Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnandan Sahay

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

Article I'm having a hard time making notability with-not even sure when this guy was alive (it says he is a blp on the talk page but not the main page) I'm getting tons of different people with the name Krishnandan Sahay also when I googled this. Wgolf (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article lacks sources. Longevitydude (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering is this a hoax article? Wgolf (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur. There is no way to verify this article has the slightest bit of truth to it. Longevitydude (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the talk page. Wgolf (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May not be a hoax; the college's website lists "Shri Krishna Nandan Sahay," presumably the same individual, as principal from 1951 to 1966. In any case, though, WP:N and WP:V issues remain about some of the details in the article. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or not, speedy it: living person, no reference, no indication of notability -- no debate :) --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 19:53, 13 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Licker Bottle Cozy

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

I have been unable to establish this subject's notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this recording clearly satisfies WP:NMUSIC, in that it charted both in Australia and the US. Dan arndt (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:NMUSIC puts low standards for articles but this article meets it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep from it actually being a chart hit - this is not a high-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charted.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan arndt's additions - good work. Gongshow talk 07:42, 8 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grinspoon (EP)

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

I have been unable to establish this subject's notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find it funny seeing it say grunge style and seeing this listed as a song "Let it Go" as now I have a funny picture in my head of that being sung that way. With that said-Delete-can't find any notability. Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, this has got nothin'. Merge/redirect to Grinspoon discography - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)~~ After the extra work and references, Keep as it now stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename as "Sickfest", which is notable as their first recorded track, the first winner of Triple J's national Unearthed competition and that station's most requested song for seven weeks: it was listed in that year's Hottest 100 (a listeners' poll).(see 1, 2, 3).–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is now referenced and satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not quite as clear-cut as the other Grinspoon page at AfD, but in my view there now appears to be enough material here to support a standalone article. Gongshow talk 07:48, 8 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) Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Zimmermann

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

Not notable. No awards. No officerships. No prizes. No seminal scholarship. He holds a research chair, and that is about it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination could be rephrased as "he clearly and obviously passes one of the WP:PROF criteria, but I'm going to ignore that and look at all the other things he didn't do". He also hasn't won an Olympic medal, starred in a major motion picture, or been elected to high political office. In any case, along with the Canada Research Chair (which I believe to be enough by itself) there are plenty of published reviews of his books (more relevant than citation counts for this sort of subject): e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Well said. The rules must be read and referred to by those making AFD nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per User:David Eppstein, (although I do like the idea that all theologians should prove notability by winning prizes, especially Olympic medals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Maza

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

No indication of notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:NPOL through her representation on 13th Congress of the Philippines. Amortias (T)(C) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use of the find sources links shows enough material to suggest the individual is notable. Suggest per WP:BLP any contentious material that cannot be cited to a reliable source is simply removed. ~~Apologies to the nominator but the deletion review seems a knee jerk reaction to a legal threat.~~ W C M_email 22:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: Wee Curry Monster Please retract your personal attack, making assumptions about my motive is neither productive nor necessary.CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack, please don't assume it was. I presumed your motivation was to protect wikipedia. Regards, W C M_email 23:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - clearly notable: WP:NPOL presumes notability for persons who serve in a national government, and indeed there appears to be coverage in multiple reliable sources, for example [9], [10], [11], [12]. Granted the article could use expansion and more inline citations but those are not criteria for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NPOL as a representative in the 13th Congress of the Philippines and WP:BASIC. Ivanvector has provided some sources that indicate that the subject meets WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 22:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. National politician, coverage by multiple sources. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:37, 7 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 procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CollXtion I

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

Non-notable studio EP by non-notable singer. References include brief mentions, sales websites, celebrity twitter messages and status, blog posts from fans. This article fails WP:GNG. The EP was "released physically on April 7, 2015" but today is 6 April 2015? This is really just WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would really like to ask. When you make these nominations are you actually reviewing what content on the article was taken from the sources you're frowning on? Those are general guidelines. The content taken from those sources are minimal and don't seem to fail the criteria for why you cannot use those sources. Your phrasing implies the entire article is a biased and poorly constructed affair based entirely off of these. The "sales website" is Amazon, only for release date, which I have added citations from the publishing company detailing its release schedule. I'm not even going to bother saying anything else. If you have a different paradigm from what the guidelines say than from me, fine. I just hope more people have my view.SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show WP:AGF. I always observe WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. I always review and read the article and all the cited "sources". The problems with the cited "sources" are included in the nomination rationale above. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologoize again. Anyway, even though I don't agree that these sources are incorrect (and there are no fan postings on blogs, I have no idea what you are talking about there; sorry) I have gone on and removed all of the objectionable content, as they were only extra references, save for the mentions as they are only used for reviews and are direct quotations. The link to the music video still remains. When you have time, please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the blog/fan post and either a primary source or fansite I refer to. Whichever it is is it, is definitely not a WP:RS and needs to be removed from the article: http://alliexandra.com/post/114330875910/which-one-of-the-producers-including-yourself-in [13] Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk)

Comment Thank you for edifying. I removed it and tidied other references. On the Catch article as well. Though I would like to ask, why is that not ok? That is a primary source I used to indicate who the producers were on a song. This is from Allie X herself. The WP:RS just says not to interpret and to use caution when using primary sources. Why was that wrong?SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUMS. Single charted on the Canadian hot 100, and album/single/and artist have all been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in major magazines like Billboard and Time. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and these sources [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Miniapolis: I think it should be kept, but I can see how it may not necessarily meet all the criteria for NALBUMS and may need to be merged until it becomes more popular to better satisfy the criteria (if it even does.) But under no circumstance do I think it should be just obliterated as he wants. And it wasn't in anyway intended to be a publicity blitz, I just wanted to try my hand at making articles as these are the first I ever have.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Your first article. Miniapolis 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that. I would've never contested any of this or made these articles in the first place if I thought it was against the policy. I don't know if you were trying to be helpful or rude so I will leave it at that. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:31, 9 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 decker ^talk 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palem Srikanth Reddy

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

Well the blp prod was removed since it got refs, but this is a strange case as the articles creator keeps on changing this between the userspace and a article as well as a major COI. Wgolf (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Michig and Jerodlycett for this! Wgolf (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not notable, his company may just barely lick by, but not him. Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable autobiography. The user previously had various versions floating around as his user page, plus in his sandbox and in the draft namespace. I took one version to MfD in February; see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Palem_Srikanth_Reddy. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athomeinkobe-yeah I had to basically put this afd up since it kept on going back and forth from userspace to article and since someone decided to add refs this was the next step! Wgolf (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 19:54, 13 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 decker ^talk 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Idiots

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

This band have been around ten years and are notable for covering Blink 182's Neighbourhood, and not much else. I declined a CSD A7 as the creator insisted there was coverage in reliable sources, and there are some suitable sources here and here, but I don't really think that's enough for a full band article and I can't obviously see anything else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No different from any other artist covers - I guess it could be Merged in to Neighbourhood but not sure how that would be possible so going with the easiest option, Anyway can't find anything on this band so Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" missing the mark here. if they covered a song that is notable put it in the article that dodges notability requirements but not stand alone material. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added a few references from the original Swedish article, but can't find enough online in Swedish or English to satisfy the "multiple, non-trivial" requirement of WP:BAND, per Bryce Carmony above. A cover album that created a brief buzz on social media doesn't really make a band notable, and none of their original works has made a dent in any charts as far as I can find. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:20, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor rep acting dynasty

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

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

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

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

No indication of notability, although of course some of the people named are notable. Appears to be part of a massive WP:COI promotional exercise relating to Brice Stratford, the Owle Schreame Awards, and just about anything connected with them. Numerous WP:SPA accounts are involved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - surely a family of notable people individually achieving notability in the same field is notable? For example Robin Fox family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feast is Feast (talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Feast is Feast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment While the individual actors are notable, notability is not necessarily inherited to the family; The family itself must also have reliable significant coverage to be kept. From my uninitiated look around, "rep" here means the Repertory theatre production at Theatre Royal, Windsor and not a (political) representative in a Windsor constituency, and may need more work to filter out the unrelated abbreviations here. Mentioned here (appears routinal coverage). Passing mentions under a Jean Miller context here and here.野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but nonetheless, I'm going with keep - it is not just the individuals that are notable; the notable work done through the winsor theatre was done as a family unit, not just separately as a collection of individuals - the press at the (now unaffiliated) theatre's site attests to that.— Feast is Feast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:18, 29 March 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

Keep Have just updated the article's references and citations to help support it further. For what it's worth, the peak period of this family and the Windsor repertory company was from the early 1930's to the early 1980's - consequently much of the supporting commentary is not available online. Does this discount it? the phrase "Windsor rep acting dynasty" was first used by John Counsell in his article "So Who Needs Subsidy, Anyway?" (Scottish Theatre, Inverkeithing, Scottish Theatre, Vol.2 No.3, May 1970) and was used regularly in the newspaper reviews (specifically the Windsor Express) and the theatre's programmes throughout the 70's and early 80's.

In terms of the significance of the family as a whole, the book "Counsell's Opinion" (by John Counsell, 1963) discusses it at great length, and the Genealogist's Magazine did a large feature on the family in 2002, connecting them with Hilary Tindall, John Loder and Roy Walker, and then did a follow-up in 2012 connecting them with Brice Stratford, James Stratford and Colin Jeavons. Jean Miller discusses the significance of the family as a whole in various interviews. Here is an illustrative excerpt from an interview with her for the British Library, in case you can't access any of them online:

(Blakely, Emily "Theatre Archive Project: Interview with Jean Miller" British Library 14 May 2008)

Well, my sister was a scenic artist and my brother-in-law was a very famous art director in films ... He was put up for an Oscar for Ryan’s Daughter. He made his name with Genevieve, I don’t suppose you’ve seen it? About the car who goes to Brighton. It’s a wonderful film. Anyway he made his name. He’d just come out of the Air Force when he made it and that was his first and it made his name. He did Fiddler on the Roof, all sorts of films, he worked for Disney, all sorts of things. So Michael acted, my brother-in-law was an art director, my sister was a scenic, my uncle and aunt were actors and directors, my two cousins were on the stage. Then Polly, my youngest daughter was until she had an accident. And her father-in-law - great grandfather-in-law...? grandfather-in-law! - was somebody called John Loder who was an Old Etonian Englishman and he went to Germany and Marlene Dietrich wanted somebody with a dinner jacket. And of course being an Old Etonian he had no money but he had all the right clothes and he was a very good looking man and he went into films, starting with Marlene Dietrich. And then he went to Hollywood and he was very famous but [is] forgotten now. He had five wives and one was the very famous Hedy Lamarr. Does that mean anything to you? It’s like saying he was married to Marilyn Monroe, practically, a very beautiful, sexy woman. So it’s all gone on round me.

Theatre Royal, Windsor(talk) 4:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Theatre Royal, Windsor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note: user above was a SPA contribs, blocked for violation of username policy [User_talk:Theatre_Royal,_Windsor|here] Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The family was clearly notable at some point, regardless of where they stand now. The article seems justified to me. We shouldn't let Wikipedia get distorted to only represent contemporary subjects, or those which just have a strong modern web presence.WalkingOnTheB(talk) 6:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Regardless of any other factors, the issue in question (as specified above) is solely one of Subject Notability. Let us address this systematically, referring to Wikipedia's notability guidelines throughout.

To establish notability, we must first find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", bearing in mind that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". We must first discount all which is not "independent of the subject" - so out goes anything written by any member of the Counsell family (nominal or extended), as well as anything produced by the Theatre Royal, Windsor itself (such as programme notes). Not that such materials are useless as citation or reference, rather they cannot be relied on specifically to gauge notability.

So what can? "reliable sources ... independent of the subject". Here follows a selection of such sources, with the nature of each source (local, national or international) specified. Each can be considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards, each can be considered independent according to Wikipedia's standards, each example can be considered significant coverage according to Wikipedia's standards, and each references the notability of the family as a unit, rather than a combination of notable individuals:

"Repertory Roundabout" Theatre World, Vol. 58, 1962 (national trade publication)
"Counsell and Kerridge Once More" The Times, Oct 10th, 1969 (national news)
"The Clan Continues" The Windsor Express, June 3rd, 1972 (local news)
"Obituary: John Counsell" The Times, February 27th, 1987 (national news)
McMullan, Henry. "The Windsor Repertory: an Acting Dynasty" West End & Regional Theatre Press, November 5th, 1989 (local publication)
"The New Redgraves? Don't Let Col Hear That!" Black Country Bugle, October 1st, 1998 (local news)
Eyre, Richard & Wright, Nicholas. "Changing Stages: A View of British Theatre in the Twentieth Century", Bloomsbury Publishing PLC 5 Nov 2001 (international publication)
"The Windsor Dynasty (not that one)" Genealogists' Magazine, 2002 (national journal)
Bailey, Jenna. "Can Any Mother Help Me?" Faber & Faber, 5 Aug 2011 (international publication)
"The Windsors Revisited" Genealogists' Magazine, 2012 (national journal)

I should point out that this is by no means an exhaustive list, but merely the result of initial research at a physical (rather than digital) university library. This initial, cursory list includes local, national and international publications at trade, academic and journalistic levels. I would also emphasize Wikipedia's guidelines, whereby "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."

Most importantly, I will specify Wikipedia's rule that "Sources do not have to be available online", and that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The significant coverage that this subject received in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's is enough to establish it as notable without any more recent coverage, and the fact that (due to the time of writing) such sources are rarely available online should not discount them or undermine their validity.

I believe that, having established this debate centres on the issue of notability, I have rigorously established that the subject of this article can be considered notable, using Wikipedia's notability guidelines throughout. Therefore, I move to keep. RoodEnd (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note, !vote above is the user's largest edit by far, and the detail is fairly incredible for someone not famiiar with this organization. Has been listed at SPI. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me the family by itself is not notable. Some of the actors are notable, the theater is notable, but the "dynasty" is not notable. I recommend placing any wikiworthy content into Theatre Royal, Windsor since the dynasty's head was the director there. I think the theatre stub would be improved by a section with some good information on this director and the notable actors that were part of his dynasty.Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree that the dynasty by itself do not seem to be of much note currently, but they certainly were in the past; I actually ended up here today because they are discussed in some published parliamentary papers from the 60's that I've been reviewing for work and I wanted to know more. I would slightly disagree with Bryce Carmony (talk)'s suggestion about moving wikiworthy content to Theatre Royal, Windsor, as much of what made the family notable (judging from what I read today) was not just their impact at that particular theatre, but also their work and influence in the west end theatres and (especially) in British provincial touring. It's hard, of course, to judge notability without being biased to our own knowledge, perspective, country and time, but I would say that if the government of the day thought them worthy of discussion and consultation they must have had some notability (I should specify that the references in these papers are primarily to the family's influence in the artistic and managerial infrastructure of nationally touring British theatre, and to a lesser extent on the same in the London west-end theatres. The Theatre Royal, Windsor is mentioned only in passing and is not really relevant to the points made). I think that Bryce Carmony (talk) is perfectly correct though when he says that the Theatre Royal, Windsor article could benefit from a section on the family; however I also think that the family's article could benefit from a section on their impact beyond that specific theatre (and in fact that may make their notability clearer).(edit: in fact, I'll go do that now! Gabby Road (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)) If the consensus does lead to deletion, perhaps a section on the dynasty could be placed at John Counsell (theatre director)? Gabby Road (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the papers in question were the Government Select Comittee Reports regarding what became "The Theatres Act 1968" Gabby Road (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There, have added Windsor_rep_acting_dynasty#London_and_the_Provinces Gabby Road (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note this editor's first edit was sophisticated for a brand new user. all theater/acting related. Listed at SPI Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- perhaps with a better name. I am not sure what "Stratford family" is doing in the category, since beyond a bland statment that they are included, there is not coverage of Bryce Stratford in that article. In my view this is a legitimate category but needs purging: if they are a dynasty, there should be a common ancestor: I would not want to exclude spouses of descendants, but relatives of spouses would be going too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was partly a comment relating to the equivalent CFD discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- The dynasty seems to me to be defined as the relatives of John Counsell (theatre director) or Mary Kerridge involved in acting and related industries, and their relevant spouses. So far as notability goes, that seems fairly well established at this stage. So far as a new name... I dunno. I'm fine with "Windsor rep" acting dynasty - perhaps lengthen to the Windsor Repertory Acting Dynasty? This is the name that coverage refers to. It seems inappropriate to name the dynasty after John Counsell, as Mary Kerridge was just as significant a progenitor (the only difference is that she was a woman). No single surname is shared by enough of the dynasty to give it a real claim. Maybe the Counsell-Kerridge Acting Dynasty (but that's quite a mouthful, and if anything less clear). Elephantbronze (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything about it seems to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 5 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) 20:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had originally performed a non-admin close on this as keep, since the notability requirements of this acting dynasty ~~have clearly been met~~ appeared to have been met at the time of clsoing. However, the nominator informed me that there was an ongoing sock puppet investigation regarding this AfD. In light of these facts, I do not believe it is appropriate for an non-admin to close this AfD, and request that an actual admin take over from here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the key sources for this article are not online, and it is a product of a knot of editors being discussed both at WP:COIN and WP:SPI, This AfD should not be closed until somebody can check the sources to VERIFY the content. I am going to try to get the library Tuesday night to find what I can get. If those sources check out the article can stay. But the title must go. There is no other article with such a title - we have Redgrave family, Dugazon family, Robin Fox family.. no "dynasties". If this survives deletion. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the title is a neologism, self-cited (and conveniently non-viewable) to the theatre itself and to the putative head (John Counsell) of the so-called "dynasty". Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I messed up when I closed this as keep. I have access to numerous journal and news data bases, and after some extensive searches I'm unable to actually find most of the sources listed in the above AfD discussion even though other articles from the time periods and publications come up. For example, "The Windsor Dynasty (not that one)", "The Windsors Revisited" and ""The New Redgraves? Don't Let Col Hear That!" seem to be fictitious. The sources I have been able to find either make only trivial mentions of the Windsors or give extensive coverage to specific individuals instead of the whole family. Also, I find it highly suspicious that that something could get coverage from multiple national journals, but not come up when searched for in JSTOR, Google Book, Google Scholar, and Google News. In light of this, I think the article should be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I have similarly long believed that many/most if not all of the non-viewable citations in the sock farm's other COI articles are similarly and conveniently fictitious. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jytdog has verified that a specific reference added to two of the COI articles is fake: [21]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Except for Peterkingiron's, every single "Keep" !vote in this AfD (and indeed everyone who has contributed to the article) is part of a massive SPA COI sock/meat farm, either in newly created accounts (some with some diversionary edits), or accounts created June–December 2014 (again, some with varying degrees of diversionary edits). A possible (but at this point not entirely certain) exception is Joseph2302, whose account was created at the time of the others (December 2014) but who either is very determined with his diversionary edits, or who is an innocent but very inexperienced bystander. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Zero significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Massive trumped-up promotional COI material, completely WP:OR, and a deliberately unduly extended and unduly selective family tree of the sockmaster account, BriceStratford. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 12 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. Rather than "keep", because some of the "keep" opinions are really rather superficial and not much more than votes. That said, this is mostly a dispute about how to organize content about melee combat of both the tournament and the military variety, and that can probably be achieved by discussion and such merging/redirecting as may be required outside of a deletion discussion. Sandstein 19:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melee

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

As pointed out in the recently closed move request,[22] this shows no signs of being a valid encyclopedic topic. The information present right now does not extend beyond a dictionary definition with the basic meaning "(disorganized) military encounter fought at close range". There is some coatracking of military melees, but that could basically extend to virtually any battle fought with hand-to-hand weapons. The article has been tagged since 2009 and had no relevant sources until the addition of an aerial combat "definition"[23] which merely substitutes infantry weapons for aircraft.

I should add that I've written and read extensively about early modern naval warfare (galley, galley tactics, Mary Rose, battle of Öland, Vasa (ship), Kronan (ship), archipelago fleet, hemmema) and never encountered material on just melees that would merit a separate article. Even in literature specifically discussing medieval infantry tactics, like Rogers (ed. 2007),[24] have I seen any meaningful discussion that could be used to build up the topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I've done some emergency repair work on the article. Could you have a look at it when you get a chance and give me your thoughts on the changes? Thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be relevant to this discussion that in SCA armoured combat, which is now registered as a sport in some countries, the melee is a section of the competitions with its own set of rules and regulations. See this. w.carter-Talk 03:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceannlann, you added one source that was a self-published and another that merely used the word "melee" (and did not discuss it in any way). I have not contested that the word exist or that it is in use, but rather that it is too vague to be a stand-alone article.

W.carter, I supported making this a dabpage, but this was rejected. The medieval sport is listed there, and so could the SCA article. But this was deemed unacceptable. The article has been around for over a decade and still hasn't gotten beyond a mere dicdef. I don't see the point of waiting longer for basic improvement. The onus of improvement lies with those who insist this is a valid article that is more important than anything else called "melee".

Peter ^Isotalo 15:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the best thing for this content would be to have been written originally in Combat as a section and grown into a spin-outable article, however it is currently here now and deleting it would likely be detrimental to the encyclopedia long term. Plenty of secondary sources covering "melee" just need the article to be improved not deleted. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been around for 12 years without attracting any encyclopedic content. It has been tagged as a problematic article for half of that time. The concern here is that there is no relevant content to add. What makes you believe otherwise? Peter ^Isotalo 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles for being poorly written, we delete articles if they should be deleted. the claim that this is encyclopedic doesn't persuade me when other encyclopedias have articles on the topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which encyclopedias would that be? Peter ^Isotalo 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica. and when I search Google scholar and news I get multiple refs. I just see it as notable. If you don't thats your right as an editor. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this? It's about a form of tournament, not warfare. This article clearly isn't about that. If you know of multiple relevant refs, it would be helpful if you share them. If nothing else, it would help those who want to improve the article. Peter ^Isotalo 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So make a dab page if you want to clear up the ambiguity or consider the possibility that we (or britanica) got it wrong. the word "Melee" has multiple uses that the article can flush out. I believe every article is innocent until proven guilty, it's not my job to prove that it is notable, it's your job to prove that it isn't. and I do a search at the school library and multiple scholarly articles pop up, I do a search on google news and articles show up. it's notable. I don't have the time or energy to fix every article in AFD that is notably poorly written. But I do have the ability to do a preliminary search to look at what the source material has to offer. if you want to get this deleted make a new argument besides "not notable". Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you arguing for notability? No one questions the "notability" if a word. This is an issue with what essentially is a dictionary definition. The request has been for a encyclopedically relevant definition. That the word is used is not enough on it's own. That's attestation, not a definition of a topic. The page is being held in limbo here: it can't be the dabpage (see recent move request) and no one will explain how it can be improved. And somehow it's on me to figure it out myself because I point out some very obvious problems. Peter ^Isotalo 06:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC if you don't like the way that article looks I'm sorry, wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP the article provides more than a definition. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in circles here. I'm putting forth the argument that this is mostly a dictionary definition with no viable future as an article on a unambiguously defined topic. We have coverage of medieval tournament melees, close combat, several games called "melee"-something. And we have melee (disambiguation) (which this apparently can't be). It's clearly not a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that can be fixed with just "cleanup". The article has been around for over a decade and has gone from an obvious dicdef[25] to pseudo-dabpage[26] and on to a hybrid of both,[27] (but limited strictly to (mostly pre-modern) warfare). And now you and Andrew Davidson are claiming it's actually also about what's describe in tournament (medieval)#Melee. WP:WIP applies to articles that are sub-standard, but have a chance of relevant expansion. I'm arguing it hasn't a chance of relevant expansion because there simply isn't a strict definition of "melee" in military history that goes beyond a general word for "close-up, usually confused fighting of some sort". This ought to be extremely easy to disprove. Instead you're saying there are sources, that you've found them, but that you're simply not interested in showing them. Peter ^Isotalo 11:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require a "strict" definition. Warfare is, by its nature, chaotic and so descriptions of it by particular authors will not have the rigour of a mathematical text. But the general concept of the melee as being a mass combat in which the participants become mixed up rather than being in formal lines seems well-established. The nomination says that there is no coverage of this in the naval context but a quick search soon disproves this - see The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, for example. I have produced several sources now which discuss the melee in detail and it would be quite feasible to develop the article from such material. Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

go with a merger proposal if you want it to go into one of the other melee articles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the term "melee tactics". I specifically mentioned it in the move request, even. It's a specialized, well-defined concept in naval history. This is evident if you read Cambridge history you just cited a bit more carefully.[28] (see p. 413). The usage is completely different from when infantry melees are described (pp. 18, 41). I don't know who first defined the concept, but it's present in Jan Glete's Navies and Nations (1993, pp. 173-78). It was formulated specifically to contrast to the tactics that preceded the line of battle and the use of broadside gunnery. The latter has been analyzed in detail by N. A. M. Rodger (Mariner's Mirror, Mariner's Mirror 82 (1996), pp. 301-24) and in Safeguard of the Sea (1997).

If if you believe this shallow use of sources is appropriate, I'm sure you can establish articles about any commonly used words. This is what we normally call synthesis, though. This looks like some strongly opinionated argumentation by me. Especially assuming that I'm too influenced by "modern re-imaginings in movies and games" rather than expecting greater accuracy in a Wikipedia article. Further discussion here at the AfD seem pretty pointless since you've already made up your mind. I assume that any further disagreements will have to focus on content and be conducted at talk:melee. I must say I'm quite disappointed in the lack for reciprocity and the clear expressions of bad faith and presumptuous opinion.

Btw, I'm strongly opposed to a general merger of any and all warfare topics that happen to contain the word "melee". It's going to amount to a clear example of WP:COATRACK.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that a naval melee is "completely different" from a land melee. The details may be different but the fundamental concept is the same and that's why the same word is used. This is exactly the situation envisaged by WP:CONCEPTDAB – a broad concept which has particular applications. In such cases, it is helpful to the reader to give an outline of the matter and refer him to more detailed cases as appropriate. Deleting the page to make the word into a redlink would be quite unhelpful and disruptive because it would leave the reader at a loss. As for your disappointment, you should have expected dissent following the move discussion. You have sought yet more discussion and now you have it. Be careful what you wish for ... :) Andrew D. (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't discussion so much as insisting that user opinion should trump source content. When sources don't actually fit the descriptions, you apparently make them fit. And top it off with condescending insinuations.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented sources and it seems that Peter rejects them as not fitting with his personal opinion as the basis for the rejection. From this, it appears that he has some personal definition of what a melee is or should be. Is this "strict definition" derived from some source? If so, what is it? Let's consider another example: Movement, Manifesto, Melee. This has a chapter on artistic melees, which were provocative violence at exhibitions. This is obviously different in some ways from the melees of medieval knights or Nelson's band of brothers, but it seems similar in a fundamental way – being a chaotic combat. If we present this context in our article and refer the reader to Modernism then it seems likely that the reader will feel that they have learnt something new. This is my vision for the page — presenting the various ways that chaotic combats have been characterised as melees and then referring the reader to more detailed pages. This way of doings things is described at WP:CONCEPTDAB and it may help to quote examples from that:
Particle (previously a disambiguation page) is a broad and abstract concept used to address many different ideas in physics, generally relating to small units from which larger things are composed. Although there are many different kinds of particles at levels ranging from the subatomic to the macroscopic, the broad concept is properly susceptible to explanation in an article. Truly unrelated meanings, such as Particle (band), are only presented at Particle (disambiguation).

Football may refer to one of a number of team sports which all involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot. Although the word "football" can apply to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, all of these variations share some common elements and can be traced to a common origin. Thus, the history and development of the general concept of football can be explained in its own article.

Are we having a discussion yet? Andrew D. (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is purely semantical. Particle and football are indeed broad, but at least have easily justifiable connections that can be found in sources. No such connections exist in this case. They are all being made on a case-by-case basis by individual users like yourself. There's "my vision", readers will "feel that they have learnt something new", it "seems similar"; it's all WP:ILIKEIT. The argument about "artistic melees" is the perfect illustration of this. You're by now making the argument for duplicate dabpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. A quick search establishes that the formal melee was a particular style of tournament which is contrasted with the joust. This is covered in detail in sources such as The Tournament in England, 1100-1400. The topic is therefore notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Readers who come to the page looking for a general description of close quarters combat should be given relevant and helpful links per WP:CONCEPTDAB. Deletion would be disruptive and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a completely separate topic, though, and it's linked from melee (disambiguation). It's also treated in some detail at tournament (medieval)#Melee. Did you read the recent move request? Peter ^Isotalo 10:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of effort, has anyone read the only source used for a historical definition (Arquilla & Ronfeldt 2000)? It's clearly written by researchers who are not historians and have some pretty strange and antiquated ideas about history overall. Here's a pretty alarming quote from the article:

This chaotic form of war [the authors' definition of "melee"] persisted into the historical era and dominated even among the first of the Asiatic empires of the Sumerians, Akkadians, as well as others. In Europe, during the dark feudal age after the fall of Rome, a period of technical stagnation and social dissolution, European warfare once again reverted to the melee—seemingly wiping out the gains in massing and maneuvering that constituted hard-won progress in military affairs made over many centuries, including by the Greeks and the Romans.

It's so far removed from consensus in modern historical research that it basically amounts to editorializing. Or a serious case of WP:UNDUE. It's questionable whether this even counts as a reliable source in a context of history. If this is the best we can do, the article needs to be converted to a dabpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The melee of the tournament is not a completely separate topic because such melees were mock battles; a rehearsal for the real thing. One tactical detail which was of great significance in both tournament and battle was the taking of prisoners for ransom. See Prisoners of War in the Hundred Years War: Ransom Culture in the Late Middle Ages for an extensive account. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for coatracking here. The tournament melee is no more a battle than the joust is a cavalry charge. It would be like housing info on golf clubs in club (weapon) or that ceremonial mace should be merged with mace (weapon). The tournament melee is a clearly defined, separate topic that is treated in tournament (medieval), and could very well be made into a separate article like melee (tournament). And this article isn't even limited to the Middle Ages or even land warfare. A melee isn't a tactic or a formation, but simply the result of warfare at the tactical level. It's very difficult to distinguish from close combat and is similar to the terms skirmish or brawl which both can refer to topics we have articles about, but aren't viable topics on their own. Peter ^Isotalo 07:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The melee would start with a cavalry charge. The essential difference between it and the joust is that the joust was single combat while the melee was a mass combat. Such tournaments were quite violent affairs and not very different from battles. Your misunderstanding seems to be a product of modern re-imaginings in movies and games. As there is some confusion about what the concept means, it is good to have a page which explains the history of the matter, per WP:CONCEPTDAB. We should not rely on dictionaries to do this work for us because they do not link so conveniently into our web of content and their focus is upon language rather than meaning - etymology, grammar, pronunciation, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as above. Could it be improved? All articles can. Deletion would be a major overreaction. Also, note the canvassing [29] being done by the submitter. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth is wrong with contacting users who were directly involved in a discussion that is directly related to the AfD? This looks like a bad faith accusation to me. Peter ^Isotalo 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with Peter here. He didn't just notify those who agreed with him (I didn't), so clearly no rules have been broken per WP:CANVASS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the proposer of the above-referenced move, but I in no way think that this is an invalid subject. Sure, it could be converted into a broad concept article, but in its current state, it's definitely a valid topic for an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dicdef with pretensions. The formal concept of melee in tournaments already has its own article, so what's left? This article distinguishes several virtually identical meanings, but combat melees are already covered in Swarming (military), Combat and linked articles and cavalry melees are covered in Cavalry tactics, leaving just some vague words about air combat which could easily be added into the article on that topic. If this article was "fixed" it would end up merely as a dab page - and we already have one of those. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia to cover. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which topic, though? Close combat with handheld weapons, the medieval tournament competition, ship combat, dogfighting or the "artistic melee"? Peter ^Isotalo 10:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is indeed a valid topic, which is why it is covered in plenty of articles (do a search) and has a dab page. It doesn't need another, especially not such an unreferenced, jumbled mess. If you take away what's already covered elsewhere there's nothing left! Andyjsmith (talk) 21:18, 10 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 01:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Love

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

It's been awhile since I submitted any article for deletion... The subject of this article doesn't meet the notability criteria of any category that I can determine, is of low visibility and is unlikely to meet criteria in the near future. A search of general sources doesn't turn up anything reliable that would expand or support this article. While not currently the subject of vandalism, this is a low visibility, low notability BLP. Delete for that reason. Nathan^T 19:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 6 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. Consensus seems to be the contant is notable but its not so cut and dried that this needs a standalone article. I'd suggest a merge proposal would be a better vehicle then AFD to decide that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shield Knight

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

Character is a non-notable secondary character of a single-game indie series. I suggest either deletion or redirection to Shovel Knight. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not seeing a lack of non-notability here - secondary sources specifically discussing the character beyond just a gameplay element is exactly what we want to see to pass the GNG. That doesn't mean we necessarily need the separate article and merging what's here to Shovel Knight would be a possible suggestion, but definitely not deletion. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, decent sources are used to describe the character's conception and reception, and integrating those (or even just the conception and creation-section) into the Shovel Knight article would make that article focus on her character in too much integrate detail. ~Mable (chat) 05:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has 7 different secondary sources and 2 of which are reliable in the field, only source primary is the kick starter page itself but that is pretty minor in the makeup of the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shovel Knight. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The article, as written, is a series of passing mentions strung together (more on this in a moment). There are no sources of substance to add from a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The character has no out-of-universe significance and is discussed as an element of gameplay. The only articles that treat the topic as its own subject are [30] and [31], both short and about the related update. The other articles are a collection of passing mentions about the character. There's certainly enough to explain the character in the parent article, but not nearly enough coverage to warrant its own article. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per what others said. Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specter of Newby Church

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

No evidence of notability for this ghost and it appears to be a hoax Frmorrison (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've rewritten the thing and added sources and the image itself. This is one of the most famous 'ghost' pictures ever taken. If somebody could find a way to delicately end the last paragraph with 'there is no such thing as a ghost' whilst remaining pleasant, it would be appreciated. It's just hard to find mainstream sources for these things, even when overwhelmingly culturally relevant. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would edit it myself but I'm too scared to look! Thincat (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Frmorrison, which part appears to be a hoax? The photo itself or the existence of the photo at all? That the photo itself might be a hoax is irrelevant if the hoax itself is notable. If you are suggesting no such photo exists and that this article is a WP:HOAX, that's different. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the picture is a hoax, but if people have written about (previously there were no references or pictures) the article may be notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right, understood. Yeah, I'm probably with Panyd in terms of notability - weak keep. But I totally get why it was nominated. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:10, 8 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 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - Updating, I can see this has been floating around since 2009...if someone can get their hands on the magazine referenced in here to view, then I would be convinced it's a real article on wiki, not a hoax made by people scamming the wiki. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)IamM1rv (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless the fabric of the universe has been ripped I think we can all safely assume this isn't actually a ghost. A quick Google will tell you this particular story and photograph go together and are 'for realsies' though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless the fabric of the universe has been ripped I think we can all safely assume this isn't actually a ghost.

... Irrelevant to the article or lacking neutrality @Panyd: -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But not, I feel, irrelevant to the original suggestion that the article may be a hoax. As there was initially some confusion over what criteria we use to judge something a 'hoax' - a light response seemed fine. I think you'll find my coverage (and original re-write of this article), quite up to par neutrality wise. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:35, 15 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Women's Ball Hockey World Cup

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

Unsourced article about a sports competition. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 19:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha State

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

Cannot locate notability for this band. Wgolf (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking it up I got things like "The alpha state of mind" and a Texas college as well. I just put a redirect from Alpha state which as it turns out that was deleted in early 2010 as spam. And one of the contributors is actually named Alpha State. I am actually trying to see if this band even exists. Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging George100 who 1st tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no valid redirect and couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can barely verify the existence of this subject, was unable to find sources meeting the general notability guideline. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:20, 14 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 decker ^talk 01:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H. D. Moe

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

Article of someone who I can't tell if there is notability. The website is a free domain (according to the talk page he has been dead for a while even though it still says living people) Looking up HD Moe I keep on getting Three Stooges pages and High Deff (LOL-I do have to admit that is amusing!) Wgolf (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging Aboutmovies who first tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Longevitydude (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find some sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it interesting the talk page says he died in 2008 yet was still listed as a living person and never changed! (And I still think that High Deff Moe is far more interesting anyway lol) Wgolf (talk) 14:35, 7 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 as WP:G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Falatko

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

Non-notable author. One yet to be published book, and one prior self-published book with no significant coverage. Article was previously PRODed, with the PROD removed by the article's author. (Mentions of the prior self-published book were also removed when the PROD was removed.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT Longevitydude (talk) 23:41, 6 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 decker ^talk 15:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destined To Lead

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

Unverified, not notable--selfpublished books by a non-notable author. Really, DB-A9 should apply to books as well. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Pinging Zeke Essiestudy who previously tagged this for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem notable and article isn't the most organized. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:34, 6 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 as unambiguous copyright infringement. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Education Funds

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

I started pruning this as it was full of marketing puffery, and I'm now not sure it meets the notability standards for WP:CORP at all. Of the five sources given in the Notes section, four are to pages on the company's own web site and the fifth is about somebody else and doesn't mention Heritage. The external links are all to the company itself. Searching, I find some press releases, but I can't find any in-depth coverage of the company in reliable independent sources. Squinge (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason R. B. Maguire. Squinge (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just found this which says "In their ruling, the justices said an Alberta financial company now known as Heritage Education Funds Inc. breached its contract with Edmonton-based dealer Harish Bhasin when it “acted dishonestly,” “misled” and withheld information..." and this which doesn't make the company look good, but I don't think they count as the sufficient in-depth coverage required for a Wikipedia article. If there's any properly-sourced article to be justified, I don't think it's this whitewash piece written by apparently promotion-only editor User:Sbranco. Squinge (talk) 16:51, 6 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 as unambiguous copyright infringement. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason R. B. Maguire

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

I don't see sufficient evidence of notability here. He's president of a savings and loan company (Heritage Education Funds, an article created by an obvious promotion-only account and originally filled with marketing drivel), but is that enough? The only sources are to primary sources listing him as a director, and to his personal Twitter and LinkedIn accounts). I've looked for reliable third-party sources myself, but can't find any. Squinge (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Education Funds. Squinge (talk) 16:59, 6 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 (nomination withdrawn) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Mohi

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

Show that had its prod removed from a ip, anyway non notable it appears and too soon. Also note-yes this says 2nd nomination but this is in fact the first one, unless if this show was somehow in production in 2006. Wgolf (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The promo of the show has been telecast on the respective channel, and people can search the topic on Wikipedia. Or if not satisfied with the article, redirect it to List of programs broadcast by Star Plus. Regards, KunalForYou ^Contribs ^Talk 18:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's too soon, but the article has reliable sources and meets Wikipedia's criteria. 182.69.98.247 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show wasn't in development for 9 years. You can also search in Google. The show will premeire in May 2015. 182.68.39.68 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes I know the show wasn't in production that long-the note is because it says 2nd nomination but the first nomination was for a different topic with this name so its not really the 2nd one. Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry nominator... but to say "non notable it appears and too soon" seems a bit presumptive, as multiple sources speak toward this topic,[32] and we DO have sources saying it is to debut sometime this month].[33][34][35] A worry is that it seems this discussion is being negatively colored by "other" discussions. Point here is that the thing already has coverage to meet WP:GNG and is to debut within a few days or weeks. And policy tells us that sourcable future events may be written of "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". SO.... (and in ignoring the "keeps" from the SPA anon IPs} the question is less about this being TOO SOON and more about shall we delete now and simply recreate the article in a few days when it actually airs? I myself say keep and we can always revisit the topic if the sources prove inaccurate and Star Plus never airs this project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I don't remember what I got when I looked this up but I do remember not getting anything for the show a couple weeks ago. Wgolf (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. Article appears to be notable and its almost certainly going to be aired within a matter of weeks, so WP:CRYSTAL does not appear to be an issue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-Okay withdrawing this. Wgolf (talk) 04:46, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phal Sophorn

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

Unsourced BLP about a fighter who fails to meet WP:KICK or any other notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a source now, decent record. If we're going to have baseball players, might as well have this guy. -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't have all baseball players only those that are deemed notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTE Longevitydude (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage that meets WP:GNG and there's no evidence he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keepWP:kick is a guideline. This is a notable kickboxer and we must avoid Systemic bias in the English Wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, KICK is a guideline. And BIAS is an essay. In the hierarchy, a guideline is more relevant than an essay, which is merely an opinion piece that some agree with. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to you too! That is your opinion as well! CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not my opinion. Policies are the top of the hierarchy. They trump the guidelines and essays. Policies are "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" and they're the result of extensive input by many, many editors. Guidelines are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Note the shift from "widely accepted" to "generally accepted", a lowered standard. Lastly are essays. The essay is "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". Note that it clearly states it isn't there to try to compete with the higher policies or guidelines. When I said a guideline is more relevant in the hierarchy, that was a factual statement, not merely my opinion. When I said that an essay is an opinion piece, that was a factual statement, not merely my opinion. Thus "that is your opinion as well" is, in fact, not correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: People don't meet the notability guidelines by being non-white and because there are baseball players. People meet the notability guidelines by satisfying the GNG or relevant SMGs. This fellow doesn't. Done deal. Ravenswing 07:16, 10 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 decker ^talk 15:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Worldwide

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

This article has been deleted previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Fighting Championship Africa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFC Africa, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFC Africa (2nd nomination). Speedy was declined, but there's nothing to show this is more notable now than it was before. Most of of the sources are several years old and have been discussed before. Sources are not independent (business partnerships) or passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again and possibly salt it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see where much has changed since the last discussion. I'm still not seeing or finding the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG. I've exchanged edits with the article's creator about this topic since then and said that he should be sure to make sure he had the sources to meet GNG before bringing back the article for at least the fifth time (I know of at least one speedy deletion). Papaursa (talk) 13:54, 11 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.

Humboldt Street (LIRR station)

The result was Nomination withdrawn following article improvement. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:Notability. The policy states "significant coverage" in "reliable sources". Ref 3 does not establish notability as it is simply a photo. Source 2 is a trivial mention and therefore not significant coverage. Reference 1 is self-published and should not be considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability, because the author of the website does not show that they are an expert on the topic. Appable (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, Reference 3 proves the very existence of the station, because that photo is a map showing that station. Source 1 may be an SPS, but it does rely on noted railroad historians for info. Having said that, perhaps the best thing you could do with it is merge into the Evergreen Branch article, which currently is merged into the Manhattan Beach Branch article, although I've been working on a sandbox for a separate article on the Evergreen Branch for a while. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I should rephrase my claim on Ref 3: it establishes the existence, but not all things that exist are notable. Good point on Source 1 as well. I'll discuss merging the article on the talk page, and see what other editors think (or does that happen if the consensus is to merge? I'm not sure). Regardless, I change my position to Merge. Appable (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Railway stations fall into one of those few categories of articles that we keep as long as their existence can be established. Always have done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Question I thought precedence is irrelevant according to the rules. If the precedent is long-lasting, can't you edit the policy to take it into account? I agree with you, but not out of any policy-related opinion, just preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:RAILOUTCOMES usually stations survive a discussion. However, WP:STATION clarifies that a station is notable only if it has sufficient information for its own article. In the time of the discussion, the article has been expanded greatly, so I think Keep is the best option (revision from previous Delete and Merge stance). Appable (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presumably that means you're withdrawing your nomination? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it does. Though I don't know if there's some way to close it myself. Appable (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precedent is most certainly not irrelevant, since results of previous AfDs reflect consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article now fits the guidelines to be kept per WP:STATION. Epic Genius (talk) 00:50, 8 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 decker ^talk 15:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pich Seiha

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

Article with no significant or independent coverage about a non-notable fighter. His record as shown as 2 wins and 1 loss as a kickboxer and he lost his only MMA fight via armbar. Fails all notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Fails WP:KICK, WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to surpass minimum requirements of notability. Longevitydude (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keepNational champ in his home nation. Recognized internationally in a number of sources. [36] CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the coverage is significant enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lack of supporting evidence to show he meets any relevant notability criteria--GNG, martial artists, kickboxers, or MMA fighters. Papaursa (talk) 13:37, 11 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 decker ^talk 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Ciral

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG; little coverage, arguably at best one significant role in a probably-notable film. I found no rs to add to article. Pinging Wgolf and DGG who also looked at the notability of this actress recently. Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Can't find notability either. Wgolf (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The second sentence is just Trivia. One of the mentioned people in the article doesn't even have an article. Notability is not INHERITED, you don't get it just by knowing someone. LOL, Hollywood isn't a royal family so being related or meeting them doesn't help qualify for notability. I was an extra in a movie, I met some notable people, but that doesn't make me anymore notable than someone who visited a lot of notable locations. Longevitydude (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9 movies on IMDB but all the parts were pretty minor (belly dancer, blonde chick #1, etc) so I say delete per WP:NACTOR Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:34, 7 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. non-policy based votes by new users are given less weight than policy based voted by established users Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glory 21: San Diego

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

Deleted about three weeks ago, swiftly recreated by brand-new editor. New editor removed speedy. Pinging Coffee, Mdtemp and Papaursa. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep We already have articles for the previous 20 events. Glory is kickboxing's UFC. The article was first deleted because there was no official coverage. I posted a Glory site source. The championship bout between Artem Levin and Simon Marcus is confirmed. It's highly comparable to UFC 190. Hard7kek (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)— Hard7kek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lack of official coverage is not the reason the article was deleted.Mdtemp (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Mdtemp stated in the first Afd, this article fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Longevitydude (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article's only source is not independent and the previous discussion already said that this event fails WP:NEVENT. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this article--it just means the others should probably also be removed.Mdtemp (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, with all due respect, it's comparable to UFC 190! Please be fair, is there any place for kickboxing on Wikipedia? Or just for MMA? Hard7kek (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)— Hard7kek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What makes you think I want to keep the UFC individual event articles? I think most of those should go, too.Mdtemp (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why can't you also leave this? Please? Because it's the same thing. Hard7kek (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)— Hard7kek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If it's really the same thing, then it's redundant not to merge the information to the other page. Remember, wikipedia is not news.Longevitydude (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Cannot understand why this article is on the deletion nomination repeatedly.Frenchcafe (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. There's a lack of significant independent coverage and nothing to show this event will have any historical significance (even in the field of kickboxing).Mdtemp (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, etc etc Hard7kek (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)— Hard7kek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IMO it absolutely meet WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. GLORY is significant kickboxing organization as much as this event.Frenchcafe (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Frenchcafe, Hard7kek, do either of you have a connection to or work for Glory (kickboxing)? Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're so rude, I'm just normal Wikipedia user who is interested in kickboxing, mixed martial arts, etc.Frenchcafe (talk)

I don't have any connection to him or Glory. Why do you think Glory isn't important? UFC is important or not? Just because it's not hugely important for the Americans? It's very important worldwide (Europe, Brazil, Japan, South Korea and more), and even trying to get more in the US. Glory is hosting many events there. Do you know they already spent 40 million dollars? You're a newb. If you want admin position, please clean up parts that you know. Hard7kek (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)— Hard7kek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I suspect that they're socks based on their behavior. I suggest they see wikipedia's rules on personal attacks. Longevitydude (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longevitydude, your suspect is absolutely wrong. I think you have to see wikipedia's rules on personal attacks. suspecting other people without evidence is personal attack too.Frenchcafe (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The speedy delete (Repost) tag should have been replaced rather than a new AfD - it could have been contested on the talk page. That said, there was no convincing demonstration of notability in the article or the first AfD debate and nothing yet in the second. Notability is based on coverage by reliable third party sources and frankly that will always be a problem with future events including UFC. I didn't want to specifically vote during the last AfD and wont here either but notability has to be established and how Glory compares to the UFC is irrelevant.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Repost after the event happened with extra references would be far less of an issue.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PRehse, I did tag it for speedy but it was removed by creator. 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - and either you or someone else would just replace the removed tag - maybe with a warning to the user. In any case it is here now and open for debate.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:ONESOURCE Longevitydude (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promo piece for an upcoming one of event, should be a lot of fun but isn't encyclopedic. Facebook page yes, encyclopedia no. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep glory's numbered series are notable events in kickboxing like k-1 world grand prix series, so i think there's no problem on this page. 203.226.206.161 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)— 203.226.206.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment IP above (1st edit): I'm suspecting WP:SOCKs on this page. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are the suspected socks aside from 203.226.206.161? Longevitydude (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response Longevitydude, see [37], Frenchcafe and Hard7kek always respond about 2 - 5 minutes after the other, and in the same poor English and antagonistic tone. Hard7kek only started editing on 6th April 2015, to create this article. It seems to be pretty much exactly the same as the article written by Frenchcafe, which was deleted 4th March. Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I'd recommend starting a Sock page for them and deleting their rude comments and if convcted then all their comments should be deleted. I sent a response to them about personal attacks. Longevitydude (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - what are you doing you guys? by English tone and response time you can decide who is multiuser of who? very poor judges. i suspect you guys are in relationship or same people, if i follow your way lol. i really don't know Hard7kek and ip address above. if you can see my sandbox [38] i wrote about glory 21: San Diego to create article after the event, and this is not same with this current article. and i rarely mention on other user's talk page even my talk page. if you guys think this article must be deleted, then just show your opinion about this article and don't do useless suspecting. i'm ready to take the result of this discussion and wait until the event is over. Frenchcafe (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - for your additional information, when I contributed past GLORY's event page I always user "background" section but Hard7kek didn't. and I never contributed about "international broadcasting" section because I don't know well about that, but he did. not only this big 2 differences but in details his article is not like mine in very many ways.(for example I always user "upcoming" word on the article of future event, but he didn't use it.) Frenchcafe (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And the editor can't remove the speedy delete template. Prod yes, but not CSD or AFD templates. I'd be inclined to just restore the CSD template. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedily deleted, but there's still plenty of reasons to delete this article. The only source is a link to the promotion's web page so WP:GNG is not met. There's also no indication that this fight card meets WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This obviously isn't the best place to discuss sockpuppetry, but wanted it noted here that after my report Frenchcafe has been found to be a sockpuppeter, inconclusive at the moment whether Hard7kek is one of the socks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Frenchcafe). It's something which does need to be borne in mind when closing. Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so you found anything about relation with me, Hard7kek and IP user above? following your link page I see nothing found about your suspect that me and Hard7kek are same people, right? And about Rokaf118, that is my former account and after I made current new account in 2013 I rarely used former account except only 1 particular page and I contributed to my main interested field (kickboxing, martial arts, etc) only with current account. yeah I didn't see illegitimate act that still using old account with current account, so I will not use that old accout anymore. But that is nothing with above issue on this discussion, because i'm not them above, so the fact is here is 3 people who think Glory 21: San Diego article should be keep and 6 people who think opposite until now. That is the result of this discussion. Frenchcafe (talk) 08:53, 9 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. Consensus sounds like TOOSOON Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Olubowale

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

Non-notable boxer with no significant coverage. Fails GNG since the only sources given are passing mentions. The titles he fought for were minor (not surprising with a record of 10 wins in 18 fights) and there's nothing to show his acting career is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per hardly known, barely known contributions in both his fighting and acting careers and insufficient news coverage. Like the starter of the ADF said, brief mentions aren't notable. Longevitydude (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Suttungr (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't shown anything passing GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been cast in a fairly high profile movie in the DC comics universe, Suicide Squad. With, you know, Jared Leto and Will Smith and a couple other nobodies.--Jorm (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The movie doesn't come out for a year and a half and notability is not inherited from being in a movie with notable actors.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keepA boxer who has a decent fighting record as well as an actor. He has transcended boxing and qualifies under GNG. IB Times is a notable article. [39] noted in a book [40] and [41]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:NACTOR and none of the listed coverage is anything but routine sports reporting. Don't know why you make up your own criteria when they already exist.Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence that he meets WP:NBOX, WP:NACTOR, or WP:GNG and he can't inherit notability from being in a film with notable actors. Papaursa (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been cast as a significant character in a high profile movie in the DC comics universe, Suicide Squad. --rcross (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— rcross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The movie hasn't come out so we don't know if he has a significant role and even if he does, one role is not enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the creator of the article, it appears I jumped the gun here. I don't think's it as big of a GNG fail as some are making it to be, but most of the sources are routine reporting of him getting cast in the movie.--Yankees10 16:37, 13 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. I'm giving less weight to arguments from non-established users or based on SNGs that are not relevant to the subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

John Roseberry

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

Judoka with no significant coverage to meet GNG who also fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:MANOTE. No evidence he ever placed at an open national championship (military events don't count).Mdtemp (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If your nomination is based on him not placing in a national championships, you are mistaken as an article in the page explicity states he placed in a national championships. [42] CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a great guy, but his "claims to fame" of don't really get him past notability. Brief mentions in notable publications don't do it. The system he founded doesn't pass MANOTE and histories written by his students to enhance their own marketability don't help. In the end, the subject lack significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentHe was the founder of his own style. He has had whole articles written about him in various magazines including the Daily Nebraskan. [43] He was the sport director of the year for the cornhusker state games. [44] He was an Olympic Alternate for the 1964 Olympic Games. He is the first non-Asian to have received black belts in both Judo and Karate. [45] He is a runner up in the US Nationals in Judo. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE There are no indications of his notability. There are only three sentences verified that could be possibly lead to any level of notability. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment a pioneer of okinawan martial arts in america does make him notable. [46] CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I wish him the best in his endeavors, but as far as the encyclopedia goes, he doesn't make it past [[WP:BARE|the bare minimum requirements of being encyclopaedic-ally notable. Longevitydude (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentA founder of one style (karate), an active competitor in another style (Judo), and a pioneer in Karate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Strong keep as a founder of a style of karate, a pioneer of okinawan karate in the United States, an Olympic Alternate in Judo, an active competitor in Judo. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founding a style doesn't get you past MANOTE, when the style itself doesn't pass MANOTE. Merely existing doesn't make it notable.

Keep The article suffers from source bombardment but there are at least a couple seemingly reliable sources that cover the subject (WP:GNG). See the Daily Nebraskan link and the google books link that CrazyAces489 provided. Do the sources provide a strong case for the subject's notability? I'll admit that they don't and my gut tells me this article is a "Delete", but I don't know much about karate and the rules are the rules and notability is to be presumed according to WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG states Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There are only trivial mentions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerod here are three whole and independent articles dedicated to him. [47], [48], you can read the OCR text for the article here [49]. This here is bigger than a passing mention but not a whole article [50] . CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, please stop posting the same links over and over. Coverage by the local paper doesn't do that much for me. When it's part of a series profiling different people, even less so. The local paper probably writes about a local high school QB too, but that doesn't make him notable either. A mention in a non-notable book written by a non-notable author (your last source) also does nothing for me. Lastly, the article you say is more than a passing mention is exactly what a passing mention is. The article is about the festival. Mentioning that Roseberry has a local school and put on a demo is a passing mention. The article isn't about him and says very little about him, aside from the fact that he owns a school and can shout commands. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36, Notability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, Ramsey Nouah, a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. I consider your hostile response WP:BITEy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the response wasn't to you, whether if not you find it "bitey" is irrelevant. Second, BITE is "don't bite the newcomers". Since neither you, nor the editor I responded to can play the new editor card, that's a pointless reference to make. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Olympic alternate makes him notable and the "local" paper provides verification. You have already posted your vote. Have a nice day. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why you don't see me voting again! I can' however, comment on your comments as often as I want. How on earth can you think it's ok for you to address multiple editors, but I can't address you? You seriously need to learn how the process works. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all the best on your endeavors. Have a wonderful day. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, being an alternate doesn't pass NSPORTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS is just a guide. He passes WP:GNG and that is what counts. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks. In 8 years of editing here, I had no clue that NSPORTS was a guideline. Of course GNG is what counts and he isn't passing it. Thanks for needlessly wikilinking me to a policy that I'm well acquainted with. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Everyone learns something everyday. I learn something new all the time. I am also here to help others. He is passing GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving you enough credit to presume that you'd recognize that was sarcasm. Now I'm not so sure that I should have been that generous. Since you don't bother to try to comply with RS and have demonstrated you're not really that adept at separating a passing mention from significant coverage, I'm not going to put a lot of stock in your GNG proclamation. Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to build up wikipedia in a peaceful and nice manner. I don't see the point in using sarcasm as people might be offended by it. I am not the only one who disagrees with you. That is why we have a consensus. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what else people may find offensive? Acting like they haven't managed to figure out the basics in 8 years. What else could people find offensive? Creating tons of questionable articles, spammed with non-reliable sources and telling people that your role is to create and improving them is for someone else to do. You are correct, you're not alone. There is another editor who even concedes that his gut tells him this articles is a delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing.*Keep:- There are multiple third party reliable sources that established the subject notability as a martial artists, apart from the Reliable sources already present in the article. In addition, the subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#1 which says that an artist is notable if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.This source confirmed him as an important figure in addition to the sources already cited in the article. Also he is a founder of a recognized institution founder of a recognized institution. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that first source isn't a reliable source. Second, ARTIST doesn't apply here. MANOTE is for martial artists. Third, the style he founded isn't notable under MANOTE, so founding it doesn't help. "Widely noted" would take more than a couple of entries in books nobody bought. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your interpretation of WP:RS? How are those books that discussed the subject in details not reliable sources? WP:MANOTE is an alternative to WP:GNG. Subject doesn't have to meet WP:MANOTE if WP:GNG is met, again motability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, Ramsey Nouah, a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of MANOTE and it's relationship to GNG. My mention if it was your claim that ARTIST somehow applied here. It doesn't. If we're going to use a topic specific guideline (one that takes into account the common specifics of the topic), then we should use the correct one, not some poorly applied, unrelated one. What is a RS? Well the policy you unnecessarily linked answers that for us. One of the biggest would be a reputation for editorial oversight. Clearly the freeserver hosted personal website wouldn't pass. I invited you to take that site to RSN and see how many people agree with you about the reliability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about only one source here? I mean multiple sources established the subject notability. I'm not talking about subject own website here. Several sources pointed out in the article and even with a quick google search are third-party sources, that are independent of the subject. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my initial response to you, I said "that first source isn't a reliable source". You offered hathagojuryukaratedo.freeservers.com as evidence of his importance. That site is not a RS. Not even close. I'd love to see you take that to RSN. I've addressed other sources in responses to others or at the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that all we have is a relatively small cluster of individual schools under a particular name not a style which is recognized in the karate world as significant.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentthe organization is notable. he is also a US Olympic Alternate. he won multiple judo championships. he is the subject of numerous independent articles. he easily passes GNG. Stay with your opinion Wikicology. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As PRehse correctly pointed out, the style itself is fairly small and non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per CrazyAces489, and especially the part about the article subject being a founder of a style of karate. I also agree with Wikic¤l¤gy when he stated "There are multiple third party reliable sources that established the subject notability as a martial artists, apart from the Reliable sources already present in the article. In addition, the subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#1 which says that an artist is notable if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.This source confirmed him as an important figure in addition to the sources already cited in the article. Also he is a founder of a recognized institution [51]. Article subject clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST#1, and has passed over the threshold of notability WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you folks from the article creation project keep citing ARTIST? This guy isn't an artist. Then you cut and paste the same unreliable source as "evidence" of meeting a standard that the guy isn't subject to. That source isn't even close to passing RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WordSeventeen I agree with you. You are right there is enough GNG in this article. Niteshift36 maybe they see something you don't see! CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you use the incorrect guideline, I'm sure you do see something different. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was avoiding this but some of the comments are drawing me in. The relevant guidelines are WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. I suppose WP:ATHLETE could be considered but I have no idea why we have two editors bringing up WP:ARTIST. The subject does not meet either WP:MANOTE or WP:ATHLETE. He neither competed at the highest level (for Judo that would be the World Championships or the Olympics) nor did he found a significant style of karate. At most it is a cluster of schools. High rank, titles and memberships in soke councils (or similar self-congratulating organizations) have, and for good reason, never been considered as a base for notability. This brings us to WP:GNG and I don't think, when you actually look at the sources listed is being met. The best one was the Lincoln article but in reality that is nothing more than a local interest piece (in my opinion) and is pretty borderline. The freeserver page is in no way a RS and I don't see how it is even part of the discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment He meets GNG, and is a strong well known martial artist. The problem with MANOTE is that it is biased against martial arts that isn't in the Olympics or has a world championships. Only two martial arts compete in the Olympics - Judo and Taekwondo! What happens with martial arts in Aikido? What defines a "world championship" ? What about ninjitsu? What about Yoga? There is an inherent problem with MANOTE as many martial arts do NOT compete! There are many RS that are used. It proves that he was an Olympic Alternate which shows notability and the first person to earn a black belt in judo and karate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more to MANOTE than world championships. If Roseberry's style was notable (which MANOTE provides guidelines for), then this might be a different conversation. Since Yoga isn't a martial art, I'll ask....what about it? What does that have to do with anything? Neither MANOTE or ATHLETE use being an Olympic alternate as an indicator of notability. ATHLETE says competed in Olympics. The alternate not only doesn't compete unless something happens, they often don't even make the trip to the games. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyAces489, I'm getting the impression that you don't quite know the point behind subordinate notability criteria such as MANOTE. It's not to create some fuzzy concept of "fairness" or "balance." It's to reflect whether people or institutions are likely to pass the GNG. The reason that Olympians are listed in NSPORTS is that someone who competes in the Olympics is very likely to generate press significant enough to meet the GNG. The reason that Olympic alternates aren't listed is that they're quite unlikely by that fact alone to do so. The reason that UFC practitioners are favored is that organizations such as the UFC generate a great deal of press activity, and that amateur aikido and "ninjitsu" practitioners do not. The reason why MANOTE is so stringent about a high bar of proof for a "notable" style or school is that -- as I'm sure you don't need being told if you know anything at all about martial arts -- there's an enormous level of puffery in the field, and there are a lot of so-called "bullshido" peddlers out there who proclaim themselves 10th Dan Magenta Belt High Grandmasters of "Watashi-wa-petenshida Okithenwan Kung-Fu Karate" for the purposes of raking in marks for their local dojos.
The way we distinguish the bullshido peddlers from the real guys is through multiple reliable sources. If we're to swallow this guy's claim to have "created a style," a casual namedrop in the foreword of an obscure book or a fluff piece in the local newspaper won't suffice. We need a half-dozen good, reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (that being, in fact, what the GNG requires), they need not to be all local (as WP:GEOSCOPE indicates), and they need to discuss the subject in "significant detail" -- as has been said elsewhere on Wikipedia, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If those don't exist? Well, I have no reason to believe that Roseberry isn't a good teacher and a hell of a swell fellow. He just doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Aikido? What about Ninjitsu? Do you see the bias? Some martial arts have a competitive aspect, some do not. He qualifies under WP:Artist and GNG! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see the non-existant bias. Where did you get this notion that only arts with a world championship are notable or that the only way to become notable is to win one? None of us have said that. And I could careless is he passes "ARTIST", because that isn't applicable here. He's not an artist. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is always an acceptable standard, but there's no indication he meets that. Since he is a judoka, I don't see the validity of your argument regarding certain martial arts being at a disadvantage. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is more known for Karate. Please read the biography. He does qualify via GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea why people are using the notability criteria for artists, unless they don't know the difference between an "artist" and a "martial artist". The coverage from the Lincoln paper is local color and I see nothing that shows the significant coverage from independent reliable sources that are necessary to meet WP:GNG. Since he never competed at the Olympics or world championships there's nothing to show he meets WP:ATHLETE. There's also no indication that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. As far as some of the specific claims go, I was not able to find any listing of U.S. judo national championship results that mention Roseberry and the claim he was an alternate for the 1964 U.S. Olympic team lacks supporting evidence (and even if it was true it wouldn't be sufficient to show notability). In fact, Black Belt magazine's reporting of the trials [52] specifically mentions all of the winners and second place finishers saying they would be training together to prep for the 1964 Olympics and Roseberry is not mentioned. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is more than a Judo practitioner. He is a founder of a style of karate and an Aikido practitioner. That link does not show third place finishers. The article given states he was an Olympic alternate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated; being an "alternate" olympian does not confer notability. That's like "almost" made the team - he could "almost" have the notability, but not quite. Same can be said for third place finishers - the link does not show them, because they are not notable enough. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An alternate shows a portion of his accolades. He founded a notable martial art, and is the subject of many independent articles. This includes these [53] [54] [55] as well as the ones below. Showing that it will pass GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By that standard, I should immediately start an article on my daughter for participating in Irish Dance, and her appearances in local theater; she has more local TV and newspaper coverage than evidenced here. Heck, I should consider an article for myself, if local puff pieces on community events are to be used to confer encyclopedic notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of local "almost famous" people. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goo point ScrapIron. Local papers (and TV) have to fill space with local interest and local flavor stories. That is the reason they exist. Otherwise, we'd all use USA Today. They write interest pieces about a guy opening a new business, a paragraph about someone getting promoted from salesman manager to VP of a local car dealership or someone doing something interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rule of thumb that goes a long way - does the coverage exceed my own. As I am not notable, it it doesn't (insert suitable Latin sounding phrase here).Peter Rehse (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let's examine, for example, the links CrazyAces have posted. The first and fifth sources (from the same source) are fluff blog pieces of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. The second is a mere mention of the subject's name in a list, and therefore can't be used to sustain the notability of the subject. The third reports, credulously, false claims that open grave doubts about it meeting the fact-checking requirement of the GNG and WP:IRS. The fourth is a casual one-sentence mention of the sort the GNG explicitly debars. The sixth is a casual mention. The seventh is the exact same citation as the third; err?
As far as being an aikido practitioner goes, that in of itself isn't notable, and anyone connected with martial arts should know that. As far as "creating a style" goes, there are hundreds of guys around the world who claim to have "created a style," at least for the purposes of declaring themselves 10th dan rainbow belt grandmasters and peddling videos ... my old teacher, a simple black belt in a legit style, sold out and repackaged himself as a similar bullshido peddler. Perhaps Roseberry isn't in that camp: in which case, there are multiple reliable sources saying so. Where are they, please? Ravenswing 07:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point about this "he founded a style" claim. MANOTE provides specific guidance in helping a style be recognized as notable. This style hasn't attained that notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance, not rule of law. It is noted that he (1) was a strong competitor in one style, (2) founded a completely different style, and (3) earned high ranks in 3 styles. He is notable by all three not a single thing. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on ScrapIronIV, the individual has a number of independent articles written about him. One article cover the state of Nebraska. The articles in a general sense span a few decades. The first person to have earned a Blackbelt in both Karate and Judo. That puts everything over the top in terms of notability. 143.85.76.26 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused ScrapIronIV argues for a delete and I must say the claim to be the first person to earn a black belt in Judo and Karate can not be right - American maybe?.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article doesn't make the claim that he's the first person. And the claim that he's the first American comes from a local newspaper. I have great doubt that the source of that claim was anything other than Roseberry himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you your information from about their research claims. Keep article as it provides me proof of his notability. I am impressed as being the first non oriental black belt in karate and judo. 172.56.23.118 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)— 172.56.23.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability isn't established by being impressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first "in something is notable in itself". CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, if it was true, but it's bullshit. Robert Trias -- born and raised in Arizona -- was a black belt in karate seventy years ago. Other karate pioneers like Ed Parker, John Keenan, Walter Todd and Cecil Patterson were over sixty years ago. Todd and other judo pioneers such as Phil Porter, James Bregman, Karl Geis, Donn Draeger and George Harris were black belts in the 40s and early 50s. Anyone with a credible knowledge of martial arts history, or else willing to do ten minutes worth of research, ought to have known that. An examination of some of the other claims in the article lead to webpages with broken links, sources that don't actually say what the statements claim, or completely unsourced statements altogether. This is looking more and more like a dollop of truth drowned by a pitcher-full of bullshido puffery. Ravenswing 01:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please identify one American who had a black belt in Judo and Karate BEFORE John Roseberry? If not you are making an unsourced statement. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the claim is not the first to have a blackbelt in judo OR karate but the first American with a blackbelt in both. I still have trouble believing that without a better source but just saying.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I know of at least one American who had a black belt in both before Roseberry had one in any discipline: Ed Parker, who was a judo black belt in 1949 and a karate black belt in 1953. Phil Porter had his judo black belt in 1954 and his karate black belt in 1956. Ravenswing 19:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dynamic athlete who won multiple black belt events and earned near the highest rank in every art he trained in. A legend in Nebraska and recognized by many other independent sources. Clearly meets Gng 208.54.87.248 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)— 208.54.87.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, I will have struck my initial votes to Delete per Ravenswing. Ips, I remind you that what we do here is not an election and coming here to vote multiple times does not make a difference. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting coincidence that both of the IP editors who popped in late in the game with only a few edits each have the same provider in T-Mobile. Complete coincidence I'm sure. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: Ravenswing comments haven't been proven to be true. There is no documented American to have a black belt in Judo and Karate before John Roseberry. There is documented articles that state that Ravenswing was the first black belt in Judo and Karate which is the article "Gentle Roseberry Judo Ace." [56] The article John Roseberry does not have broken links or unsourced statements. Almost every line in the article is sourced. Sources have been removed, so anything that was previously unsourced had a source before. [57] CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're just not paying attention then, and you obviously haven't bothered following any of the names I linked. Robert Trias, for one, was documented as receiving his first black belt in July of 1943, when Roseberry wasn't yet out of elementary school. Ravenswing 19:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, I feel if this article was written better, it would have a case to remain on. From what I read though, some of the "facts" are clearly in dispute, so perhaps if more qualifying references were available, then possibly the subject in question is notable. Note, CrazyAces489 that you are not making a case by arguing with every comment, and possibly using IP editors that you control to support your opinion. Try actually improving the article and maybe people will change their minds, but it may just be the subject is not notable and you need to except it. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 8:50, 15 April 2015

@TheGracefulSlick and Niteshift36: Watch your accusations! I have no issue bringing this forth to an AN/I! Past that, The Graceful Slick haven't stated the same thing to Niteshift whom has been spoken to about commenting on every response. [58]. Lastly in being helpful, TGS, the word you want to use is accept not except. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that your reading comprehension failed you. I called it an interesting coincidence. Since your entire defense about "I didn't actually call anyone a racist" hinges on the fact that you only did it by inference, you can't turn around and consider this any differently. Feel free to take it to ANI. That doesn't worry me in the least. I know what I just said. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any accusations, as I said possibly you were doing so. Being so defensive is unnecessary. If you want to go to AN/I be my guest as I have done nothing wrong. Thanks for the grammar update, simple mistakes like that can be annoying. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 9:15, 15 April 2015

CA correcting someone else's grammar may be the funniest thing I'll read all day. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with CrazyAces489, initially almost every statement in the article was sourced with WP:RS Editors have over the course of this AFD have removed sources and citations here and there. As for TheGracefulSlick's comment above "CrazyAces489 that you are not making a case by arguing with every comment, and possibly using IP editors that you control to support your opinion." is a baseless allegation with no proof given. That sort of statement with no proof offered has no place in an AFD, and borders on a personal attack. If you have evidence of such an impropriety of sock or meat puppetry the proper place to discuss that would be at WP:SPI. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of the issue.....they weren't reliable sources. Blogs from non-notables, websites run by karate schools and nonsense like that aren't reliable sources. If you think some random dude's blog is a reliable source, then I submit that you need a refresher course. So your initial assertion is false. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proof was given when the user commented on every response, as for the second portion of the statement, it was a mere possibility. By taking it for more than it is, you only make yourself suspicious. And I enjoy reading your opinion, but it is still just an opinion that is outweighed by the fact this article doesn't meet notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 9:57, 15 April 2015

Comment Well you both, The Graceful Slick and Nightshift are incorrect. I did nothing suspicious, and that is really funny that you "claim' that while you two editors were mustering up over at [59], and then come back over to this AFD to WP:TAGTEAM. I already voted, and I am willing to let the chips fall where they may. Have a good day everyone! Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've said here was incorrect. I've been involved with this article and this AfD from the start. Graceful Slick, who I've never spoken to before today (go ahead, search away) has been here for a day and made a couple of comments. Take your lame conspiracy theory and your equally lame tag team application elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, my comment must have struck a nerve, the gutting of the articles references has just begun. It is a shame when editors take their frustrations out on an article and thereby Wikipedia itself. That is really too bad, and harmful to the encyclopedia. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to look, you'll see that I've done extensive editing of sources on that article from the start. Don't take credit for anything. All I did clean up your attempt to add non-RS sources to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CA, agreeing with another editor does not make it tag-teaming--any more that you and Word17 are "tag-teaming". The only source for the claim he was first is Roseberry talking to a local reporter and that's not an independent reliable source. There's also no reliable sources given for the national runner-up claim. If someone believes sockpuppets are involved, they should take it to SPI. FWIW, there is an ongoing SPI for CrazyAces if you're serious about the sockpuppet claim.Mdtemp (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdtemp: Why don't you direct your conversation to WordSeventeen. Although I agree with him I didn't make any reference to tag-teaming. There is also a reliable source given for national runner up. Take a look in the article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You agree with the tag teaming allegation? An editor I've never spoken to before (and still haven't responded to) participates here and then posts a comment on my talk page. Suddenly that's "tag teaming" to you. But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars is somehow not pretty much the same thing? Thanks for the laugh. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We did no tag-teaming together, I was just complimenting him for dealing with this headache. Just because we (along with just about everyone else, except some "unregistered users") agree on the same thing does not mean we were up to anything. I am refraining from any more comments on this page as the article will surely be deleted. CrazyAces do not take anything personally from my opinions on the article, by attacking already confirmed to be notable articles. We can work together and hopefully no more of your articles will need to be deleted. If not, please refrain from communicating with me as I only work with users who want to positively work with each other.TheGracefulSlick (User talk:TheGracefulSlick)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 15:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Pan American Men's Junior Handball Championship

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

Unsourced article about a sports competition. I am unable to find any sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OLM.net

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

Not really my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, so hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Business Wire is simply a collection of news releases, and the bankruptcy citation is Original research. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't able to find sources meeting CORPDEPTH. A lot of advertising, a shout out in a book about art marketing, press releases, but not WP:CORP. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:21, 13 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 decker ^talk 15:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dzok Trun Trun

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

Hoax, most probably. The image included in this article was of an owner of an ice cream shop. The first reference appears to be to a site focusing on the Dalai Lama; hardly likely to be relevant. The second and third are dead links, I cannot verify what they said. The last one has been preserved by the Internet Archive; while I cannot read it, the file metadata say "Terton Sherab Bar's Biography with CONTENT.". Neither of the two existing sources contains the supposed name of this person spelled in Dzongkha ("བོ་ཡིག་ག། །མ་རྫོང").

You should thank Wikipediocracy for discovering this. — Keφr 13:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant Hoax. Bosstopher (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, unclear notability, references do not support content, probable hoax.Dialectric (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From the author's edit history and user page (implausible), the Wikipediocracy article, the English (too good), his familiarity with editing, and the content of the article, it certainly looks like a hoax. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. The name given is "བོ་ཡིག་ག། །མ་རྫོང", which is Boyik Gama dzong. Ogress _smash! 05:59, 13 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 per WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G5 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin lokapure

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability, and WP:BASIC. He has some papers listed in Google Scholar but not nothing highly cited (highest number of citations is four). Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Jbh (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin G Lokapure for the reasoning. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, pinging them, @Wgolf:, @Velella:, @Optakeover:, @Ohnoitsjamie:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, @Lakun.patra:, @Tigraan:, and @Bakerstmd: an article you voted on before is back at AfD. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as this was deleted already as well as SP. Wgolf (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tagged the article db-g4 Jbh (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As before. BakerStMD 23:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per CSD G4. Optakeover ^(Talk) 01:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4; nothing substantially different from last version. Please promote yourself elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:38, 7 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 decker ^talk 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deepta Roy Chakraverti

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability, WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Notibility is not inherited. Jbh (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the references are horrible, but this is a legitimately published writer with a movie. -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity page created by a SPA account only for promotional purposes, her book appears to be non-notable, she fails GNG and other suitable SNGs, TOOSOON at best. Cavarrone 05:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low amount of notability. Fundarise (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:56, 12 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 decker ^talk 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in Colour

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

No coverage in reliable sources/WP:NFSOURCES to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NF. Not released WP:NFF Jbh (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. Even though we might consider an official New Zealand government source reliable enough, the un-aired project lacks enough other coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a WP article on this subject is premature. A government grant was recently awarded to Greenstone TV, but beyond the press release (copied verbatim into this WP article) there is a lack of information to confirm when the project may be started or finished and in what way it is notable. Better as a draft at this stage. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 16:42, 8 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 decker ^talk 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gollapalli Jayanna

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

Not enough references to support. Vin09 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Able to find the subject substantially covered in a single reliable source [60] (cited), which according to the basic criteria for WP:GNG, does not suffice for notability all by itself. (Note: I added WP:1R). Further investigation revealed other secondary sources, but their coverage of the subject is indeed trivial. Specifically, only mentioned by name on a reliable source [61] (not cited), and further trivial coverage on sources that are bound to a geographic locality and are less reliable: a document from the educational institution he attended [62] (not cited), and an event publication [63] (not cited). Now for the additional criteria, I do not believe that for a WP:BLP, the subject satisfies WP:ARTIST based on the current body of evidence. Unless someone finds other sources in the time frame of this AfD, my assessment is a Delete. ← scribble · ink _chat\^contrib 17:12, 26 March 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 11:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 2 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) 09:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Little notability. Mr RD 16:32, 7 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 decker ^talk 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passfeed

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

Non notable. No English references. The Chinese references are advertisements which are not reliable. Hang9417 (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article creator appears to be a single purpose account. Unable to find any sources in English, article may be appropriate for the Chinese(?) wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉ 14:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vote delete simply because a news search didn't turn up anything in English, this very well may be notable but an editor who speaks whatever language it is that pops up when you reading it (which appears to be a Chinese perhaps I'm not a linguist by any means)Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:49, 7 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 procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catch (Allie X song)

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

Non-notable debut single by non-notable singer. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really can't see why this article should be deleted or merged. There's already sources cited in the article that gives the song significant coverage, per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have no idea how my article is not notable. Obviously large institutions like Billboard and TIME think it's notable enough to mention her and her single multiple times. Also aren't you supposed to fully explain how it violates the policies? I don't really see that you did that.SanctuaryX (talk) : 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If found non-notable, should redirect to the album its on. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sanctuary, it is not your article. Please see WP:OWN. As you mentioned above th time and billboard references are just mentions. Article subject fails to met WP:GNG. The references include mentions at the time reference and billboard reference. Also there are links as references to sales sites of itunes and amazon. Other references are youtube and sound cloud. None of these have significant coverage from WP:RS. The only one that might be considered significant is the interview at [64] WordSeventeen (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WordSeventeen I realize I do not "own" the article, but you are supposed to identify that you have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article. Sorry you misunderstood. WP:AVOIDCOI. I fail to see in any way how it does not meet WP:GNG. It has received significant coverage from multiple sources, they come from reliable sources with integrity, the content for most of the article is based on secondary sources, and they are independent of the subject. Moving on, The Youtube/Soundcloud references are for very specific things, like release dates and labels. Not information that can be biased or obfuscated. As quoted directly from WP:RS, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." I am in no way making any such claim with those references. Also, there are two Billboard references, and some of them are not just a mention. The song has also managed to chart, which does put points in it's favor for meeting the WP:NSONGS criteria. There is another interview from Radio.com conducted by Courtney E. Smith. I've further updated the article with even more interviews cited. If you have a problem with a few minor references like the Youtube for publication date, a request for reliable citation should be made, not requesting that entire article be deleted.SanctuaryX (talk) : 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the person doing a nomination for deletion to " have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article." Please redact your personal attack, "No need to be a snob" It is inappropriate to attack the nominator. Also please comment on the content not the editors or nominator. I have no COI, in fact I have no relationship or ties to this non-notable singer or her non-notable debut single. Perhaps it is just too soon. WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how you still managed to misconstrue my meaning. I had a right to identify my interest in the article and was chastised for doing so. I never, ever said you had any relation to the article. Again, I don't see how any of the information doesn't follow protocols. I suppose we will just wait and see.

SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if you are busy or what but please take the time to read and understand what I am saying. I only disclosed I created the article. I am in no way affiliated with the sources of any of the content or the subject. I am incredibly frustrated I did the right thing and am being reprimanded for it.
Comment I have removed the objected content as it was not essential to the article; only the "mentions" remain as they are used only as direct quotations as they are reviewing the song in question. When you have time please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG. It's been ranked on the Canadian hot 100 and the article cites multiple non-trivial published sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and these sources [65][66][67][68][69][70][71] and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Allie X. Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud. Miniapolis 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Miniapolis: There's not a page for "all of her recordings." There's 3 pages for her. 3. One for her, her first major label release, and her only charting single. That's nominal. I did my best not to include anything that has little to nothing to mention. And again, there's alternatives to the WP:GNG, like the WP:MUS.SanctuaryX (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song has charted, so it passes WP:NSONGS. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:01, 9 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 decker ^talk 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd.

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

Non notable. The apparently impressive refs are less than they look--even the NYT ref is a labelled press release, and the Nature ref is a mere listing among many other companies. They are not on the main board of the NYSE their market symbol , NYSE MKT:CANF, is for NYSE, which is the auxiliary for new companies, formerly known as the American Stock Exchange. Written apparently in the hope that nobody would actually look at their sources. , which is presumably why they omitted the tell-talk stock exchange symbol. It's understandably why they have nothing better to show,since they have no products to market--they have only drugs in phase Ii studies, which will take them years from now, even if they succeed. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 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) 04:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and DGG's analysis of references. Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. BakerStMD 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGGs spot on analysis. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 7 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. No argument put forward for notability. I'll add a redirect (as Boleyn suggests) at my discretion, redirects are cheap. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Order of Weird Writers

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

I was unsure if this was real or not until I looked this up just now. It does seem to have the entire article of: http://www.hawaiilibrary.net/article/whebn0006087371/grand%20order%20of%20weird%20writers (Though that might be public domain stuff) and the article has been around for a while. Anyway not sure if this really even qualifies for Wikipedia! Wgolf (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a couple of sources just confirming that a couple of writers are members of this group, but nothing significant. As for the Hawaii Book Library page, "licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0" is a good clue - it's sourced from the World Heritage Encyclopedia which is a WP mirror. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even notice the source part till now-it was pretty late when I read it last night though (was doing stuff over Easter so yeah). With that said it was basically the only Google hit I could find that was not a Wikipedia mirror. Now this does indeed exist from what I can tell though. Wgolf (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete Not notable, but possibly worth redirect to Charlie Carlson, founder. Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 13 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronna and Beverly

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

Podcast appears to fail WP:WEB. With the exception of the twitter hash tag, all references are related to the podcast. No significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nick! I understand the issue now and will edit accordingly! Thanks! Icahnt (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 March 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) 08:43, 29 March 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has a variety of citations from disparate and reputable news sources, which include references to various stage shows and interviews with the creators of Ronna and Beverly, which should justify their notability. Rebeccaawigmore (talk) 14:21, 10 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. Dagenbs Nyheter coverage is a pretty big deal in Sweden. Since noone has refuted this coverage it sways the discussion to keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Myrberg

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

Basically a not inherited issue. Looking around has not done much films. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His Linkedin profile indicates that he is unlikely to do more acting work. GameOn (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs to be improved but from a notability stand-point the actor has had roles in several major Swedish productions. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added various facts to the article, not only additional TV parts but also information on Myrberg's stage career where he has been reviewed several times (as an actor as well as a playwright) by Sweden's largest morning paper Dagens Nyheter. /FredrikT (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not WP:Inherited or temporary. Longevitydude (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see that anyone above has argued that the article should be kept due to the fact that Myrberg has a couple of well-known relatives. In my opinion he is notable as an actor and a playwright in his own right. /FredrikT (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FredrikT has added reviews that specifically address the subject's work. WP:GNG is met. No one has argued here that notability is inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, the nominator has argued that this is an issue of notability being inherited. He hasn't played a notable role in the short list of TV series. The TV productions mentioned that he had a stage career at don't have articles which shows they weren't notable either. It seems that he and his even less notable brother's only claim to fame is that their father acted in 45 films since 1957. Even their father's article lacks a lasting impact that would warrant an encyclopedic entry. Longevitydude (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand what you're saying but for me it's a Keep on a technicality which is that there are sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Let's agree to disagree. I have to point out, is it possible that you're misunderstanding WP:LASTING? It seems to me that it refers specifically to events and that for people, notability is not temporary. The reason why it seems this must be the case is that the vast majority of today's notable people will one day be found to be, for lack of a better term, has-beens. To give you an example, no one will be able to say that the "famous for being famous" celebrities of our day are going to have a "lasting impact" 100 years from now. Yet theyre notable today and they will be interesting to study for at least some people in the future. In the Wikipedia that you seem to envision, the dead will have to be removed to make place for new notable people in the same way that cemeteries clear out the bones from old plots. This isn't the Wikipedia project I support. It contradicts the promise beauty of this new era of cheap and near-free reproduction and preservation of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - With respect, I'm not saying just anyone whose dead should be removed or even that just anyone who returns should be removed. There are many people from long ago who influence society today for the contributions they made to history. Fredrik Myrberg simply had small roles in a few TV shows. None of his contributions changed history or had a lasting impact. I don't question that he had a lasting impact on some people's lives, we all do, but he didn't influence history in a way that society as a whole either benefited or suffered from. Granted, you have a point concerning the LASTING guidelines as being about events instead of people, but this article still fails WP:NACTOR. You're more than welcome to address the NACTOR guideline from my below comment. I'm still learning how to use different guidelines in deletion discussions as this isn't something I've done very much of until very recently. Longevitydude (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR Longevitydude (talk) 18:00, 7 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 Asterix games#Video games . j⚛e decker ^talk 15:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix & Friends

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

Not Notable enough. Can't find lots of reliable sources for this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or redirect it to Asterix or its developer Sproing Interactive Media. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:38, 6 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) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Asterix games#Video games and list it there, as with all the other Asterix games not notable enough for their own articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of character games, though I think it'd be nicer to link to gamigo AG, a studio with a game by the same name (same game?) Anyway, easy. Before coming to AfD, always see if a simple, cheap redirect could save the day. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, mostly repackaged press releases, but enough hits to warrant a redirect to the parent studio. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 22:21, 8 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 Power Rangers Wild Force episodes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Red

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

The first AFD back in November 2007 was closed as redirect to List of Power Rangers Wild Force episodes. Since then, it has been restored and reverted numerous times for a variety of reasons. Some think we should stick to the first AFD consensus while others believe it is a notable episode and that AFD no longer plays. I do not find this notable enough for a standalone article. The plot is excessively long and the production section is nothing but trivia and fancruft. Sad to say that kids' shows' episodes lack things adult shows' episodes would normally have to merit an individual article like pre-production info, ratings, viewership, and awards or recognitions for the actors, directors etc. Many other Power Ranger episode articles like Countdown to Destruction and Once a Ranger have been redirected and/or merged to the main TV show articles, so I do not see why this one cannot since the important content here can be added to either Power Rangers Wild Force or the episode list article. I would have done a WP:BOLD merge or redirect had it not been for the sock puppetry involved. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:50, 22 March 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 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 22 March 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) 05:29, 29 March 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) 03:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suggest delete on the basis of WP:Notability, there may be coverage on this but not from reliable secondary sources (that I could find) I have no doubt that a wiki of this depth exists for Power rangers, but it isn't encyclopedic in notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers Wild Force episodes (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion.
Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if in the future editors find sources that establish notability. Furthermore, a redirect will allow the content to be used in List of Power Rangers Wild Force episodes if any editors wants to do a selective merge.
Cunard (talk) 00:08, 15 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 decker ^talk 15:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and Bones (band)

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

there's at least the The Weirdest band in the World source, but fails WP:BAND (note WP is not a webhost for artists to promote themselves, and hire undisclosed paid editors as the case here.) Widefox; talk 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy any criterion of WP:NBAND. No coverage found from reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 1 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 decker ^talk 03:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBAND. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:57, 6 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 Ace of Base discography. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sign (VHS, Region 1) (1994)

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

Long time unreferenced VHS tape collection that has actually been even discussed as a merge since last year. Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ace of Base discography I actually owned this, but that doesn't establish notability and it's not enough for a solo article, but it works just fine as part of the discography as a section after the Music Videos heading. Nate • (chatter) 02:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Video collections like this are just not notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 13:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nate and the merge to-template in the article. Tomas e (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same? J 1982 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) http://smdb.kb.se/catalog/id/001401762[reply]

Delete or Merge- SimonP (talk) 21:57, 25 March 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 10:32, 29 March 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) 03:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ace of Base discography. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thorcon

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

Non-notable molten salt reactor project. Article is without independent references, apparently created by someone closely involved with the product. Nothing here that cannot be adequately covered in our article on molten salt reactors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:GNG. ― Padenton |☎ 17:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Beginning WP:BRD now... -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:22, 6 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 10:32, 29 March 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) 03:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keeppasses GNG notability has been established. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:34, 9 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein after two relistings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Marrie

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

Not a notable actress. Only sources are imdb and her own webstie. JDDJS (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sources aren't showing much. There is not much image consistency (an unofficial test I know) either; usually well-known media people have page after page of images of the same person. Also pageview counts mediocre. Biggest problem was that I could not find sources in US publications, entertainment-related publications, international, suggesting there is not much media attention about her.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 22 March 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 10:33, 29 March 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) 03:03, 6 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 Tizen. Consider this the redirect equiv. of a SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LiMo Platform

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

this is basically just Tizen, I don't see why we should have a separate article on it. Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Tizen. Per Nom, this was the former name for the project. From the Tizen article, 'On January 1, 2012, the LiMo Foundation was renamed Tizen Association'. This article currently only has one reliable ref which can be incorporated into the redirect target.Dialectric (talk) 02:20, 29 March 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 10:33, 29 March 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) 03:02, 6 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 Media space. Only source had no hallmarks of reliability. czar ⨹ 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media inventory

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

per WP:NOTDIC ― Padenton |☎ 16:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Media space, where it belongs in context. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 23 March 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 10:34, 29 March 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) 03:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Media space. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 14 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.

Article moved to Media space (advertising) per above discussion -- Media space is something quite different. --Macrakis (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to So You Think You Can Dance (U.S. season 1). j⚛e decker ^talk 21:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Lacayanga

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

Subject has received some coverage in non-primary reliable sources, but almost all significant coverage is about the subject in the event So You Think You Can Dance (U.S. season 1). Since then the subject has not received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources (some mentions, but none that would meet WP:SIGNIFICANT. Therefore, the subject falls under WP:BIO1E. As such the article should be deleted, or should be redirected to So You Think You Can Dance (U.S. season 1). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 22 March 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 11:53, 29 March 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) 02:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds like a good idea. Not enough coverage for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either Weak keep or Redirect.Wgolf (talk) 02:40, 8 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 decker ^talk 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Land Conservancy

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Aside from the usual social media pages, there is no significant coverage of the organization in reliable secondary sources. There is a Daily Telegraph article which mentions the organization, but it appears to be a trivial mention. Biblioworm 02:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 02:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:ORG. Amateur org with no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Longevitydude (talk) 00:52, 7 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 Withdrawn. The nominator has stated an unintentional error in his before and has withdrawn his deletion nomination. Such happens, and as sources ARE available, we can allow this to be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sippy Grewal

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

~~Producer whose notability is questionable. Not that many reliable references either. Wgolf (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)~~withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question where have you checked for additional sources? DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Many sources are found through the Indian search tools listed at WP:INDAFD. IE: Sippy Grewal Sippy Grewal What was your WP:BEFORE process? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I typed his name wrong looking him up. I misread the name completely as "Slippy Greenwall". Wgolf (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-This is what happens when you type someones name wrong! Wgolf (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Such happens. A cut-n-paste usually prevents mis-types. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:55, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Martin

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article about a non-notable fictional character. While WP:NFICT makes it clear that there are no specific guidelines for fictional characters, these articles still have to pass WP:GNG, which from a look at sources, this does not. Google searches bring up this, other Wikipedia pages, and IMDB. Further, NFICT says "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." This article is 100% focused on the "in-universe". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither this character nor Zack Martin have ever really been shown to have established notability beyond the show itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing has changed since 5 editors (@Purplewowies, Stemoc, Davey2010, and DGG: and me) last voted to keep at AfD. Notability is not temporary, at the time the series was in production there were numerous discussions about the character in reliable sources. Unfortunately, 4 years after the last series (the character was a main character not just in one but two series!) a lot of the links have gone dead but that doesn't detract from the character's notability at the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary, but that was a piss poor AfD, beginning with the two-word nomination. The character still needs to be discussed in sources in a way this one isn't as far as I can see. Can you at least provide some of those dead links to show there ever was coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do understand the concept of "dead" don't you? I can't show you the links specifically because they no longer exist. At the time the series were airing, and my kids were watching them, I fought to get editors to add some real world treatment but this is always a problem with fictional characters. Editors tend to treat characters in-universe even today. While the wording of the AfD might have been "piss poor", it nevertheless was a valid AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant urls so we can determine what sort of site (NY Times vs. pure fan site) you're talking about. If the sources simply no longer exist, that isn't a strong argument for the subject's notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main character in major films. That should be assumed to be sufficient for notability. Where and how we apply the GNG is up to our local judgment each time DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not how GNG works. Not every main character from a TV show or film deserves or gets a Wiki page. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per AussieLegend and DGG - The entire programme is set around Zack an Cody so clearly they're the 2 main characters, Sourcing characters is always difficult but it doesn't mean we should delete it, Not really seeing any benefit at all to deleting this at all ..... Also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. –Davey2010^Talk 04:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to clean up, trying to determine notability, and you're not providing any reasons for it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've found 2 sources already [72][73], Also the dead cites can be rescued via the "webarchive" site. –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are pretty weak, to be honest. Those don't come close to "significant coverage" of the characters. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct it to vote keep, but I think the most likely outcome, if sources that prove real-world notability are not found, is to merge—however, it should be noted that it may be difficult to merge character articles for the main characters in these two series (due to the overlap between them) so intensive thought should be considered as to how to merge if that is the outcome that ends up occurring. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is OK with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge is problematic, as there is no article to merge to, specifically because the character appears in two series and there is no article that covers both. Essentially, we'd need to create one - One of the Suite Life series main characters is probably the most appropriate name given the content - we could just rename this one to create it. This was a problem when Marcus Little went up for AfD. The result of that AfD was to merge the content to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck, which was a strange target because he was a main character, not a recurring character. That's not the way we should be writing an encyclopaedia. It makes far more sense for this to remain a standalone article. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge A starring character from two notable shows and a notable movie. I'd suggest merging the twins Zach and Cody's articles together since all of their contributions were done together. The Russo twins share an article, the Sprouse twins share an article, so I think the fictional Martin twins should share an article. Longevitydude (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody's questioning the notability of the shows or movie, but the notability of the character still hasn't been defended. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I would say that most of the keep votes boil down to inherited notability from the show and "there must be sources". I have personally written articles on fictional characters from the 1970s through 1990s, and I did not have trouble finding sources to establish notability – because the characters were notable. A "where are they now" picture from some random website isn't enough to convince me that this character is notable. Wikia would be the best place for these kinds of in-universe character biographies. I notice that nobody has bothered to notify the nominator of the previous discussion despite pinging everyone who voted to keep it last time. Perhaps an oversight? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is an oversight, that I will now correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 8 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOTgreal

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

A video game engine that seems to have little notability and the article has been tagged for notability for 7 years now. Wgolf (talk) 00:09, 6 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) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may or may not be notable, but "not having been improved for 7 years" is not a reason for deletion -- and neither is being "defunct" DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True that isn't a reason for a afd-but I was trying to think of something to say beyond not being notable, but yes I do agree being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging Randomran who tagged this for notability and I've left a message at Wikiproject Computing. Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not my area of expertise, but I was surprised there weren't more Ghits. It definitely exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A possible redirect target would be Unreal#See also, where companies like this, including WOTgreal, are listed. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only a few listings in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, none substantial. There are no worthwhile redirect targets—only other hit on WP is at UnrealScript, an unsourced listing. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 22:14, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Networks

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

Company with no evidence of notability, a Google search doesn't come up with anything either. All sources appear to be self-published. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 6 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) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotion. Huddsblue (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides no Google hits, the company was purportedly founded from scratch within the last five days so notability would be unlikely. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, with a bit of terrible branding to boot (suffice to say, "Aryan" has a bit of baggage on it in the West). Nate • (chatter) 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly self promotion, They can go self promote elsewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:31, 8 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.