanks all. Mountaincirque 09:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2015 (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 Jon Favreau. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Entertainment[edit]

Fairview Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Founder:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Macario[edit]

Giuseppe Macario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much ado about no relevant activities. Some months ago several users noticed all sources were WP:SELFPUB, one of the single purpose-accounts watching this page replaced them with articles from blastingnews all written by users (blasting news is a collaborative platform) whose sole activity was writing about Macario. This page has been widely spammed by a number of sockpuppets and open proxies. Please don't let you be fooled by all those exaggerations: "under the auspices" is a generic (and way common) formula which can be used for almost anything. He definitely fails WP:PROF but also fails WP:GNG: as there should be only two mentions in relevant newspapers, though I wasn't able to check them. Also related pages are way questionable (non relevant unrecognized educational institutions). Finally I cannot understand the need for a photomontage (check the lights) but that's a minor issue. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In my opinion the article has nothing to do with WP:PROF. The only sentence that mentioned an academical institution, which you removed for unclear reasons, was about University of the People, which is accredited in the US, so it is not true that the university is "unrecognized". Anyway, your allegations should be substantiated: for example, if you believe that the sources make false or irrelevant statements, you should also say why. As for the website uk.blastingnews.com which you don't seem to like, according to the page http://www.blastingnews.com/staff/ it is a registered Swiss media outlet. --94.163.167.149 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting apart from your COI, why didn't you link the homepage? Maybe because it states powered by the voices of thousands of people called Blasters? --Vituzzu (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
uk.blastingnews.com is not a reliable source - note that "Mid Blasters can publish their own news, with no need of Senior Blaster approval"[41] and see Wikipedia's policy at WP:USERGENERATED and more crucially, this being a biography of a living person, WP:BLPSPS. It makes no difference whether or not Blasting Sagl is a registered company; the Wikimedia Foundation is registered too, but that doesn't make Wikipedia reliable. NebY (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same site is used in other articles, but this is the first time that someone has asked to remove the whole article. I removed the references instead.--5retf (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. The most substantial claims here seem to be that he received funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. Countless numbers of people and organisations receive grants, contracts or commissions from such bodies; it does not confer notability. NebY (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any issues with the sources: no evidence has been provided that they are unreliable or self-published. Also, the Library of Congress is very careful in selecting international authors, and would not order a book that is not written in English if it weren’t notable enough in its field.--5retf (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By my experience the higher is the number of SPAs (but also open proxies) involved the lower is notability, yours is the...fifth?
Also, LOC collects anything published in US furthermore the relevant source you provided is unavailable.
--Vituzzu (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
??? Would you please stop flaming me?--5retf (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flaming *where*? I'm simply pointing other users' attention at the massive use of single-purpose accounts related to this article. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you stop bashing every person who you don't agree with?--AuStar (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An "ad hominem" answer to a true allegation. Even this morning you promoted Macario through wiki.--Vituzzu (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a book and some "records" suitable for trivia sections don't create notabily by accumulation (nor do the presence of SPA supporting it)--Shivanarayana (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Being the only Italian who holds records at the ACM ICPC, over an extended period of time, WP:WINNEROUTCOMES doesn’t conflict with WP:BASIC because the contest is not local or a one-time event. Besides, it looks like a couple of editors often deleted significant sources for no apparent reason—apart from some kind of personal dislike—in order to compromise the article. Lerdall (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another SPA: please stop this disrespectful try to fool us. Replying to your argument it definitely fails bot WINNEROUTCOMES and BASIC, by running a simple test: no other people had ever been considered to be notable because of ACM (which also lacks good sources related to this page). --Vituzzu (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WINNEROUTCOMES does not apply. The article's phrasing - "set two world records by solving problems of the ... contest" - is misleading. Macario has not competed at the ACM ICPC. On 15 September 2014 he - or someone using his name - submitted solutions to two problems, one from the 1993 finals and one from the 1997 Europe-Central regionals.[42] His submission for problem #5165, set in 1993, is listed as one of the five online submissions made by four site visitors about 20 years after the contest, and as having the lowest execution time of those submissions. His submission for problem #5535, set in 1997, is the only online submission. The ACM ICPC does not call these achievements, many years after the competitions, "records".
The claim that they are records is sourced to an article on uk.blastingnews.com dated 15 Sep 2014, the same day that those solutions were submitted. Not only is uk.blastingnews.com inherently not a reliable source, being WP:USERGENERATED as noted above, but it has clearly been used to create sources for this Wikipedia article. The blastingnews article is one of just three articles under the same username there, all of which feature Macario:[43]
  1. Blastingnews article dated 15 Sep 2014,[44] used as a source for the Wikipedia article on 15 Sep 2014.[45]
  2. Blastingnews article dated 5 Feb 2015,[46] used as a source for the Wikipedia article on 5 Feb 2015 with the edit comment "independent sources".[47]
  3. Blastingnews article dated 28 March 2015,[48] used as a source for the Wikipedia article on 28 March 2015 with the edit comment "added source".[49]
We appear to have been subjected to a deliberate campaign of concocting sources to prop up a promotional article. NebY (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Macario has not competed at the ACM ICPC". Source?
"not a reliable source, being WP:USERGENERATED as noted above". That's not correct. The editors—not to be confused with "wiki editors" or similar concepts—are in charge of, fact-check, modify on a case by case basis, determine, the final content of an article… not the author the article. And the editor-in-chief is responsible for the content. This has nothing to do with the "user-generated content" you are referring to. As for citing a news source just after it appears on Google News, who said that it is prohibited? Lerdall (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usergenerated, same as Wikipedia itself. Timings are relevant because they underline those source also fall under SELFPUB. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've deleted the two obscure newspaper references (used 5+2 times) as unverified on probation, because their online archive yields nothing for the given dates. However, the references mumbled something about a special Sunday add-on, maybe it is supposed to be unavailable in their "time machine" feature. I've also removed the last surviving "blastingnews" source tagged as unreliable, because it's in fact rarely used on enwiki, most occurrences on wikispam watch pages. And I've added the missing ISBN, author, and date to his book. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Be..anyone: I've tried looking for book's publisher and it's always listed as "Libra" which is defunct since mid '80s, on most of shopping site I've found it as published by lulu.com (see here for instance), so I'd say even this one fails both WP:SELFPUB and WP:BASIC. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added. We're down to one reference confirming that a Reuters presence on 2nd Life closed six years ago, and an allegedly CC BY-SA on demand book for sale: Delete, empty "notable for" entry in BLP infobox. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete findings from NebY confirmed my worries about self-published sources and failing to comply with the GNG. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. Doesn't meet WP:PROF, and even before it was cleaned up, there was no other claim to fame. Computer programmer, researcher, and author are all conventional titles, and being a "social entrepreneur" is so vague and buzzwordy it's basically meaningless unless it's contextualized by actual activity. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Following the "Authority control" tag link, I found another self registered reference. Statements are made about his records, but second and third party sources are missing and it is almost a year that the problem was raised. I made a suggestion to one of the editors friendly about Mr. Macario, but my suggestion was ignored and blanked. And beside it's the first time I see a talk page where messages from others are ... reverted (it happened to other editors). More troubling is how many self registered references are made and used by editors whomsoever they are. --Robertiki (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2015 (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, as there appears to be consensus that he meets WP:PROF. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Bruno[edit]

Alexander Bruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the person may just meet WP:NPROF, the current article is basically a resume. WP:TNT would be needed here to sort it out. I couldn't find any sources, although more non-english sources may exist. Mdann52 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't need TNT, just needs putting into paragraphs. The books are easily enough documented, and will show notability -- along with the impt position of Chairman of the Math Dept of Moscow StateUniversity. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG:, where are you getting the information that he is affiliated with MSU? This bio seems to indicate that his employer is the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics. It makes a big difference because MSU is arguably the best mathematics department in Russia but Keldysh is just one of many research institutes. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The same bio says he is a full professor at the MSU Math Faculty, but indeed he is the head of the math department at the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, not of MSU.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
could he be both, or has he been both successively? If he is or was a full professor at MSU, he's presumably notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a link to a book review. I note that his name is spelled Brjuno in the German WP entry and in some other sources. There's also this, which discusses a contribution of his that is apparently known as the Brjuno theorem (page R80), but I don't know anything about this subject or its significance. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After Eric's hint, I found this source (a book review about the history of complex dynamics) which says that his works are "of particular mention", and our article Brjuno number which is named after him. And the citation counts for him on Google scholar (especially given that GS doesn't seem to include the citations to his original Russian-language work, given the confusion over how to transliterate his name, and given that this is a low-citation field) are respectable, enough to make a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1. Full professor at MSU (since 2007 according to the Russian version of our article and Ymblanter's translation of the Russian bio link) is not itself a notability criterion but is also suggestive; the usual outcome for AfDs on full professors at good research universities is a keep, and I think this case is not exceptional in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS there are also multiple papers on Google scholar with phrases like "Bryuno function", "Bryuno condition", "Brjuno skew systems" etc. in their titles, reflecting both the significance of his contributions and the confusion over how to spell his name. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a person about whom there should be a Wikipedia article, but the present article is inappropriate because it reads like a resume, of for some other reason, then the solution is to edit the article rather than to delete it. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I almost closed this as delete, but I keep coming back to the statement (as part of an argument to delete), it is not known here whether INSA is legitimately equivalent to National Academy of Sciences or Royal Society, so it is unknown whether she satisfies WP:NACADEMICS criterion #3.. The core question here seems to be whether INSA is a scholarly society of the level required by WP:NACADEMICS #3. I don't see consensus on that point, so I'm going with NC for this entire debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Iqbal Singh[edit]

Ajit Iqbal Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable figure in Indian Science. Just being FNAS could not meet WP:ACADEMIC criteria. All the sources cited are primary sources. Educationtemple (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete. Thanks Educationtemple, for informing me of your nomination for the deletion of the Ajit Iqbal Singh article. As I said about the AfD for Gaiti Hasan, I find it rather disturbing that as Wikipedia and Wikimedians do their best to recognise that quality includes greater diversity in information (both gender and geography), this and other such articles about women scientists from India are being considered for deletion. As a datapoint, only 20-30% of WP articles currently come from the Global South (which comprises over 80% of the world's population) and our coverage of female-related content is poor (with only 1 in 10 of our contributors projected to be women).
In fact, this particular article was part of the Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon in Bangalore last year, held in order to improve writing about women scientists from India. The list of women scientists that needed enWP articles was created by a group of Indian scientists from a highly reputed Indian science research institution, and I would suggest that their understanding of notability and their expertise in this domain is to be relied upon.
Sadly, notability is an issue I face repeatedly as I work on women of note from the Global South in multiple spheres - notability cannot only be established by the publishing of scholarship _about_ people, when there is a systemic bias to publishing that exists both about notable people in the Global South and about women; and of course, doubly so for a woman from the Global South. :-( Notability, of course, is also contextual; for example, not everyone in the world recognises Oreos to be notable when many of us may never have seen or eaten one in our lives! As a Wikipedian, I do, of course, understand that the way we have defined notability has its own constraints; however, in a space of scholarship that is clearly educational - i.e. about women scientists - I would suggest we be bold, rather than be limited in our view of inclusion. I invite the convenor of this edit-a-thon, Shyamal and other contributors like Netha to comment on this nomination for deletion as well.
As I've said before, I'd be greatly appreciative Educationtemple, if we were allies in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission: we cannot achieve the 'sum of human knowledge' if we do not recognise the institutional biases inherent in knowledge systems, and do our best not to make Wikipedia fallible to them. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally respect your views about women. But one has to prove notability (irrespective of gender) if the bio of living person has to be on WP. Let other learned editors comments and/or add more reliable sources/citations to the article to show some national contributions at least, if not international to pass the WP:ACADEMIC criteria by the subject. Educationtemple (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Another article of the similar standard, created by same user - got several Keeps in afd discussion. I am sure this article will have same fate. No problem, and I would be more than happy to withdraw this nomination before editors do further exercise on it - IFF the creator/other editors please add some secondary sources on the article to support various claims within the article. I am sure, none of the claim is incorrect/overstatement but biographies of living people on WP do not look nice/appropriate without reliable sources as per WP definition of standards. A reader sitting in other part of the world will only judge the article by its citations and not by some facts that the subject was selected by a group of talented Indian Scientists who created a "list of women scientists that needed enWP articles". By the way, can you (Anasuyas) quote it within the body of the article? I am sure, you can't, since it will look so odd to convince the readers on the notability of a person by such reasons!! Furthermore, while we complain that there is a "systemic bias to publishing that exists both about notable people in the Global South and about women" and when we take responsibilities of creating the profiles/articles on Wiki after grand "Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon" meet to improve writing about women scientists from India, we should also take some responsibility of doing search for proper citations that could support the claims as per the WP standards. This afd nomination just thrust for either complete improvement or complete deletion since lots of stub type article from India (specially of genuinely notable people) leave a real bad impression in the world; and that is one of the reasons of under-representation of articles from India and so on. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was asked to comment on this AfD. Unfortunately I do not know enough about the subject in question to contribute with a keep or delete. My only input is that the rules for notability are equal for men and women on the WP even if this sometimes poses a problem since men tend to write about male scientists in books, websites and magazines. This makes it harder to find reliable sources for many noted women and consequently for us to provide enough proof of their notability. But this is a discussion for another forum, and for the moment we have to rely on the facts at hand. So please find more sources about this scientist's notability so that it warrants a keep for the article, otherwise delete it. I have seen articles about men with more coverage being deleted, so right now it is not a question of gender. Best w.carter-Talk 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the contrary, FNAS seems to entirely meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3. About fifty fellows seem to be elected annually. For a country the size of India, that makes it pretty selective. Given only three of the fellows elected last year, for instance, were women, that makes it an even rarer honour for a woman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply and query from all Editors here and Admins: All right. IAS was established in 1934. Since than tii date there are approx 5000 Fellows of this society. National Academy of Science, India has approx 2500 fellows. NASI has equal number probably. Indian Science Congress may have even more. All together, it comes to apprx 10 thousand Fellows. Will it be OK if I create the article about all these 10 thousand fellows on WP, since they all automatically meet the criteria of notability on WP as per above discussions. And I will only provide a single citation on all the articles, the link to the websites or the directory where its is stated that the person is a Fellow. Some times, I will not provide even that (as in this article), which has got several Keeps in ongoing afd, without a single reference whatsoever in place for any of the claim. My question is: Will all the editors here support me to do this. If any of these 10 thousand articles are sent in afd in future, I will give reference to this afd discussion Please let me know (specially the one who has given a keep here). Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Royal Society has had far more fellows. We wouldn't dream of deleting articles on any of them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will appreciate a direct reply of my question above. We are not talking about Royal Society here. We are talking about IAS, NAS, NASI, ISCA, NAAS and other similar societies and academies of India. More than 10 thousand Fellows and I dream to create article for all of them, just a single line article and one reference (May be nice Photo too). I am going to use this reply as a reference in future afds. I would consider your indirect reply or 'Silence' on this as your disagreement and then your 'keep' on this article will not have any meaning, I am humble. Educationtemple (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as @Anasuyas: would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - any other reliance sources that is in Hindi? - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because of her low citation record, she would unfortunately not meet WP:PROF except for the NAS membership,. Otherwise, as I understand it, the criterion for WP:PROF is fundamentally international, a single standard across the world, in the sciences interpreted in practice as a citation record in internationally recognized peer-reviewed sources (though recognizing some fields where the publishing is intrinsically only in national journals). This does show a Euroamerican bias, but that accurately reflects the current situation of scientific research, tho I expect it will in future decades be much wider. I have always advocated taking account of that to some extent also, in applying the standards less stringently for countries where the academic world, though it may be extensive, is lesser developed. Sometimes but not always this argument has been accepted, but applying it here would be stretching it too far on the basis of the evidence presented (this may not be the case for some of the other nominated articles).
The question is whether the Indian academies are similar in international prestige to the national academies of the US or UK. It is not. I also don't think it has the same prestige within India, and perhaps it may have even less prestige there than warranted, for as I understand it this is a nation which for historic reason has always laid very great prestige upon foreign (and especially British) qualifications. Leaving India, for the moment, the relative lack of prestige will affect even more the national academies of some much smaller countries). I think the statement in WP:PROF needs to be revised, and the first step in doing this is discussions such as the one here,to see if people are willing to interpret this differently--the effective guidelines at deletion have always been what actually does and does not get deleted. But the basic criterion is the establishment of the personas an expert in their field, and the other possibilities are really just shortcuts. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DGG's excellent analysis and needs further reliable sources it fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF except for a claim of being a member of a national society. Now not all the members of every national society or association in the world can be deemed notable merely being a member of a society.Now members of Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences are considered notable that does not mean that every member of every scientific society all over the world can be considered of the same standard and that every member be considered notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2015 (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/2015 April 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think, FNA (Fellow of the Indian National Science Academy) meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3 [as mentioned above by Necrothesp ] -- Badger M. (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The argument from WP:PROF#C3 seems rather weak to me. The inclusionary guidelines at WP:PROF are usually meant to be used in case there is something of scholarly notability to be said about the subject and their work, which might otherwise fall on the wrong side of WP:GNG. One should usually expect to see some reasonably high citations on the subject's work or, at least, something on which to base an encyclopedia article other than membership in a society (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). In this case, however, the poor citation numbers fail to bear this out. (Also, the sources in the article are rather poor. One of which, discussing her research, says this: "The s include peredbation theory for line operators [sic]" which is obvious nonsense.) Indeed, the subject appears only to be notable as a member of a scientific body. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with Sławomir Biały that mere membership of INSA is not sufficient .WP:PROF states This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. WP:PROF#C3 is to be taken in conjugation with this not in isolation of mere membership of a scientific body.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets criteria #3 for notability of academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The votes which do not address the issue of notability should be discarded. What is left are three deletes (add mine, it will be four - she does not meet WP:PROF), and two users believe that she meets WP:PROF by being elected a fellow of the national Academy. This one was in my opinion excellently addressed by DGG above.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per everything DGG said. She is a fellow of INSA, but it is not known here whether INSA is legitimately equivalent to National Academy of Sciences or Royal Society, so it is unknown whether she satisfies WP:NACADEMICS criterion #3. While that determination might be linked to systemic bias, I have never felt that systemic bias should be used as a keep reason. What matters is the academic's notability, and citation counts appear too low to support a keep at this time. In academia, citation counts determine your notability and google scholar is showing almost all single digit citations. Only one paper (where Singh is not the lead author) has above single digit citation counts and that only has 20. ― Padenton|✉   16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:52, 10 May 2015 (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. Deryck C. 21:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Zaidi[edit]

Shoaib Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dr Zaidi's article easily passes the test for WP:SIGNIFICANCE (please not that this is an ESSAY, not a guideline or policy).
This scholar would at a cursory view appear to fail WP:NACADEMICS, for reasons 1 to 9 inclusive.
I do note that Dr Zaidi is credited with about 20 patents in his field of expertise according to Google Scholar.
I declined the speedy deletion and have so made myself WP:INVOLVED
I must therefore be neutral in this discussion.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this article should be DELETED as it fails WP:ACADEMIC and his accomplishments are trivial--Jaaron95 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Dean of a department does not count as "highest level elected or appointed position at a major academic institution" as required by WP:NACADEMIC. Other than the WP:PS interview included in the article, I didn't find a lot of coverage for this individual. @Shirt58: I have to note that
    1. I believe you have stretched the interpretation of WP:INVOLVED past its logical boundaries: your removal of the speedy notice does not make you an involved admin in this issue. You clearly should not be the admin to close this discussion, but that's a different matter.
    2. You have already acted non-neutrally in this matter by opening the AFD in the first place. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DAWN is Pakistan's leading newspaper, therefore a reliable source. From the opening statement above, I looked up and added as a reference, a list of Zaidi's scientific articles from Google Scholar, presumably a reliable source. It seems to me that 2 strong reliable sources = WP:N. Tapered (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like WikiDan61, I'd like to see a stronger statement from the nom. Having declined a speedy does not make one involved and INVOLVED does not apply to participation in an AFD anyway. Now to the real issue at hand. Above, some arguments in favor of notability are made, under WP:ACADEMIC and under WP:GNG. I don't think either one is correct. It is argued that the subject meets ACADEMIC #6, but as clarified by WikiDan61, dean is not a "highest level elected or appointed position at a major academic institution". The GScholar profile is not an in-depth discussion of the subject and therefore does not contribute to notability under GNG. It could conceivably lead to meeting ACADEMIC #1 by showing that the subject is a highly-cited (and hence highly influential) researcher. However, I don't think this is the case. The profile list three highly-cited articles, but on these papers Zaidi is only a very minor author among a large number. Even counting those papers, his total number of citations is 750 with an h-index of 9. This is far below what we usually take as indicating notability in AfD discussions. Finally, there is the article in Dawn. It is not really about Zaidi, but about the education program of his university. Even if we accept this as an in-depth source about Zaidi, we only have one, so I don't think that this meets GNG either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As Randykitty details, we don't really have evidence for passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. #C1 is closest, as he has three papers with 100+ citations each, but being in the middle position of 20 non-alphabetical authors (as e.g. the top-cited one) implies that his contribution to the work was likely minor. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2015 (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 by JohnCD as a blatant hoax (G3).(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Hands[edit]

Loose Hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear, unnotable, unsourced, possibly not even real. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korby Bohannon[edit]

Korby Bohannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional autobiography of non-notable person. Text is almos entirely unsourced. I'm going to remove the spam for the animal rescue centre and the social media links which have already been removed once Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy delete Blatant self promotion the Philanthropy section gives it away. Valoem talk contrib 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly promotional, even created by an user of the same name. Also fails WP:BIO. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC), Not opposed to Speedy delete if an admin wishes to go that way. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete created with a very clear conflict of interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin Changed to speedy delete this needs to go and please also salt, block user per WP:NOTHERE. Valoem talk contrib 17:31, 1 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Description Language[edit]

Behavioral Description Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources that weren't self-published. Orphan for 4.5 years. Note: there is also a redir at BDL (Behavioral Description Language) ― Padenton|✉   08:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that this is yet another bulk nomination (of very many) from the same nominator, all with the same blanket "Just not notable" rationale and no evidence of any effort at WP:BEFORE. Behavioral description language is a big topic with a vast range of sources (even if WP hasn't got there yet). Given the close naming overlap between the two articles, it's implausible that Behavioral Description Language can be nominated as "Unable to find any sources" without having first had to wade through a great many on the generic topic. This is a complex question for notability and requires per-source judgement, not simply a "just not notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: No, sadly, I actually wasted a good bit of time looking up every single one of these. Perhaps you should stick with policy-based arguments rather than ad hominem and hatchet jobs. ― Padenton|✉   13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one - you see that's the trouble, we know you didn't. There are hundreds of them. It takes far too long for someone with your busy workload of nominating every minor programming language for AfD to have done that sort of legwork to the requisite level.
You have nominated all of them with a boilerplate rationale, "Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources." Any sources. Yet many of these, like Brooks, are obscure, arcane languages that cite one conference paper by their authors. That doesn't mean they're notable or not, but it does indicate that they're going to be damn difficult to really judge one way or the other. How about Oak? (tiny article, few sources, no-one has heard of it). You AfD'ed Napier88 and PRODed Hope, yet they're two languages where a whole generation of Scottish postgrads founded their careers on them. Crap articles, especially on technically complex subjects, are not simply judged as "just not notable" by the current length of a WP article.
When you state, "Unable to find any sources." for an article that already has one credible journal entry and had others until they were removed a week or two back, then such a rationale is grossly inaccurate.
For this article it's really hard to judge sources. Is the source referring to BDL (NEC) or bdl (generic)? I suspect that BDL coverage is indeed scant and that an article under this precise topic (unlike bdl) can't stand. However it's very obvious that "Unable to find any sources." is not a truthful nomination. There are acres of sources for the generic bdl and it is not an easy task to tell them apart. You just haven't had the time to do that, even if so inclined.
How many of these language articles have you sent to AfD? How many have you actually looked at before rubber-stamping? You've been editing a month and your main topic seems to consist of these language AfDs above all else. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every single one. Actually, someone sent this list to me after they saw my last batch (of which, almost all ended up delete yesterday I might add), and I took a look at each and every one, before I went and nominated them. This is not the place to discuss other AfDs. This article isn't on the general topic, this article is on the language. Wikipedia is not the place for obscure arcane languages that havae only 1 conference paper by the languages creator. Anyone can write a conference paper.
I haven't touched Oak, stop making false claims. I PROD'd Napier88, it was AFD'd by someone else. I merely voted on it. Obix had 1 one other. I have nearly 3000 edits, and if you looked at my contributions page for longer than 5 seconds you'd see several other topics.
Now, I would appreciate if you would stop following me to make false claims about me at my AfDs. If you want to disagree with me, go for it, I welcome it. But make it based on Wikipedia policy, do not write false claims about me, do not edit my words when quoting me just so you have something to attack, and do not bring irrelevant AfDs into another AfD, cluttering it up. ― Padenton|✉   14:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, orphaned and no references since 2010 ignoring one unclear nine years old paper not mentioning "Behavioral Description Language" in its abstract. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:00, 26 April 2015 (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 McKinney, Texas#Police Department (McKinney Police Department). Consensus that a separate article is not merited and given that the merge has already in effect taken place a redirect has consensus. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McKinney Police Department (Texas)[edit]

McKinney Police Department (Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

yet another police department article with nothing to show notability. the only sources that could show notability are about policing incidents and not about the department in any substantial way. in order to be considered notable, a pd needs to have substantial geographically diverse sources about IT, not about crime. There is no assumption of notability for a PD. Therefore, they must meet WP:ORG. Not seeing it here, just like most PDs. John from Idegon (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Department gained some notoriety some years back (2009) when it requested approximately $5 million in SWAT related equipment, at least part of it under the 1033 program. Incidentally, the Department also had a walk on role in this incident from last year. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable. The content is just a list of the subdividions of the agency, which belongs on their website, and of some local crimes, which onoly indriectly deal with the dept.
  • Keep: has up to date info about the police dept's growth and personnel that can't easily be found elsewhere, as well as the general details and some history, all in a simple format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.23 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to McKinney, Texas. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For one thing, trying to merge the two articles might risk article bloat. For another, there is some notability as previously noted. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am going to ask the above editor to reassess their position. Selective merges are done all the time. The fact that you are concerned that merging might cause the other article to bloat is somewhat telling of your opinion of what is here, ya? In addition, if you look at the comments above, the author has confused notoriety with notability. The linked reference does not mention the department, and participation in a government program does not show notability. Thanks.John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Ceannlann gorm above. This is a legitimate subtopic fork, with sufficient sources from local news sources to establish notability along the lines of WP:Local. Deryck C. 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:Local, which is an essay, not a policy, clearly states that things of local interest must meet WP:ORG to be considered notable. There are no sources outside the community for this, so it fails WP:ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NGO, where the "outside the community" clause comes from, is a disputed guideline. The sources in the article are produced by the local community but not by the police department itself, so they do qualify as independent reliable sources of local interest. Deryck C. 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing significant enough to merge, except that it exists. . The content is just a list of the subdividions of the agency, which belongs on their website, and of some local crimes, which onoly indriectly deal with the dept. the coverage, as one would expect, is purely routine and not significant coverage. . DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The department is not notable in and of itself. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my opinion... see below PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or very selectively merge to McKinney, Texas. Nothing beyond routine local coverage of a run-of-the-mill local government agency, and that's not enough for notability.  Sandstein  15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Obviously, we need a second relist--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AUD is a mess, has been under discussion and is likely to be deleted. James500 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would I be correct in suggesting that all the arguments put forward so far for deletion or redirection seem to boil down to the mere fact that the article exists in the first place? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say yes. As I stated in my nom, very few police departments have the requisite detailed coverage of the department themselves. By nature, what the cops do is pretty much just local interest, and we do not cover strictly local interest topics. I would like to see a more specific notability standard for municipal departments such as police and fire, and have attempted to start discussions at at least one Wikiproject on the subject, but it went nowhere. John from Idegon (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no rule against "strictly local interest topics" per se. A proposal for a "local interests" notability guideline of general application was roundly rejected. There is an exceptionally vague guideline concerning organisations, but it doesn't appear to reflect consensus, which means that we don't have to follow it. At this time, I am not in favour of discounting sources only because they are "local". I find the suggestion that the activities of police officers are "by nature ... pretty much just local interest" to be wholly implausible, as those activities include, amongst other things, using and threatening serious violence. James500 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Mische[edit]

Jewel Mische (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as performer who does not reach threshold for notability. Article comprised mostly of OR and fansite text. Quis separabit? 05:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:. Has been in many notable films and television programs in the Philippines. Very easily satisfies WP:NACTOR. Ross-c (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the bar set by WP:NACTOR is pretty low for notability. arguably she has had at least 2 significant roles in notable shows since she had 100 episodes on a Paraiso (TV series) and starred in Magic Kamison receiving second billing. Beyond WP:NACTOR Mische seems to hit the mark for notability in general with coverage about her and her wedding blah blah blah. By today's Wikipedian standards she passes notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but citations are needed and clean up rrquired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.84 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2015 (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 Eastern Busway. Nom basically wants it redirected so being BOLD & doing just that - No objections to this being "un-redirected" once more info on this crops up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carindale busway station[edit]

Carindale busway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose a delete and redirect to Eastern Busway as this is a long proposed future busway station which borders on crystal ball status as it seems there has been no updates about the Eastern Busway extension for a number of years now, and the project may not be updated any time soon with the change of governments over the years. Coastie43 (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coastie43 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2015 (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) — Yash! (Y) 00:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Akin[edit]

David Akin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Mistakin (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He won a 2005 Gemini Award for "Best Reportage in the Documentary, News and Sports category..for his coverage of CIBC faxes that were sent to a junkyard in the U.S." —maclean (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winning a Gemini Award — the highest class of national award that it's possible for a Canadian television journalist to receive — is a claim of notability that automatically gets a journalist over WP:JOURNALIST in and of itself. Notability is not temporary — the fact that the channel he was working for recently shut down, so that he's currently in a less notable role than he was before, does not change his eligibility for an article. If the former role was one that got him over our inclusion rules, then he gets an article on that basis regardless of what has changed since then or what may change in the future. In addition, I'd be remiss if I didn't note that the nominator's username, coupled with the fact that initiating this AFD discussion was their first Wikipedia contribution ever, directly implies that the nominator has a hidden agenda — either they are David Akin or they're somebody with a personal vendetta against David Akin, but either way they're trying to get the article deleted for some odd WP:COI reason outside of Wikipedia's policy process, and are not being honest about why if "not notable" (which is patently false) is all they've got. Keep unless there's a much better reason for deletion (i.e. BLP concerns) than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2015 (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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Sleeping (film)[edit]

Trouble Sleeping (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable film. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. - MrX 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - MrX 02:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ALTS
Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete or Userfy per being TOO SOON. Looking for this title or recent works of the actors and filmmaker do not find sources related to this project. Allow a return only when inclusion criteria can be met. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 26 April 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Sorensen's REAL Country[edit]

Ben Sorensen's REAL Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this as an A7 speedy deletion candidate. It's syndicated so this makes just enough of an assertion of notability to where it just barely squeaks by speedy deletion criteria. However I can't find any coverage of this show to assert that this meets notability guidelines enough to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if retained the article's name should be amended removing the capitalisation. Dan arndt (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article indicates some notability and has independent media coverage. It is notable enough generally. From what I see there are also sources that are relevant. Thus it is a notable and sourced article. It needs a good bit of work. But I don't think it is a candidate for deletion. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per user improvements since listing. I would also wager that some of the delete votes were the result of instant-hate upon seeing the spammy promotional image in the infobox. Well, I made it go *poof*. Pax 10:15, 28 April 2015 (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) — Yash! (Y) 00:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodri Jones (Photographer)[edit]

Rhodri Jones (Photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP, doesn't appear to meet notability standards. Current provided sources are subject's own book and a Google+ link. Quite a lot of work, but not a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Prod contested by article creator. --Finngall talk 20:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodri Jones is a notable and professional living Welsh Photographer who has worked all over the world and held exhibitions in reputable establishments such as the National Library of Wales. A quick google search reveals articles and reviews of his work in the Telegraph , Daily Post and Wales Online. Panos Pictures agency state that his work has been carried by leading magazines, newspapers, NGO's and publishers world wide. In 2000 his work featured in a BBC Wales TV documentry "Moving Stills". In my opinion his contribution to Welsh Photography is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Jason.nlw (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I prodded the page, but the tag was removed by Evansphoto1 (ping) with considerable extension of the page, and the following message on my talk page:
This article is being created as part of a Wikimedia event. please do not delete until the article has been created (not before 5pm GMT) for more information contact user:jason.nlw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansphoto1 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I could not find anything corroborating this story on wikimediafoundation.org, but saying I am not familiar with that website would be an understatement. Perhaps someone could help?
Please see Welsh Photographers Edit-a-thon on Wikimedia events page for April.Jason.nlw (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I am not sure this person passes WP:CREATIVE which is very stringent (too stringent?). I suppose the applicable criterion would be #3 (I do not quite see #4b) but "Moving stills" is too short (30 min) for the In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film requirement. This being said, prodding was clearly rushed, so I will refrain on taking a position. Tigraan (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability, see WP:CREATIVE. Photographers are notable by default. Ping me if references are provided showing that this person (or their) work has received significant, in-depth coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised to learn from the Prokonsul that "Photographers are notable by default", but anyway this photographer has books with forewords by notable people, his work is available through Panos Pictures: looks to me like some indication of notability. Keep, and retitle "Rhodri Jones (photographer)". -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus most probably forgot to slip a "not", being given the rest of his comment. Anyways, there certainly is "some indication of notability" but which of the (stringent) criteria of WP:CREATIVE is it supposed to pass? Or are you suggesting GNG is met? Tigraan (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE: (1), (2), no; (3), not as far as I know; (4a) no; (4b), (4c), (4d), not as far as I know. Wikipedia:Notability (people), of which this is part, describes itself as a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Common sense tells me that a short, non-promotional, straightforward, well sourced article on a photographer is warranted if that photographer has multiple photobooks out from non-vanity publishers, if these photobooks come with introductions by a poet laureate and the creator of Vietnam Inc, if he's had exhibitions in such places as Noorderlicht, the National Library of Wales, and Third Floor and Side galleries; and if Panos Pictures think that he is worth their trouble. Wikipedia suffers long-term bombardment of more or less obviously promotional non-articles about minor photographers; this, however, is different. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I would not lose any sleep if this went by the "occasional exceptions" clause. Tigraan (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sources not assertions would be really helpful Spartaz Humbug! 07:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears to be prominent in his field and has exhibited in major venues in several countries. I have edited the list of exhibitions in the article to clarify some of the exhibition venues, with wikilinks. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There seems to be a bit of notability in quite a few countries, which is probably enough. Some good sources there (The Guardian for instance). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:CREATIVE says "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Clearly Rhodri Jones numerous exhibitions alone confer notability upon him. See e.g. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/returnyn-ol-by-rhodri-jones-2327890 Ross-c (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2015 (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. Nakon 00:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvetta Kaleynska[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tsvetta Kaleynska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, references are either primary or one-line mentions. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Now I do agree this could be better sourced, over all she does seem to be notable enough for a wiki page given what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cited sources are not strong. First the "rubric in the national scientific magazine" link doesn't lead to any info about her, and I assume it would just be a short entry. The "Stevie Awards" are somewhat suspect: you self nominate and pay a fee. That said, there is competition, but there is, AFAIK, no oversight on the validity of the awards. The Cosmo article is a fluff piece where she gives 5 points of advice on how to be successful on social networks (e.g. how to choose the right photo for yourself, etc.). And "EuroChicago" appears to be a blog. LaMona (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For better or worse, there is a great deal of coverage of her in bulgarian media (Search under Цвета Калейнска).--Milowent • hasspoken 02:11, 6 May 2015 (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 Club Monaco. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caban[edit]

Caban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been trying to find anything for this outside of the sources here (which basically is the webpage bought out buy the bigger company) while my results were such stuff as people with this name, a health spa and other things. If not a delete maybe a redirect to Club Monaco. Wgolf (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging those who have commented on its notability before (per WP:APPNOTE): Bradv, Oo7565, and Cabanboy, the actual creator, a W:SPA with a username which indicates coi. Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User:PamD/Caban for draft dab page. Alternative outcome: move this article to Caban (brand) and put dab page at base name. No evidence that the brand is the primary topic. PamD 07:15, 30 April 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahnaward Zaryab[edit]

Rahnaward Zaryab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Not much sourcing available as far as quantity is concerned, but the New York Times calling him "Afghanistan’s most celebrated novelist" [53] seems notable enough. Everymorning talk 20:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As well as the NY Times article, numerous academic articles mention him as a notable Afghan writer. See e.g. "The Afghan Experience Reflected in Modern Afghan Fiction (1900–1992) Mir Hekmatullah Sadat From: Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East Volume 28, Number 2, 2008" Ross-c (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2015 (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. Nakon 00:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical claims in Scientology doctrine[edit]

Medical claims in Scientology doctrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

By its very nature, the article is based on original research and synthesis. Insufficient RS to support notability or verifiability. Tgeairn (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there is merit in an article about Scientology and medicine, but this article will need a lot of work from people who can very, very carefully edit it so it doesn't come across as a WP:SOAPBOX one way or another. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with TokyoGirl79 - I can imagine that there could be enough information for a substantial article, but this particular article is not it. I also note that this article was recently greatly reduced in content by a single editor (User:Tgeairn). There isn't any related discussion on the talk page so I'm not clear on what the consensus is on the page. I could agree with a delete or to merge with Scientology_beliefs_and_practices LaMona (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 26 April 2015 (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 RTÉ2#Teenage television. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guideline, but a redirect is reasonable. Davewild (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Tube[edit]

Two Tube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Absence of any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, never mind significant coverage. Most of the people named aren't even notable (one redirects to a pop group which doesn't mention it, another to a failed election candidate). Greykit (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to RTÉ2, of which this show does not seem to be independently notable. Most coverage in reliable sources I could find is about the hosts and so does not count toward notability that much. Everymorning talk 03:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a notable show on RTE2 and it is popular also. The article itself however is poor and lacks sources. I would suggest it be given a section on the RTÉ2 page and that the page Two Tube be made a redirect. However I would include as a proviso that before this page becomes a redirect a new section must be created on the page RTÉ2. Currently the Rte page only links to this article and so making it a redirect would be essentially sending people around in a circle. This subject must have its own section to redirect to. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned there under the heading "Teenage television" so the link could be removed. That it is notable is not clear, hence the AfD. That it is popular is of no significance either. Notability on Wikipedia. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." --Greykit (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I can't see how the "Teenage television" section can be expanded without violating the policy WP:UNDUE (the same sentence mentions 5 other shows so the current weight given is just about right). Regarding notability, there are no reliable sources - either there or in the subject article. --Inother (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2015 (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 (author tagged) -- Y not? 13:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Postăvaru[edit]

Radu Postăvaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny on this one. We have:

So, while the subject has had a decent musical career, there simply does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article; WP:NMUSIC and WP:BASIC are not met. - Biruitorul Talk 01:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs a lot of work, but don't delete on the grounds of notability. The newspaper source mentioned above is reasonably good - 650 words about him and his plans for the orchestra. I've added a second article from the same paper, and articles from: a second Ploiești newspaper, one of the largest national newspapers (which triggered a couple non-independent follow ups), and an independent arts and culture site. I believe this is sufficient to demonstrate notability according to WP:BASIC. Editors more familiar with the subject area and language can probably dig up more sources.
However, whether the subject is notable or not may be a moot question. The text was a word for word copy of the subject's biography on his official website, so the article may be deleted as a copyright violation. According to Google, both copies originated on the same date, so they're likely written by the same person and a release may be forthcoming. Conflict of interest would be an issue, but NPOV could be addressed as the article is reworked to use the new sources and ditch the unreliable ones. Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there's always some ambiguity about just how much weight local news sources should be granted, I would note that in Romania, a centralized state where the capital city dominates cultural (and political, and economic) life, genuinely notable figures are almost invariably covered by the national, Bucharest-based papers. This is especially relevant in the present case, given that Ploiești is not quite 40 miles distant from Bucharest. The fact that newspapers in the latter city have barely acknowledged him, and largely through routine coverage at that, I would say does indicate a lack of notability at the present time. - Biruitorul Talk 22:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any record of Mr Postăvaru having released an album, let alone on a major label, or having had a concert or tour by one of his orchestras written up by a reputable reviewer. It is very obvious that he does not satisfy the "criteria for musicians and ensembles" at Wikipedia:Notability (music). If announcements in local papers make one eligible for a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia will become little more than a hosting site for articles about, and written by, minor musicians. Syek88 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2015 (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 Nambour, Queensland#Education. (non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 01:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Primary School Nambour[edit]

St Joseph's Primary School Nambour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. The article cites no independent sources, only ones published by the school itself. Searches found only one other source that wasn't a directory-type listing or trivial mention: Library/Hall Project - Fulton Trotter Architects. They're not a third-party source because they're the architects of the school project they describe. Fulton Trotter alludes to an architectural award which sounded like a promising line of inquiry, but the website of the awarding organization, which lists previous awardees, does not mention the project, so perhaps it was only nominated or short listed. The organization gives hundreds of awards per year, so it's not especially exclusive in any case. No mention of the project winning an award was found in newspapers or architectural magazines. Long story short, the primary school does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Worldbruce (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Nambour, Queensland per WP:OUTCOMES. Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:44, 26 April 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ex YU rock enciklopedija 1960 - 2006[edit]

Ex YU rock enciklopedija 1960 - 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable self-published book. Can't find references or reviews. While I can't read Yugoslavian, the article smacks of self-promotion. Mikeblas (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST. There is no self-promotion. I created the article, and it is just one of hundreds of articles on Yugoslav popular music I created. The third edition of the book was self-published, the first one was published by Geopoetika; I believe that Janjatović decided to publish the third edition by himself because of some disagreements with the publisher. The book is the only encyclopedia on Yugoslav rock music, and widely considered to be the most notable book about Yugoslav rock scene. Here are only some of the reviews: Muzika.hr, Popboks, Vreme, Danas, Naša Borba. I am also familiar with reviews from Oslobođenje, Dnevni avaz, Slobodna Bosna, Politika, Večernji list, which I can not find online, but I am prepared to add them to the article. I believe the attention from some of the most notable newspapers and magazines in the Balkans could be a proof of the book's importance. I think I should also point out that most of the articles on Yugoslav rock bands on Wikipedia have Janjatović's book as one of the primary sources; that is one of the reasons I believed the book deserves its own article. Ostalocutanje (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AGAINST. The fact that you mention "Yugoslavian language", which doesn't exist, speaks about your knowledge of former Yugoslav culture and history, which, I'm afraid, refutes any argument whatsoever on the notability of anything coming from this former country. I am sorry, but you are stating that probably the most important book ever written on the matters of rock music in former Yugoslavia, and one of the most important documents on rock music beyond the Anglo-American language and cultural sphere is irrelevant, which is absolutely ridiculous. You can judge the quality of the article, and put tags for improving/adding references, but not for deletion. This is a very important cultural document, regarded in former Yugoslav republics as the most credible source of information, as it uses a plethora of written and documentary sources on the subject. Deleting the article on this book, also means deleting hundreds of articles reviewed by Wikipedia administrators as proper and quality articles which use the mentioned book as their primary source of information. The first edition of the book was released by Geopoetika, one of the most prominent and notable major publishers in Serbia, the second edition was also released by the same publisher, and the third was self-released. As for the "self-promotion" part, the author of the article is not the author of the book. You can say that the quotations from the author in the article may be unnecessary or inappropriate, but deleting the article for that reason is absurd. Your arguments, even though the word "argument" is not appropriate in this case, are not valid and justified, and therefore the article should not be deleted. If adding the 'Critical response and reception' section with links from the reviews and information on the general reception of the book, it would be mutually beneficial, to improve the article and remove the deletion tag.--Milosppf (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I'm not familiar with Yugoslav culture. But I know about WP:NBOOKS. That the subject of the book itself is used by many Wikipedia articles does not directly demonstrate notability. We're discussing the deletion of this article only; not the deletion of "hundreds of other articles". Even if this article is deleted, other articles referencing the subject of this article are are unaffected.
If this is "a very important cultural document", then it should be very easy to find substantial third-party references that say so, and add them to the article. Instead, the article has only primary sources as references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the reviews I mentioned describe this book as a milestone in the historiography of Yugoslav music; I will start to work on the "Critical reception" section. Ostalocutanje (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 26 April 2015 (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/redirect to Indooroopilly, Queensland#Education. The original page content are preserved in the page history for everybody to perform the merge with. Deryck C. 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nudgee Junior College[edit]

Nudgee Junior College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a private primary school for ages 4-7. No notability exists inherently, and there is no individual notability asserted for the school Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since International School[edit]

Since International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was unable to establish if this was even an elementary or high school. Part of this is that information may be in a different language and the school's name makes it difficult to search for. Although if it is a high school, by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it should survive, I couldn't establish whether it was a high school, or that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If someone can uncover any solid information that this is (or was) a secondary school, I will reconsider. The article says the school is run by "Since Academic Services (Private) Limited." I found a Facebook page in that name, with no activity since 2011. The operation does not seem notable, based on the almost complete lack of discussion online. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not an answer to the elementary/high school question, but may help guide a search for sources: SINCE's street address is now occupied by Rathnaloka College. Their website, http://www.rathnaloka.org/about%20us.html, says "On 29/12/2011 we enlisted the students and teachers of a well known well established educational institute which had been functioning in Matugama for 7 years." The description of the institute taken over fits when SINCE was established (2005) and when updates to its Facebook page ceased (2011). Someone who can read Sinhala might be able to extract more information from photos on https://www.facebook.com/RathnalokaCollege/. Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 26 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_26&oldid=1142626901"