Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 February	14 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. This AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Laverack, Jr.[edit]

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

Strong Keep He is active in American political life and so is noteworthy. He wishes to influance the public and so the public should know about him. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:30, 13 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A-Girl[edit]

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

This manga series has not received any significant coverage by reliable third-party sources that can be found. As such, it fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Even the direct-to-video film that was released lacks any coverage by reliable sources and fails WP:FILM. The "keep" comments in the two previous AfDs have all revolve around inheritance of notability from the manga's creator or its publisher. A Google search for potential sources have turned up nothing but mirrors of this article, illegal scanlations, or retailers.[1][2] —Farix (t | c) 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I can see here are release dates, and no additional sources have been found. I thought about merging or redirecting this but the potential targets already have the release dates. Per WP:INHERITED the manga's author/publisher can not be a factor here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do have to kind of echo some of the comments at the prior AfD in that having an OVA is a sign of notability in and of itself, especially given the time period it was released. Animation of any kind was pretty expensive to make and that this had an OVA made almost 10 years after its initial release should support some notability itself. What I mean by this is that we should take into account that this was made prior to the advent of computer animation, which made it cheaper and easier to animate things. Prior to that it was extremely unlikely that anything other than the most popular series would gain an animated adaptation of any type and that this had an adaptation so long after its initial release is kind of a show of notability and it also implies that there should be coverage out there, so I would sort of hesitate in saying that it's completely non-notable. I'll try to get WP:ANIME in on this since they should have some people fluent in Japanese that can look for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely saying that we should keep this only because there's an OVA, just that this definitely gives off the impression that this is notable and that there are likely sources out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original story was 6 chapters long, which is really difficult to give it the benefit of the doubt with notability. I have to disagree with the comment about animation costs, it was an OVA which means it's animation quality (and thus it's expense) will be budgeted against expected sales (and with japanese anime vhs prices of the day they would be selling at very high prices). For a title that was not associated with an already acknowledged success it's budget would have been quite low. Not all OVA's were big budget or ways to get extra money out of established series. After finding no mention of the OVA under t's own name in the Anime Encyclopaedia, I had to dig a bit deeper. The OVA was actually released under the Margaret label as one part of a several video series. It's adaption into anime is more to do with it being a compact contained story that happened to be published in the same magazine as five other compact contained story and sold on its branding rather than individual content. I can't see how any of it can be notable. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An OVA adaptation is not an indicator of notability, especially given that the adaptation was produced in the 90s when just about anything was animated. This is why that era is well know for its glut of bad OVAs. Also, we judge notability primarily on coverage by third-party reliable sources and a few other factors listed in the subject specific notability guidelines (non-notable adaptations not being one of them). This article has been tag for lacking such for years. The only reason this article survived the previous AfDs was because of claims that it was "inherently notable". —Farix (t | c) 12:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable minor work. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cant find any results on three search engines (Google, Yahoo!, Bing) that give weight to this page's individual notability. However, since it is an '80's manga and a '90's (VHS) OVA, there might be some actual sources in printed magazine or newspaper form. However since I don't have access to any of those I can't provide any more input. At any rate, let this be the last time this page is AfDed. —KirtZ^Message 14:45, 15 February 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:A10. I'm going to move the other article to the specific title per naming conventions, as there's no true need to be so specific in the title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth George (author)[edit]

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

The article Elizabeth George (Christian author) already exists. The new article was moved to mainspace today from Draft space by a someone who is not an AfC reviewer. The article needs to be moved back to Draft and the content merged into the existing article instead. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Adams (politician)[edit]

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

Adams only claim to fame is serving as mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut. This is a city of neither sufficient size nor of sufficient regional significance for the mayor to be default notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article states "He was a prominent hat manufacturer." Not many people manufacture prominent hats, so that makes him notable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC).
Keep a biography in American Hatter and an obituary in a New York City newspaper denote notability. Was he a prominent hat manufacturer like the ones worn by Pharrell Williams. Or was he a prominent hat manufacturer like John Batterson Stetson. Clearly one has notability and the other must be deleted as as soon as possible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hat maker (are they nearly extinct?) and briefly a mayor. Would be good to have more. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- I took a lot of time and effort doing research to cover what I feel is my area of responsibility (i.e. the history of Norwalk, Connecticut). The city of Norwalk is of a sufficient size that its mayors would qualify as notable. Is it the intention of this proposer to also propose all the numerous others? That is a lot of time and effort wasted, and history lost for a fairly substantially sized city. I was a significant contributor for many years, but I really am very discouraged by what Wikipedia has become. Greg Bard 205.172.173.250 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mayor of Norwalk, but most sources are held in local library. I'll try to dig up some more stuff with my newspaper access. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historical figure who was elected mayor of Norwalk, CT and the subject of an obit in the illustrious New York Tribune (doubtlessly among other publications). WP:POLITICIAN is meant as a high bar to keep out candidate spam, not as a defacto ban on all but a comparative handful of biographies of elected officials. Carrite (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city that only has a population of 87,000 now (which is far from being big enough to make its mayor inherently notable), let alone when he was mayor. No sources beyond the basics. The "obituary" in the New York Tribune is actually little more than an announcement of his death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added ref re: after his time as mayor, he served on a committee that led to the construction of the first municipally owned power plant in Connecticut. Albert E. Winchester (January 1915). "South Norwalk's Municipal Electric Works". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 57: 228–231. JSTOR 1013283. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysource=, |laydate=, and |laysummary= (help) 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. In particular, The American Hatter piece and the the Tribune obituary constitute significant coverage approriate to the time period. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Omar (Journalist)[edit]

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

Unotable person who basically is just a "hey I have my website" Wgolf (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've updated the page with a lot of relevant sources. Please check it again and let me know :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAfifi (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. APK whisper in my ear 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the provided references do not represent significant coverage in reliable sources, which does not seem to exist. The Arabic article about him doesn't provide any useful sources either. Huon (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have checked the updated references, and they do not establish notability. Huon (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 02:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = relevant sources are not the same as reliable sources, of which this article lacks entirely, Bearian (talk) 02:52, 18 February 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. Article's subject is found to pass WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boss of the Pool[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.

Note: My PROD was reverted with an edit summery of "rm PROD. deletion nominator goal, unstated, is to remove an infobox". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Related AFDs, with similar nomination assertions, and prod removals, involving direct calls to {{infobox}} are:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss of the Pool, Australian play
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Overboard , Australian play
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Manning
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Abbett (closed keep)

--do ncr am 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four articles listed in the above canvassing, including this one, use {{infobox book}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, below. Please discuss accusation of canvassing (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --do ncr am 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while I found SOME references, I wouldn't call it significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is currenly focused on a play, for which I could find very little in the way of independent sourcing. There's better evidence of notability for the book by Robin Klein on which the play is based. Kirkus gave it a starred review. ("This is an extraordinary book in honestly depicting the fear and cruel taunts that are common and perhaps natural in children who confront people who are different before they understand their humanity.") [3] A GScholar search indicates that the book is discussed (or at least mentioned) in works about disabilities or literacy such as [4][5][6][7][8](the last does mention the play). The National Library of New Zealand has it on a list of "classics" of "young fiction". The Times Educational Supplement Teaching Resources section has a literature unit for the book. [9] And the book is listed in the KOALA (Kids Own Australian Literature Awards) Hall of Fame. [10] I suggest refocusing this article on the book and keeping it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Arxiloxos notes, the article can be refocused to be also about the book. And, the play has been performed multiple times, as documented at AusStage. And event items there link to info on reviews published:

Review: John Edge, The Bulletin with Newsweek, 25 May 1993
Review: Louise Nunn, The Advertiser, 6 May 1993
Review: Peter Laud, Sunday Times, 15 July 1990
Review: Priscilla Shorne, Lowdown, 1 August 1990
Review: Ron Banks, The West Australian, 9 July 1990
Review: Vivienne Swann, The Daily News, 11 July 1990
Article: Ken Longworth, Newcastle Herald, 3 January 1991, 7
Review: Elvira Sprogis, Newcastle Herald, 14 January 1991, 0
Review: Elvira Sprogis, [Boss Of the Pool], Newcastle Herald, 15 January 1995
Review: Adrian Wintle, The Daily Advertiser, 9 March 1992
Review: Helen Thomson, The Australian, 14 May 1993
Review: Alison Farmer, Sunday Times, 28 March 1993

I don't have access to the reviews, but this seems to be significant coverage.

WorldCat shows the play is held by 63 member libraries.

Also, the deletion nomination shows no evidence of performing wp:BEFORE; the nom spends more time/text complaining about removal of the prod, which was by me. It's not "bogus" to point out the apparent purpose of removing infoboxes the nom does not like. The nom was indeed working from this worklist of articles having "direct calls" to infobox template, which included Not in Print (since speedy deleted) another Australian play article. That article included use of {{infobox}}, which is fine IMO, but apparently was the offending flaw; the nom then found way also to Boss of the Pool and to Boy Overboard, created by same editor, both now at AFD. Anyhow, keep. --do ncr am 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: It seems that you need to be reminded that you were warned "not to approach discussions confrontatively [sic]... not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith."; and that User:Gatoclass similarly told you: ""you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions". Yet you continue, despite being told otherwise, to falsely assert that I have motives which are alien to me. The nominated article, by the way, uses {{Infobox book}}. Your posting about this nomination at other nominations, and vice versa, also consitutes canvassing, about which you ahev also been previously warned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, just above. Please discuss accusations of canvassing and other (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --do ncr am 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this page was created as it was, about the play and not the book, was as an excuse for a Currency Press employee to place a link to their shop. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assume good faith in that I believe the creator, who has acknowledged association with the publisher of the play, was trying to promote the play, because they believe in the play and in modern Australian play-writing in general. A person interested in an area, an expert perhaps, is a useful contributor to Wikipedia. I doubt they're making a financial fortune from selling plays. :) Anyhow, could you have access to any of the many reviews, to see how much they discuss the play itself? --do ncr am 15:31, 28 January 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't particularly understand the inside-baseball conflict above, but the sources provided so far make me unable to support any outcome but retention in some form. Arxiloxos's sources indicate the book, if not the play, is unquestionably notable. If the play is not, then it can still be discussed within the context of adaptations. If the play is notable (as the offline reviews may or may not indicate), then the article can address both topics until/unless they are capable of being spun off and disambiguated. But I don't see any outcome that leads to deletion of content at this title, nor any reason to contemplate a TNT-style purge of the article history. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And the book has received award(s). From Google scholar search link above: Australian Bookseller & Publisher Volume 84 Issue 6 (Jan 2005)

RMWL Cutler - search.informit.com.au / "... Since the KOALAs began in 1987 Jennings has had 27 titles shortlisted and won seven KOALAs. Jennings' Gizmo (Puffin) and Robin Klein's Boss of the Pool (Omnibus) were inducted into the 2004 Hall of Fame. Ball has won three KOALAs and has a book in the Hall of Fame. ...". (emphasis added) Same text appears in original or reprint of same, at "Kids pick KOALAs Robin Morrow" P Jennings, K Jennings, OB Oliver, ME Kettle - search.informit.com.au.

--do ncr am 06:32, 31 January 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 06:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the research and analysis by Arxiloxos and doncram. An "inside baseball" debate about infoboxes should never affect encyclopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Koalas do not appear to be a significant enough award to generate notability, as its "judges" are New South Wales children. The Koala awards were also over the book (by a New South Wales author), not the play. Pax 22:32, 12 February 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since Doncram asserts that this nomination is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Overboard, it's relevant to point out that that nomination closed as "redirect to Morris Gleitzman#Published work". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that seems unfortunate, to redirect what was an article about an Australian play by Patricia Cornelius, to a list-section within a page about the author of the same-named book. Seems better to add coverage about the book and its author, and have the topic be the work and its adaptations.

Pigsonthewing, are you trying to imply that this nomination is NOT similar? --do ncr am 21:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A cursory examination of Trove and AustLit indicates that there are multiple reliable sources discussing the book and the play.--110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 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 G5 by TexasAndroid. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Goswami[edit]

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

Having starred in a movie is a credible claim of importance, so the article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. That said, there doesn't seem to be any significant third-party coverage to show he meets WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 13 February 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 02:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Zimmer[edit]

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

Zimmer's closest claim to notability is that she is mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey, a city neither of sufficient size nor of enough regional significance to make the mayor notable. Beyond that there is the truly odd incident of Bridgeslowdown gate, however that would not rise above one event and is not enough to make Zimmer notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. This should be administratively closed. The nominator seems to have some grudge against the city and is nominating about 8 mayors of the city for deletion saying the city is too small for inclusion in Wikipedia despite the references in reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While I would not object to an administrative close of the series, I'm sure JPL is acting in good faith. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Then why would he nominate an article with 73 references? Did he get a parking ticket from the city? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect to Mayors of Hobokon Hobokon is more important than its size suggests, because of its proximity to New York. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Comment It is very odd people assume bad faith. I explained my reasoning in the nomination. Lots of sources do not mean the sources are substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't odd at all. 10 facts from 10 different reliable sources are mathematically equivalent to 10 facts from one in-depth reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Trout Slap A major political figure with dozens upon dozens of reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. I thought that the other nominations were sketchy, but this one is a steaming pile of nonsense in what appears to be staggering bad faith. Abuse of process like this needs to be stopped. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons and Dawn Zimmer is particularly notable in New Jersey politics. The city's importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Elected mayor of Hoboken, NJ, a significant and large American city. ~~(This is the third pretty much terrible nomination by the same nominator, now I've gotta dig and see what other shenanigans are brewing...)~~ Carrite (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, nothing shocking, we all make mistakes... Carrite (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can at least read the articles and look at the references before !voting and citing population statistics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid telling another experienced editor how to suck eggs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. Whether or not Hoboken mayors are automatically notable as mayors of regionally significant cities, Zimmer has significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC.Djflem (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the subject meets WP:BASIC. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 18 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cammarano[edit]

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

Neither serving as mayor of Hoboken, nor getting arrested on corruption charges make a person notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. This should be administratively closed. The nominator seems to have some grudge against the city and nominated 8 mayor articles. The coverage in the Bergen Record, The New York Times, and the Jersey Journal, and the multi-page biography in The Next Generation: Young Elected Officials and Their Impact, speaks for itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator is mistaking concerning deletion reasoning. clearly passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable as mayor. Population of city is not a factor in Wikipedia articles for mayor. It's not in the guidelines. Comes under local politicianws in that mayors are not mentioned. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources of his service as mayor and corruption claims to establish notability. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability or quality of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources, so he is notable. Notability is determined by coverage, not role. Esquivalience ^t 13:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, the nominator is incorrect, being elected mayor of Hoboken (a major American city) does make a person automatically notable. Carrite (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can at least read the articles and look at the references before !voting and citing population statistics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid telling another experienced editor how to suck eggs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. Whether or not Hoboken mayors are automatically notable as mayors of regionally significant cities, Cammarano has significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 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. Article's subject is found to pass WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Roberts (mayor)[edit]

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

Roberts' only claim thatcomes close to notability is serving as mayor of Hoboken. This is a city lacking the regional significance or population to grant mayors automatic notability. The sources are largely local in nature. Beyond this, the neutrality of this article has been in dispute since 2011 with no progress on the matter, showing why such articles should not be kept. We lack the localized resources to keep them in good shape. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. This should be administratively closed. The nominator seems to have some grudge against the city. The New York Times is not a local Hoboken paper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mayors fall under "local politicians" and are notable with adequate news coverage even if from local sources. The nominator is also voting to remove at least one mayor of Bossier City, Louisiana on grounds that he lacks notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Significant coverage such as [11], [12] and [13]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability or quality of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 17 February 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. Article's subject is found to pass WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Russo (mayor)[edit]

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

Russo's closest claim to notability is serving as mayor of Hoboken. This is neither a city of regional enough importance nor of enough population to make the mayor notable by default. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. Coverage of the corruption charges is in the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable mayor; regardless of population of the city. Comes under "local politicians" with significant coverage. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Significant coverage includes [14] and [15], the latter containing a prescient analysis of the risks of corruption posed by such a powerful chief executive position as Russo's. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including extensive coverage of corruption charges. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability or quality of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 17 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flubromazolam[edit]

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

Consensus at WP:PHARM and WP:CHEMS is that chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Flubromazolam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up name "Flubromazolam" is intended to sound like the name of a benzodiazepine pharmaceutical, but it is only used in online recreational drug forums - it is not used in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. The first reference is a patent that mentions this chemical compound, but only as one in a large number of other similar compounds. There is nothing that distinguishes this one from the many other non-notable ones mentioned. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) to support the article content. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH this page should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete for the same reasons, all of these. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This information is true.Obelix (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an entirely insufficient argument for keeping an article. Topics must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the content must be verifiable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all the other "research chemicals" that nobody is actually researching. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:v as no link to the patent application, and wp:GNG as it is not covered by any independent sources. BakerStMD T|C 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ed --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:25, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Pasculli[edit]

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

Pasculli's only possible claim to notability is serving as mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. Hoboken is neither a city of enough regional importance or great enough size to justify that alone making someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with the notability that the New York Times coverage gives him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Mayors of Hobokon Hobokon is more important than its size suggests, because of its proximity to New York. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable mayor though more information would be desirable. Under "Local Politicians" for notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC. Whether or not Hoboken mayors are inherently notable as mayors of regionally significant cities, Pasculli has been the subject of significant coverage as referenced in the article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC Djflem (talk) 21:37, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vezzetti[edit]

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

Vezetti's closest claim to notability is serving as mayor of Hoboken. Hoboken is a city of neither substantial enough size nor regional enough importance to make the mayor of it notable. This article also illustrates why we have this rule. The talk of Vezzetti being known for wearing mismatching shoes, and entire lack of any discussion of his policies as mayor, shows the draw backs of including articles on minor people with only local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. It is a stub and can easily be filled with information from his obituary published in both The New York Times and was reprinted in the Los Angeles Times. That the author writes about "wearing mismatching shoes" is a red herring. That two national newspapers chose to write about him out of the thousands of people that died that day, is was makes him notable. Not the size of the population of the city he was mayor of, or his sartorial habits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Mayors of Hobokon Tolkien was known for wearing colourful waistcoats, and this is (I hope) in his article. Hobokon is more important than its size suggests, because of its proximity to New York. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable local politician, as mentioned in Wikipedia. Needs local references. Does not have to be known outside Hoboken.Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including an obituary in The New York Times, a national paper of record. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability or quality of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC. Whether or not Hoboken mayors are inherently notable as mayors of regionally significant cities, Pasculli has been the subject of significant coverage as referenced in the article. I particularly like the "The Wackiest Mayor in America" stories that got picked up nationally, but there's also more serious coverage. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cappiello[edit]

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

Cappiello's only claim to fame is serving as mayor of Hoboken. This is neither a city of enough regional significance or one of large enough population to make the mayors of it default notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. The population of the city he was mayor of does not determine notability, the reliable sources cited in the article do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Mayors of Hobokon Hobokon is more important than its size suggests, because of its proximity to New York. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC).

Keep Notable as local politician. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability or quality of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Whether or not Hoboken mayors are presumed notable as mayors of regionally significant cities, Capiello has been the subject of significant coverage from diverse sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC Djflem (talk) 21:40, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Preaus[edit]

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

Unsuccessful political candidate appears to be only claim to fame, aside from his owning a car dealership. Per WP:NPOL, failed candidates rarely meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful political candidates are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsuccessful candidate, the choice of outgoing Governor Robert Kennon in the 1956 LA governor's election. Part of a series of articles on Louisiana politics. Sources are there, and there is no reason to delete him because he lost the election. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to fame except being defeated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1956. There is information in the Fred Preaus#Run for governor section that would benefit the target article. The Long races and opponents have been of some particular interest academically. See, e.g. Four Anti-Longites: A Tentative Assessment. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems that the article is to long to merge with the 1956 election. The article has many sources independent of the subject and he is clearly notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, that was supposed to be Keep or Merge. Modified !vote above after your comment. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too big for merge, while the office does not have inherent notability, the references seem enough for an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I really do need to write an essay about the intent behind the WP:POLITICIAN Special Notability "High Bar." To wit: it is intended to weed out campaign spam from contemporary politicians on the make, not to erase from the historical record every losing candidate. This seems simple, does it not? That said, let's toss the SNG and get down to brass tacks — this is a clear GNG pass as the subject of the article is covered in a substantial way in multiple pieces of independently-published material. Not talking newspaper reports of the campaign here, talking about books, like W. Gene Barron, Union Parrish, pg. 19; Michael L. Kurtz, Morgan D. Peoples, Earl K. Long: The Saga of Uncle Earl and Louisiana Politics, (LSU Press, 1990); Edward Bliss & James Hoyt, Writing News for Broadcast, pg. 28; Glen Jeansonne, Leander Perez: Boss of the Delta, pg. 162; Michael S. Mayer, The Eisenhower Years, pg. 378. And so on. Thanks to the content creator for more of his typically excellent work. Carrite (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:43, 20 February 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. Article's subject is found to pass WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick L. Schmersahl[edit]

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

Schmersahl's closest claim to notability is serving as mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. This is a city of neither enough regional importance or population to confir notability on the mayor. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. None of the existing references are about him specifically, except one paragraph taken from somewhere where he might have been accused of financial misconduct while in office. Fails GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable local politician though the article needs more information for a better glimpse of this mayor. Size of Hoboken is not a factor in killing the article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including coverage in contemporaneous news coverage and encylopedic sources. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Whether or not mayors of Hoboken are presumed notable as mayors of regionally significant cities, the multiple New York Times articles constitute significant coverage appropriate to the time period. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick W. Bohnstedt[edit]

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

The reason this article was created seems to be the result of a mass creation of articles on mayors of Hoboken, New Jersey. Hoboken is not a large enough or regionally important enough city to justify articles on mayors for holding that position. His office as a judge also does not seem to be high enough to rise to the level of passing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey for failing WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. None of the existing references are about him specifically, and he gets one line in the best-selling tome Immigrants in Hoboken ("In the 1860s, Frederick W. Bohnstedt served as city coroner."[16]) He was so notable that apparently nobody recorded when he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
Keep He can qualify as a circuit judge too. Mayors of Hoboken are inherently notable as local politicians with proper sourcing. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to think that being a mayor, circuit judge and lieutenant colonel of militia, when taken together, is sufficient for a person who died about 1883. I suspect that BIO was framed with BLPs in mind, so I have doubts about its applicability. The sources are about "Frederick W Bohnstedt". He does not need to be their only, or even primary, subject. As he died a long time ago, there might be further coverage in undigitised offline print sources (WP:NRVE). There are many obviously notable figures whose date of death is not even approximately known (see here), so that isn't an argument against notability. James500 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is when the newspaper can't be bothered to find out. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including coverage in contemporaneous encylopedic sources. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, drawing a disproportionate level of coverage from New York City and New Jersey newspapers, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC Djflem (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. He has been the subject of significant coverage appropriate to the time period. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 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 (withdrawn by nominator) - Taking a closer look, merge is a better way to go. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bromantic comedy[edit]

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

Not a notable genre. Sources are insufficient and furthremore inadequately demonstrate why it should be distinguished from other genres like buddy film. Its notability appears entirely tied to that of bromance, itself a neologism redundant to other concepts (currently being discussed at its own AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Morton[edit]

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

Morton's highest claim to notability is serving as mayor of Hoboken. Hoboken is neither large enough nor regionally important enough for the mayor to gain notability for such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ... three guesses. The New York Times devotes one sentence to his passing, after a missionary appointment, a fire, Baptist anniversaries, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing seems adequate for one who died in 1865. Qualfies as local politician. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, drawing a disproportionate level of coverage from New York City and New Jersey newspapers, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McAusland[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 20:43, 17 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Lighthouse Society[edit]

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

Citations 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are primary sources. References 2 and 7 are brief mentions and quotes. This source has some information about this society, but is mostly about an individual lighthouse. It would be extremely rare for any organization with a budget of $700,000 to be notable. CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to keep—there are plenty of news sources out there that talk about the group. While many aren't about the group in specific and focus on its efforts, I'm still inclined to keep the article. The argument about the group's budget doesn't convince, as these articles do discuss the group's chapters. It would not be uncommon for a national organization with chapters to have a smaller budget because most of the money involved is handled through the chapters' individual projects. Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. if this article from the United Arab Emirates is talking about one part of the group's activities, I'm inclined to think the article can be expanded and salvaged. It isn't GA material now, but I don't think it's quite deletion-worthy either. This is about the group, as is this, so I think there is room to expand the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see that this article was nominated for GA, failed, and then was nominated it for AfD on the same day. That seems kind of strange and not a very good precedent if it puts a damper on GA nominations. Surely we don't want to imply that failure of a GA nomination may lead to AfD.

About the organization itself, it seems notable enough to me, given its national award and status as one of the largest organizations of its kind. The individual lighthouse in the cited source is a National Monument, which automatically qualifies as notable, as opposed to the thousands of merely Historic Places. The source also contains the words "...are to be congratulated. They truly have made a difference." This is the main criterion we are urged to consider in WP:ORGSIG, namely "whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects". According to the source, they have. WP:ORGSIG also says "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." So I don't think the size of their budget should be a consideration. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:19, 14 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified personal residence trust[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I know I'm renominating immediately after a non-consensus close, but there is an aspect not considered there. The article's first version includes the line "taken from attorney Jacob Stein's treatise on tax planning, with his permission." and the overwhelming proportion of the content from that version remains. Though permission is asserted, no free copyright license was ever given, and permission to use win a wikipedia article by itself is not enough, because our material must also be reusable, and nothing less than CC-BY-SA is adequate. Tho the original work is not available to me, and there are several possible books of his, I think the likelihood of copyvio is so great that it must be deleted. This was in fact an exercise at self-promotion, and the article on the author was deleted on that basis here. The topic is notable, but the only way to free it from copyvio is to delete it and start over. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Trust law or United States trust law. A QPRT, much like a GRAT is a notable topic in US estate tax planning. See, e.g., [17]. If the current text is a copyvio, we can stub it down or at least redirect to the parent topic of Trust law, leaving open the possibility for an editor to expand on this topic later. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My opinion has not changed since nominating this the first time. No objection at all to a delete and Redirect, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion about the alleged promotion in this article hasn't changed either: there isn't any. You might as well argue that the articles we copy almost verbatim from the 1885 DNB and the 1911 Britannica are an attempt to promote those sources, rather than an attempt to save time and effort.
The source from which our article says it is "taken" with the author's permission is Jacob Stein (Winter 2007). "The Importance of Trusts in Asset Protection". California Trusts and Estates Quarterly. Retrieved September 24, 2010. That URL is indeed a deadlink. But, the journal article in question seems to be available for download from this page. I'm afraid that my device can't read the .pdf document that is available, so someone else will have to check its contents. James500 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 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 00:05, 26 January 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) 04:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': I would normally not question a nomination by user:DGG, however as an editor who believes Wikipedia lacks information on Law (lawyers, legal cases, legislation, terminology, etc) I really question the wisdom of this mass removal of content that has been around Wikipedia longer than I have. If the concern is wp:copyright wouldn’t it make more sense to simply post a request at WikProject Law? If the concern is wp:COI then deal with it without deleting the content. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC) UPDATE Still no mention on Wikiproject Law? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you have three times now restored the same sort of material I removed from another article, I assume the "mass removal of content" is the removal of Jacob Stein's refspam, copyvios, peacock language ("consult an expert like Jacob Stein" appeared multiple times through the encyclopedia), and otherwise grossly promotional material added by a large number of SPAs. That some of the refs are less promotional than others is certainly the case, however, and if an experienced Wikipedian like yourself wanted to recreate or develop some of the material, citing Stein in the process, I would have no problem assuming good faith that he was determined to be a reliable source. What I don't support is simply restoring it simply because it's good to see refs in an article and they had remained in the article for a long time without being detected. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant by mass removal is Jacob Stein and Foreign trust. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) By the way not everyone views SPAs like you do. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. SPA is a symptom of a particular problem, not the problem itself. It's not that they are SPAs and therefore they made lousy contributions. It's that there is (was) a widespread pattern of very similar or identical kinds of edits, and the fact that these edits were made by SPAs more strongly suggests promotion/socking. The only reason I didn't file an SPI is because one based on years-old edits wouldn't likely get much traction and it's a whole lot of time/work putting one of those together, when I don't even know if he/they will try to do this again. I started to keep track of some of the users/edits/articles in a notepad file which has grown a little unwieldy. Hopefully I'll never have to actually use it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need much more good material on law, and it is not altogether impossible for an attorney to write it, if they know enough to keep their name out of it. One of the problems, of course, is that is really has to be done separately or with extensive explanation for each major country--at least each major english speaking country, and there are very few people who know enough to do it for more than their own particular legal system. This for example, is US, but unless you already recognize the terminology, you won't find that out in the article, except for a footnote reference to California. And all attorneys's sites and almost all legal textbooks only deal with one systems & usually feel no need to even specify what to them is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This discussion is sucking up a lot of energy and I am not sure it has done anything to improve wikipedia in the long run. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, as with all of the other times you've restored the promotional content or protested its removal, you're not presenting any rationale at all. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Qualified personal residence trust is more than just a tad too long for only two sources, one of which is a link to a commercial law office and the other to Jacob Stein. Stein features a little too heavily in articles by Lawguru20002 for my liking. Without more strictly independent reliable, non commercial sources, this article does not meet any notability standards and if not some kind of spam, is at best Original research. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kudpung: It is not enough to just look at the sources in the article. You need to actually look for sources with a search engine (WP:BEFORE). There are about ninety sources that come up immediately in Google Books alone, including entire chapters of a number books such as this one published by the American Bar Association (an unequivocally reliable source). And here is a massive chunk of text in one law book, and extensive discussion in another, published by (unequivocally reliable) CCH. I could go on like this, but I think that will suffice as an illustration. Then, of course, there are hundreds of sources in GScholar, including many entire journal articles on the subject. This topic clearly satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. No one else here has disputed that. The only plausible objection to this article is copyright, and so far no one professes to have actually looked at the source suspected to be infringed, which is linked to above. James500 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one else here has disputed that. Precisely. So why respond to what nobody has said? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No one else here" (emphasis added) was intended to mean "no one except Kudpung". If his words "this article does not meet any notability standards" are not an (erroneous) assertion that the topic of QPRTs fails GNG, it is not clear what they mean. James500 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I didn't see Kudpung brought up notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Only two sources is a problem? Here is an example of an article I just happened to see which is based on only ONE hardcopy source: Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand). If we rid Wikipedia overnight of all articles that are based on only two or less reliable sourcesI bet we could easily half our 4million+ articles. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with analysis by James500, above. Significant discussion among multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What analysis? The response to notability that Kudpung brought up but nobody else did (including the nominator)? The existence of sources is not relevant here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not entirely sure why people are voting keep when the concern is copyvio without first checking to see if it is, in fact, a copyvio, which it appears to be (at least in part). A pdf of the article it was taken from is here. Compare the following quotes:

From the Wikipedia article:

Residence trusts are used to transfer a grantor’s residence out of the grantor’s estate at a low gift tax value. Once the trust is funded with the grantor’s residence, the residence and any future appreciation of the residence are excluded from the grantor’s estate,

From the linked article

QPRTs are used to transfer a settlor's residence out of the settlor's estate at a low gift tax value. Once the trust is funded with the settlor's residence, the residence and any future appreciation of the residence is excluded from settlor's estate.

and again, from the Wikipedia article:

Personal residence trusts (“PRTs”) are irrevocable split interest trusts. (. . . ) the grantor retains the right to live in the house for a number of years, rent free, and then the remainder beneficiaries of the trust become fully vested in their interest.

and from the linked article

The QPRT is a split-interest trust, with the settlor retaining a term-of-years right to live in the residence rent free, with the remainder interest going to the remainder beneficiaries.

Aside from the first couple paragraphs in the intro; most of the rest of the article does not seem to be an obvious copyvio from that source, so it may just be those two sentences. However, as you can see those two sentences are virtually word for word and I'm wondering where else this was taken from? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to WP:CP. There does not seem to be a reason to delete besides copyright, which is best handled there. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 11 February 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:10, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 13 February 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 Metropolitan School District of Warren Township. czar ⨹ 13:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Elementary School (Indianapolis, Indiana)[edit]

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

Elementary schools aren't generally notable, can't find anything special about this one. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm it was until a script removed it in this edit. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment One would expect to find more information about a school established in 1827, moved in 1872. I'm not finding anything useful. Jacona (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or we do just do this option .... , Per all teh lovely people below. –Davey2010^Talk 04:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metropolitan School District of Warren Township per usual practice for elementary schools. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolitan School District of Warren Township, as this is the usual practice for non-notable elementary school articles. There is no indication that this elementary school has a distinct and unusual quality that makes it notable. Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG The Dissident Aggressor 00:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article appears to compare difference versions of Texas Instruments graphing calculators. While I think the article was created with moral intentions and not created for commercial purposes, the article lists prices and only mention Texas Instruments products. Prices violate WP:NOTCATALOG and listing only Texas Instruments may suggest that Texas Instruments is the only corporation that makes good graphing calculators, which is an opinion. Furthermore, the lead appears to consist solely of original research. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:52, 2 February 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 03:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything but complaints of fixable problems and a WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination. Obviously the prices could be removed if deemed unencyclopedic, and the scope could be expanded to include other manufacturers if editors decide not to compare the TI models separately (not that keeping this separate suggests in any way any particular opinion of TI calculators, an odd interpretation I think). In other words, I see no reasons given for deletion, just disagreement as to how this has been developed so far. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that each series of TI calculator has its own article (thus making this essentially an annotated list of article topics), and we also categorize them separately by manufacturer, in Category:Texas Instruments calculators, just as with Casio, HP, and Sharp. We also have Comparison of HP graphing calculators. So the idea that a TI-specific list represents some kind of POV bias towards TI is just silly. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and Wikipedia is not a TI catalogue. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this topic OR? postdlf (talk) 13:47, 13 February 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:21, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - TI has been making calculators since forever, and even with the prices this is a worthwhile list, as the models have individual articles as well. Ostrichyearning (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ostrichyearning, While I believe you have the best of intentions, perhaps you might want to brush up on our policies and guidelines before endeavoring further into AFD discussions. While your 185 edits are helpful, we have specific guidelines about what is and is not appropriate for inclusion. From what you wrote and the extreme brevity of your editing history, it does not appear that you are at all familiar with them and you have not addressed the concerns presented. The Dissident Aggressor 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a pretty piece of ORIGINAL RESEARCH, smartly presented. Unfortunately, analysis of the relative merits and purchasing price of a CATALOGUE of a manufacturer's products isn't the business of Wikipedia. I do hope the author won't be too disappointed and will put his undoubted energies into improving any of the many articles which could benefit from this sort of editing skill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since TI has been making graphing calculators for so long, and since they have become an integral part of school curriculum, we should have an article on them. The article could be expanded to be a comparison of graphing calculators in general if that would make it more useful. I used this article today to evaluate the suitability of a different (older) TI calculator than the one taught in school for a particular student. The market does not provide such comparison information across the historical spectrum of products. If citations are needed to subdue the ORIGINAL RESEARCH claims, then we should add citations. The prices are of modest historical interest. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are missing the point that the encyclopedia is not meant to serve as a comparison website, of prices or otherwise: that's simply not its function. Please see WP:WPNOTCATALOG for a full explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. When I read WP:NOTCATALOG, I see no prohibition against this article because the occasional prices are not so important to me except as a metric for inflation vs. Moore's law. Should it stay? It looks a lot like ThinkPad T Series#Specifications, for example. I would consider that the information in this article might be included elsewhere, and I agree that it should be properly referenced, but I disagree that it should be deleted. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply citing NOTCATALOG is at best an incomplete argument, given that product comparison articles are sometimes kept at AFD. So you're going to have to be more specific than that. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be more explicit:

An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

The prices are of zero historical interest. The Dissident Aggressor 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite possible. What does that have to do with deletion? postdlf (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should stop arguing and read - this thread is a response to ke4roh's comments, not just an excuse to disagree with folks. You asked for more specificity in the responses to Ke4roh. I guess I wasted my time since you seem to have lost the context. But you're an administrator so you must be right. Moving on now. The Dissident Aggressor 22:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If thine price column offends thee, edit it out. Problem solved. That's a point I raised above a week ago, to which a rebuttal has not yet been offered notwithstanding more people complaining about the prices as if that were a reason for deleting the whole list. The context is WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do not delete articles for problems that can be fixed by editing. And we assume good faith, as you've been failing to do quite egregiously here judging from your comments and edit summaries. postdlf (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get it - when someone says you're being argumentative, accuse them of something. Weak but probably often effective tactic coming from an admin. However, I'm not one to back down from bullies.
The importance pricing was brought up by Ke4roh - I commented on what s/he asserted was its importance and cited policy to back it up not being important. You're the one who suggested removing the pricing. Nobody disagreed except Ke4roh.
Again, you've failed to grasp the context of the discussion: When you raised the point, a week ago as you say, about the pricing and nobody offered a rebuttal, it's called tacit agreement. Why are you complaining about it? Are you that hungry for an argument? When nobody objects, WP:SOFIXIT. The Dissident Aggressor 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if you've ever been to one of the TI calculators wikipedia pages but as an example TI-83_series. Its much too large and confusing and for some odd reason includes not only TI-83's, but TI-84's too (which would be like including the iPhone 6 on the iPhone 5 page). TI-84 Plus series is if possible worse, a list of infoboxes and some Reddit sourced crap. The TI series need to be broken into more articles and this is a great place to start. Sum in point List of iOS devices. Same sorta thing, just a different device. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Diaz (businessman)[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:17, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost speedyable. No WP:BIO criteria whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a marketing director does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 13 February 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 Plan 9 from Bell Labs. czar ⨹ 13:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glenda, the Plan 9 Bunny[edit]

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

Subject lacks independent notability. It is the topic of blogs, people's homepages, a Facebook page, but no serious art critics or computing publications have, as far as I could establish, discussed the Plan 9 bunny in depth.

I previously redirected to Plan 9 from Bell Labs, which was reverted by Andy Dingley, who reasoned that "Tux has no more independent notability than Glenda". I don't think Tux has ever been up for deletion, which would make it a precedent. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notability is not temporary. The coverage of Glenda is trivial in comparison to the coverage of Plan 9 itself, but it's also quite adequate for the level of a mascot. Overall this seems to be more about Plan 9 being an OS older than most WP editors and the eternal salami-slicing to delete the articles about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now the nominator is reduced to childish edit-warring to remove sourced content on the key principles of Plan 9 itself https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs&diff=prev&oldid=646986201 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on Talk:Plan 9 from Bell Labs: we had a bit of a misunderstanding, it seems. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to Plan 9 from Bell Labs. ~~You could merge instead;~~ the problem is, Plan 9 from Bell Labs is already pretty long. But adding in a couple of sentences re Glenda is not going to hurt. I added a caption to the logo image in Plan 9 from Bell Labs and IMO this is sufficient, but if you want to merge more into a separate paragraph that'd be OK too. Herostratus (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Changed vote to Merge since that seems to be how its trending and let's a get consensus. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (probably a selective paste merge) to Plan 9 from Bell Labs. No evidence of independent notability, can't see any justification for a separate article on the logo. Qwfp (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Plan 9 from Bell Labs. No significant RS coverage on the logo independent of the operating system. Checking the Plan 9 page with Prosesize returns 15 kB (2527 words), well within the WP:SIZERULE guide for page length even with a few sentences added about the logo. Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Plan 9 from Bell Labs per above. No evidence of independent notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:56, 17 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Migasfree[edit]

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

Non notable software Jac16888 ^Talk 16:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:TOOSOON. It looks like a tool that a city government is using to migrate to a custom Linux distro and open-source apps. I'm sure it's very useful, but being so specific to the situation there is a lack of 3rd-party sources. Perhaps later, after it's adopted by a wider community. Best source I could find was this, in Spanish. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I saw that on page patrol, and let it go about notability, because I could not read Spanish and the sources looked legit. Now, delete as per Margin1522's comment (WP:AGF) and WP:PRODUCT. Tigraan (talk) 13:56, 14 February 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 Day One: Garry's Incident. czar ⨹ 13:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Games Studio[edit]

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

The organization existed for four years, made $7 million in revenues and had about 11-50 employees[18]. The only thing they are notable for is the Day One: Garry's Incident, which has its own article and the only purpose of this page is to summarize that one (a purpose already well-served by the Lede). The org does not appear to have done anything else of significance that could produce a general profile separate from the controversy page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 13 February 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) 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Day One: Garry's Incident. All coverage I found was related to that game and can be adequately summarised at that article. Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Given as it is defunct know, I agree it's unlikely to become known for anything but this one controversy, which is probably better discussed in the game's article, if it isn't already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFK Smetanova Lhota[edit]

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

The article admits that the club is not a professional team. The club doesn't appear to be that notable either, as a search only results in brief mentions or articles about player Jan Koller. Perhaps a native Czech speaker could help us out here for information. I was thinking of nominating it for A7, but the fact that they have (had?) a notable player made me decide otherwise, so here is it, in AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of significant coverage, no evidence of playing in the national cup, insufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article. C 679 05:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Czech 7th-tier league is stretching it a bit much. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of playing in a national cup per WP:FOOTYN, no indication of any significant reliable coverage of a non-routine variety to satisfy GNG. Notability cannot be inherited based on the fact that Jan Koller played for them as a youth. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 16 February 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 Harivansh Rai Bachchan. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koshish Karne Walon Ki Kabhi Har Nahi Hoti[edit]

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

The claim of notability ('an inspirational piece of poetry', etc.) is dubious, and unsupported since there are no sources. Plus, WP:PEACOCK but that is not a reason to delete. Tigraan (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harivansh Rai Bachchan, which does at least mention this work briefly. I see no evidence that this poem (or most of his other individual works) is separately notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harivansh Rai Bachchan -per ATD-R. It is a famous poem by H. R. Bachchan -[19]. I've heard a lot of this poem, but unable to determine its notability for a standalone article. Since it is a Hindi poem, sources are primarily supposed to exist in Hindi language (very recently few Hindi newspapers have started to archive their publications and even they are a tough job to find on search engines). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per the previous comments - I should have taken the time to search the author's name before nominating. Anyways, notable enough or not for a standalone article, this would need a major rewrite.Tigraan (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan - I've struck your vote as you've already voted above, You are allowed to change your rational above and doing it that way means it doesn't confuse everyone :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 19 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Kumar[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, has several UN-atributed peacock terms. And almost looks like is simply added to try and boost notability.. It just missed the mark for A7 speedy deletion.. _Gremlin ^SA 12:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I'm not sure how BLP1E is relevant here. Well, Subject meets NACTOR#1 and GNG criteria. Sources, -Hindi sources -[20], [21], [22]. English ones, -[23], [24], [25], [26]. It may be a borderline case for GNG, but these sources certainly establish notability per NACTOR#1. He is not an emerging actor, but renowed actor per various reliable sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hindi references do establish notability. Dainik Bhaskar [27] calls him a "superstar" of his film industry, who has done more than 40 films. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:46, 19 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salva de la Cruz Pastor[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Tigraan (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 20:43, 17 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Korean National Youth Football League[edit]

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

Not notable junior sports competition Dweller (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Junior sports leagues are generally considered non-notable, season articles on those leagues especially so. No indication that this season received anywhere near the level of significant non-routine, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 16 February 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 (A11). Peridon (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Engagement Marketing[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:ORG Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for you to have created this deletion discussion. The article meets WP:CSD#G1. SD0001 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet the definition of nonsense as used in WP:G1 and I have declined the speedy deletion nomination. -- GB fan 11:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . Dear SD0001 & GB, I am slightly confused now. Should I should I have not nominated this article for WP:CSD#G1? Please let me know if I made a mistake by nominating this article to begin with. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with your deletion here. There was a problem with SD001's speedy deletion nonination using WP:G1 as the article does not meet the definition of Patent Nonsense there. An appropriate speedy deletion criterion would have been WP:A11 as it is an obviously made up concept, the person who wrote it appears to know the person who madeup the term and there is no claim to significance. So in short, what you did is just fine. -- GB fan 12:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Korean National Youth Football League – Under-18[edit]

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

Not notable junior sports competition Dweller (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Junior sports leagues are generally considered non-notable, season articles on those leagues especially so. No indication that this season received anywhere near the level of significant non-routine, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - no claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj kumar singh(deoria)[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has been nominated for speedy deletion as per WP:CSD#A7. SD0001 (talk) 09:52, 13 February 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 Has been speedied G11 (I'm still trying to work out the title...) Peridon (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Ant[edit]

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

Delete: Does not meet WP:ORG Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 and tagged as such. Also, AKS.9955, you may want to read WP:CSD. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Narutolovehinata5. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:49, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Korean National Youth Football League – Under-18[edit]

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

Not notable junior sports competition Dweller (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Junior sports leagues are generally considered non-notable, season articles on those leagues especially so. No indication that this season received anywhere near the level of significant non-routine, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 16 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Korean National Youth Football League[edit]

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

Not notable junior sports competition Dweller (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Junior sports leagues are generally considered non-notable, season articles on those leagues especially so. No indication that this season received anywhere near the level of significant non-routine, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 16 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Nuze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. This "Benjamin Music Group" listed as his label is likely a garage music recording studio, as I can find few mentions of it on Google. No sign that he comes close to meeting the musician notability guidelines in any way. Previous AfD, less than a month ago, ended in a no-consensus due to total lack of participation, so hopefully we can get some comments/votes on this one. Safiel (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as before and above Deunanknute (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. very minor coverage in AllHipHop and HipHopDX, and slightly more coverage in plenty of local blogs/publications. Nothing fantastic, but since just one good writeup would push it into the safe zone, I'm almost hesitant to see it deleted. Earflaps (talk) 06:40, 20 February 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. Article Speedily deleted as spam. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobo Dairy-free Ice Cream[edit]

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

Delete: Not notable at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spamvertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:58, 13 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Suzhou workers riot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:EVENT , WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTNEWS. no deaths, 5 years ago showing no lasting notability. all the cited coverage is within a day of the event. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 09:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)--Antigng (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this academic paper ([28]) is the event, which shows its lasting notability. --Antigng (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 09:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)--Antigng (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability indicated by sources. Everyking (talk) 20:28, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albin Shaje[edit]

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

DePROD'd [29] by IP address. Does not meet notability guidelines for MMA fighters. Tek022 | Comments? 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:KICK) or MMA fighters WP:NMMA. He had 1 kickboxing fight and 3 minor MMA fights. The article's statement that he hasn't lost since his first MMA fight isn't that impressive considering he's only had 2 fights since then. The sources are either links to his own web page or to sites listing his fight record--definitely not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with no significant independent coverage and doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:KICK either.Mdtemp (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015–16 Pro12 transfers[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Teams are subject to change prior to next season; deals could also fall apart in the mean time. At the time of this nomination, even the main season article doesn't exist yet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the deals are confirmed with source and a season by season record is being kept of transfers across Europe. This whole stub was set up in order to remove the transfers from the main team pages. Would be daft to delete as this was the solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.200.134 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid none of that addresses the core concerns here, nor is it relevant to any deletion or keep criteria. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes it does address the core concerns. According to the intro paragraph on WP:TOOSOON, it states that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." In this article, sources clearly do exist, as indicated by the references. That article is a collection of verifiable content ... and content that is currently or has recently been reported, so I really don't know how it can be deemed WP:TOOSOON if it's being reported by media outlets now? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's TOOSOON because we haven't gotten to this season yet. It may be a collection of verifiable content, but until a player actually joins a club, it is still essentially speculation, because so many things can change in the mean time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter that we haven't gotten to the season yet. We've not gotten to the 2019 Rugby World Cup yet and won't for a while, but there are a number of verifiable and already-released facts about the tournament that makes for a valid article. Many things can change there too. Earth can explode and the World Cup might never happen. But valid and verifiable facts pertaining to that can be mentioned and included. And the same for this article. It's not "essentially speculation", transfers should only be included on that page if it is verifiable and from a reliable source. A whole host of players have already signed contracts to join other teams later during 2015. If these contracts have been signed and this has been accurately relayed by reliable sources, then there's no reason why it should not be included in an article. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apples to oranges. The 2019 Rugby World Cup is a general article on the topic. This is a transfer article (and I should note that the Rugby Union WikiProject is one of a very small number that actually seem to think these pages are valid in the first place) - in case you haven't noticed, the main season article does not exist yet. Explain to me exactly why this page should exist when that one doesn't - and why it should've been created first? And perhaps speculation is not quite the right word... but none of these transfers are guaranteed to happen. Transfer pages should only exist (if they should exist at all, but again, that's another debate entirely) if there are transfers that have actually happened. None of these HAVE happened. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really don't understand your logic in the first few sentences. This is a general article on the topic of transfers related to the 2015–16 Pro12 competition. Different topics, yes certainly. But the same logic applies to the validity of having these articles. I don't know why the main season doesn't exist yet, maybe the relevant editors haven't gotten around to creating it yet. But if there is valid, verifiable information pertaining to that season, then it can be created. There is valid, verifiable information regarding transfers relating to that season, which means that the transfer articles can be created. I know none of these HAVE happened (but again, the 2019 Rugby World Cup hasn't happened). It's OK to have articles related to something in the future, as long as the facts presented in that article is factual and verifiable. Do me a favour - please have a quick look at this article as an example. That is a press release from South African side the Bulls regarding two of their players joining French clubs later in 2015. That clearly indicates that these transfers will happen, contracts have been signed, etc. In the same way as the 2019 Rugby World Cup possibly not happening due to unforeseen circumstances, these transfers might also not happen. But they have already been reported by a reliable source as fact. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for your statement that "the Rugby Union WikiProject is one of a very small number that actually seem to think these pages are valid in the first place". There are actually a very small amount of these pages for Rugby Union. There are significantly more for, say, football. See this search results list, for example. The results are almost entirely football-related results. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing the validity of a general article on a future topic to an article on a small segment of a future topic. That's apples to oranges. Those football transfer articles are generally restricted to just a few leagues, and mostly those where WikiProject Football's most active members aren't editing. There's no reason for this article to exist when the main season one does not, and right now, there's only a limited amount of information that could easily be included in the main season article anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now getting way off track, to be honest. The bottom line is – WP:TOOSOON basically states that article content (even if related to future events) should be verifiable by reliable sources. This is definitely the case here, as indicated by the references provided. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 January 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 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) 05:54, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearce ( Hockey )[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:NHOCKEY, non major leaguer Deunanknute (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Played all of 4 games in the OHL over the course of 2 weeks before being demoted back to Junior C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable junior player. Reso lute 23:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, falls acres short of WP:NHOCKEY. Article created by a SPA for whom this is the sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a case of too soon and I agree with all of the points supporting deletion. Deadman137 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex merkin[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG, most of the article is by one source [30], which is not reliable nor verifiable. Some extreme claims ("Much of his commercial success may be seen with recurring projects and clients such as HBO, PUMA, SONY, First Look Studio's, Toyota, Bad Boy, Epic Records. . .") from the same citation linked here which cannot be verified. Tek022 | Comments? 04:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides references to wikipedia, all of it is from one source, which is borderline at best. GNG requires multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Widr (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Mad TV (2000–05)[edit]

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

No sources and any content could easily be merged into the appropriate season articles (but probably won't be, considering almost all of it seems to be original research). I've been meaning to do this for some time, and Wikipedical's nomination of the Saturday Night Live season articles finally convinced me to get around to it.

I am also nominating History of Mad TV (2005–09) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it's essentially the same formatting and content. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 04:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I don't see anything that can't be included in Mad TV or the seasons pages. Deunanknute (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant and trivial information already present elsewhere. And chronicling television history by five-year increments is completely arbitrary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 13 February 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 McLean County Unit District No. 5. Content of the article has already been merged into redirect target. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Junior High School[edit]

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

Per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this article should be deleted unless notability can be shown. While a portion of the school building did serve as part of Normal Community High School, this information can be noted on that page. Content should be merged with school district. EyeTripleE (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there an article for the school's district? —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McLean County Unit District No. 5 is the school district. EyeTripleE (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate, then redirect to McLean County Unit District No. 5. As a rule, junior highs aren't notable; there's no indication this is an exception. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge to district page as usual. Deunanknute (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per everyone above. –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McLean County Unit District No. 5: All content of Kingsley Junior High School is unsourced, tagged since 2009, and nearly all unsourced grade school sports trivia; it should have been blanked long ago, except for the first two sentences. Copy-paste merge would require would mean retaining history and having {{Copied}} or {{Merged-from}} permanently to satisfy Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia — not that that would be a big deal by itself, but it's not worth it here. --Closeapple (talk) 01:59, 19 February 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. Merge has been proposed by nom. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flower/Halloween[edit]

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

I suggest that this is merged/redirected into Flower (Sonic Youth song). Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Nominator is requesting a merge not a deletion and had already tagged the article for merger. Let that discussion take place on the appropriate talk page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:13, 19 February 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 NAC –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emerge! The Rise of Functional Democracy and the Future of the Middle East[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Previously tagged as such, then the article was moved to the Book: namespace. (I don't think that this article represents the intended use of the Book: namespace.) Article should be deleted wherever it is, since it's not a notable subject. Mikeblas (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete this and associated pages. Improper use of "Book:" name space and promotional content. Deunanknute (talk) 04:33, 13 February 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 is that the articles fails to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Sales Tracking[edit]

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

No claim of, nor sign of, meeting our guidelines for software notability. Sources are a posting at the KillerStartups blog announcing its launch (and stating "It doesn’t offer anything exciting or new in sales management so it’s questionable how successful they will be", not exactly a shouting of notability), a review on SmallBizCRM which appears to be a WP:SPS (a blog that had 45 postings in 2014, and none before or since), a posting on the subject's own blog, another copy of the same KillerStartups coverage linked to through the Archive so it looks different, a single paragraph at Gigaom, and a quote from the company's website on a list of APIs. Searches find nothing more significant. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed on sourcing issues. Gigaom seems like the only reliable source, but SST is not the main topic of the article and it's certainly not enough to meet notability. Jeremiah (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Nat Gertler and Jeremiah Mountain. The software is widely used, however sources discussing it are few. I really thought Gagaom coverage would make it pass WP:GNG. I believe something can be made out of this article, but it's not up to me. I'll see if I can find some other sources. In the meantime, could we put the deletion on hold? (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really put it on hold, but you can request userfication, so that if it is deleted, you'll have a copy in your user space that you can work on for a while and resubmit if you find something that's not currently apparent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 References added. 1 Removed - Good call Nat Gertler on the Web archive reference and the one that pointed to the author's own blog. I had a quick look on their website and uncovered 3 additional references - which are much better quality than the first ones, sorry about that. They are:
- Lee,Jimson (17 April 2008). "Simple Sales Tracking Simplicity at it's Core: Sales!". CRM Helpdesk Software. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
- Franklin,Carl (16 December 2008). "Simple Sales Tracking with Shane Redlick". Telerik. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
- Farrington,Jonathan (22 Jan 2008). "Today's News". JFBlogIt. Retrieved 6 February 2015.

But those are weak references as well. What you have is:

Telerik TV, which is "a virtual library of showcase videos dedicated to applications built with Telerik’s development tools and components" - i.e., a company showing off what its customers can do with its products, so that's clearly not independent.
45 words in a person's blog. Not significant.
The CRM Help Desk Software looks appealing at first - the piece is at least long, but this appears to be a never-shared article on an obscure, rarely-updated blog. Is this a significant source? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like 1-2 blog posts per month on CRM Helpdesk. I think the share count could be misleading. It's a very old article and for all we know the share button wasnt there when it was posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditordownunder (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Telerik spot is an infomercial. The presenter is a member of Consilium Solutions, which is another name that the owner of Simple Sales Tracking goes by. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I has a quick look and found another independent reference. The blog is much more active than CRM helpdesk, but it's not exactly Lifehacker.^[1]
- I've also found that the product has been recommended/mentioned in 2 published books - Cause Marketing for Dummies ^[2] and The Complete Idiots Guide - Starting a Web-Based Business^[3]

^ http://sellmorenow.com/crm-review/simple-sales-tracking/
^ https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ZHdpX6BtR3kC&pg=PT70&lpg=PT70&dq=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&source=bl&ots=bTCMyoi8mC&sig=oi8-mtJ6q3trCoLRMg-ATvXeXnA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4sDWVP2NG4zl8AXhnYLQAw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&f=false
^ https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=qwIZDpXW8HkC&pg=PT420&lpg=PT420&dq=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&source=bl&ots=NplZCvPRJ8&sig=41mXyjj2rLVkWkX6JvOPuXOwCyc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4sDWVP2NG4zl8AXhnYLQAw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&f=false

- I'll probably leave it at that. Not sure what it's going to take to get this listed and can't spend too much longer on this. talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is just a copy of material from the simplesalestracking.com website, with a note that he intends to review it at some point. That's pretty much like a press release; we don't count press release reprintings. The two book mentions add up to three sentences total, so neither is significant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice that all of the dozens of entries at Comparison of CRM systems have their own articles, in many cases with as limited or non-existent notability as this subject. I.e., a case could be made for bundling a large number into this, or another, AfD. Pax 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be value to such a bundled deletion. However, as the nominator on this one, I do not have time to check out all I'd need to check out and to build it up, and it looks like this individual one is reasonably close to being done. If you want to start a bundled deletion discussion for the remaining pages of concern, that sounds like a good thing to do! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are two sources listed which are independent and provide an in-depth review of the product: SmallbizCRM and CRM Helpdesk Software. Both are marginally reliable. If there was an in-depth independent review in a reliable source, I could see those other two pushing it over the edge. But on their own I don't think they satisfy the GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montice Harmon[edit]

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

Self published novelist, no independent sources, article in the Tallahassee Democrat is a press release written by the subject. Geogene (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertisement of non-notable writer. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure whether this qualifies for a "speedy delete" as a blatant advertisement, but I can certainly see the argument that it might. I am not finding evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to support a claim of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, or any of the criteria under the specific notability guideline for authors per WP:AUTHOR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. Insufficient evidence of notability as a writer, but it does at least give an indication of good faith possible importance, which is all that is necessary to pass speedy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiore Argento[edit]

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

Doesn't appear individually notable, notability not inherited from father/sister. Her roles have mainly been in their films. Article claims she is "known mainly as a fashion designer" but Google doesn't seem to think so. (maybe sources in Italian?) Also, with one non-RS (her father's website) this is virtually an unreferenced BLP. I am open to withdrawing if notability can be convincingly shown, but I can't find anything I'm afraid. Mabalu (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 5 February 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 00:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Non notable career both as an actress and as a fashion designer. Fails GNG and any applicable SNG. Cavarrone 16:23, 19 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greets Green[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, the only claim to notability for the residential area are the extant WWI buildings. Apart from that, this residential area does not appear to be of any significance. There is a disturbing lack of news articles for the area and indeed the recent developments as mentioned in the article itself. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:39 PM • 01:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The only source I can find on this subject is a mention as part of a broader history of West Bromwich. The page's information would be better suited there. Acebulf (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason at all to delete this page.

I read that `the only claim to notability for the residential area are the extant WWI buildings’, and yet there is the Oak House, a building close on five hundred years old, linked to an important person in the history of West Bromwich. There is also the genesis of West Bromwich Albion F.C. which had not yet been added.

This page has only been nominated because of our disagreement over Made in America (The Sopranos).

This page is a work in progress, with more detail, sources and referencing to come. If that is a reason for deleting it, then logically all of Wikipedia must be deleted too.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Highbeam search turns up a significant quantity of coverage about his area, in particular about the Greets Green Partnership project. The area is quoted as containing over 12,000 people.[31]. I think there is enough to satisfy WP:NPLACE. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 5 February 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 00:33, 13 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeedTo[edit]

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

Article out of AFC. Subject fails WP:CORP - coverage is superficial or self-generated. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 January 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 13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only local coverage, no indication of wider notability. Huon (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Wider notability

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/clip/9461809/website-founder-describes-needtocom http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/04/dallas-native-wade-floyd-is.html/ http://www.s.co/blog/need-something-done-heres-your-answer http://www.thrillist.com/home-gadgets/nation/needto_jobs_services_websites

Users in over 260 cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:4FD8:1070:3422:925D:1DC3:58DA (talk) 00:54, 9 February 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 00:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks okay to me. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"OK" how, exactly? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this is anything more than an advertisement for a type of service offered by a million other web-based companies. This idea is neither new nor revolutionary, and this company fails WP:CORP, what exactly makes them notable? Because a few local news articles have been written? There simply isn't enough here to establish notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 13:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monophonics[edit]

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

Not a notable band. I declined a CSD A7 because there were some sources and a claim to hit #1 in Greece. However, said claim is not in the source given and I can't find anything else of note aside from an entry in AllMusic that says they've released one album on a small reissue label. There are a quite a few mentions of the band in the local press, mostly interviews, so they pass the WP:GARAGE criteria, but not really enough to meet WP:NMUSIC. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one article in Rock Revolt magazine could be considered independent coverage, but it's the only case, and it is unclear what the nature of that website is (whether significant, editorial-reviewed content or just a slickly designed blog). More evidence of significant coverage would be needed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 January 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 13:48, 5 February 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 00:31, 13 February 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 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Maleshin[edit]

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

Autobiography of a Russian legal scholar. According to his GScholar profile, he has been cited 101 times (h-index=5). The only claim to notability under WP:ACADEMIC would be that he is editor-in-chief of the Russian Law Journal, but that was deleted after an AFD. No evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of ACADEMIC. No sources showing that he meets WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that a GS h-index of 5 doesn't satisfy criteria 1 of WP:PROF in this field. Law is apparently a very low citation field for academics. According to LSE, the average h-index of a (full) law professor (2.8) is the lowest of any of the social sciences, significantly less than the average across all such disciplines (4.9), and far below the number suggested by Hirsch for a (full) professor of physics (18). I am under the impression that we will accept as notable a scientist with a h-index of 20 based on Hirch's suggestion for a "successful scientist". Therefore, assuming the numbers scale linearly (I have no idea whether they do), we would presumably accept a law professor with a h-index of 4 (on the logic of 20÷(18/2.8)~3.1). I appreciate the Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators have a citation threshold 154 for the social sciences, but the level of citation in this field appears to be significantly below the average for the social sciences as a whole, based on average h-indexes. So, all things considered, it isn't clear to me why it is not enough for this individual to have a h-index that is more than 78% above the average for a full professor in his field. It might be helpful if the nominator would explain precisely what level of citation he thinks a Russian law professor should have and why. James500 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify what I said in the nom. I don't think that an h-index of 5 proves that there is no notability, nor does the citation count of 101 (proving absence of anything is very difficult if not impossible, anyway). You're absolutely right that such counts are generally low in this field. However, what I want to say is that by looking at citation counts/h-index, I don't find any evidence in support of notability. An h-index of 2.8 is ridiculously easy to get (one only has to cite oneself in three papers...). What this all shows is that citations are not very helpful in this field to establish notability. However, if there had been lots of citations, that could have established notability (so I mentioned it as part of WP:BEFORE). Hope this sounds not too muddled... --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for this discussion. If the main reason to delete is the GS h-index, it will be difficult to get any other index for a Russian legal scholar. Please let me know any Russian legal scholar who have higher index? there is nobody, from my point of view. The problem that Russian legal scholars make just few research in English and therefore don't have high level indexes.Yarik1949 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to explain above, the low h-index is not a reason to delete, it just doesn't provide any evidence for notability. In the absence of reliable sources, lack of notability ("No evidence that he meets any of the other criteria of ACADEMIC") is the policy-based reason that this is proposed for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 5 February 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 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to measure notability of a scholar, particulary of a legal scholar... Legal science doesn't have universe criteria. It has national specifity and character. Legislation is unique for every country. It is not mathematica or chemistry with common rules and academics. There is no common rules and academics in law. When we speak about Russian legal scholars it's a lack of English research and as a consequence there is no famous English speaking academics. I think there is no one Russian legal scholar in English Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that there is no legal science in Russia. The main reason is mentioned above: there are just few who is recognised on the international level.Yarik1949 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That it is difficult doesn't mean we should throw our notability criteria out. In any case, it is not necessary for someone to be internationally known in order to be notable. We have quite a lot of articles on people that are only locally notable. Sources in Russian are acceptable, too, as long as they are reliable and independent of the subject. I note that there is apparently no article for this person in the Russian WP either... How is his name written in Russian? (That may help us find sources). --Randykitty (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian: Малешин Дмитрий Ярославович

Russian sources and articles are here: His Moscow State University profile with more than 120 articles: https://istina.msu.ru/profile/maleshin/ Academia.edu profile: https://moscowstate.academia.edu/DmitryMaleshin Yarik1949 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But those are not independent... --Randykitty (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "independent"? You could have publications or couldn't have. Maleshin has more than 120 publications in different languages...Yarik1949 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we could reach a consensus because nobody listen to the arguments... Thank you for your timeYarik1949 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing is not what makes somebody notable. All academics publish, that is what they do and what they are paid for. What counts is whether those publications have been noted, i.e., have had an impact that can be verified by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The two sources you give above (academia.com and his university page) are not independent of the subject, because he likely provided that information himself. BTW, I note that "Малешин Дмитрий Ярославович" does not give a single hit on the Russian wiki either. In order for us to have an article, a subject needs to meet either the general notability guideline, os a specialty guideline such as WP:ACADEMIC. I see no evidence that Maleshin meets either. I understand your frustration: creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do here on WP. But please read those guidelines, because following them will make yoru life here much easier. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maleshin meets most of criterias that mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC, including: 1)significant impact in their scholarly discipline; 2) member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; 3)The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education; 4)The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post; 5)chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Please have a look updated page. The problem that we measure Maleshin's notability differently...Yarik1949 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my last comment again. (Especially the linked policies about verifiability and independent reliable sources). I don't see any evidence of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again the updated page. All te criterias are there: membership in prestigious scholarly societies; editorship, etc. What do you want to see? Nobel Prize? Nobody got Nobel prize in law. There is no any reason for me to continue this discussion. Nobody listen to the arguments. Thank you for your timeYarik1949 (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also try to understand the policies that you are reading (and don't forget the explanatory notes).. "Membership" in prestigious societies is not enough, after all, the only thing one has to do is pay the dues. It needs to be elected into somthing like a national academy of sciences or similar prestigious honor. As for the editorship, Maleshin is editor for two journals, neither of them notable, hence neither of them "a major well-established academic journal". If anybody is not listening here, I'm afraid it is you yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 8 February 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 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that Maleshin meets most of criterias that mentioned in WP:ACADEMIC. 1). Editorship: the Russian Law Journal is the best legal academic journal in Russia, the only one that indexed by Heinonline, etc. He is also member of editorials of other Russian and International legal academic journals; 2) membership. He is a member of a major international organisation in the field of civil procedure - International association of procedural law. He is not ordinary member, but a member of a Council and was elected there in 2008; 3)He has been during 10 years Vice Dean of the leading law school in Russia of Moscow State University and got major votes in Dean's elections in 2013. It was a big event and notorious affair; 3) He has drafted many statutes on the legal education in Russia and has a significant impact on the higher education in Russia; 4) He participates in many international academic projects and his academic work has made a significant impact in the field of civil procedure. I can continue... I think he is notable in the field of civil procedure and legal education in Russia.Yarik1949 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat: 1/ None of these journals is notable (the Russian Law Journal was deleted after an AfD even): doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. 2/ None of those are major elected memberships and honors: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. 3/ There are no reliable sources that make this assertion verifiable: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. 4/ Participating in projects is what all academics do. However, there are no reliable sources that documents that this participation made any impact: doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that the Russian Law Journal is the best in Russia and is the one that is indexed by international databases. It was deleted in WIKI by you. Therefore you can't edit any other pages related to it! And I repeat you that it is notable! It is only your opinion that it doesn't meet WIKI criteria. You don't listen to any arguments and I don't have any wish to continue discussion with you. Your opinion is prejudice and I propose you to stop editing the pages that I creat or improve!Yarik1949 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell me that as often as you like, but the community decision at the AfD was that notability was not supported by any verifiable evidence. Please get familiar with the policies and guidelines that I have linked to, a good understanding of them will make your life decidedly easier here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is community decision? It's your personal decision that doesn't meet any criteria. I repeat that you don't listen to the arguments at all and your decisions are prejudice. You delete all the pages that I try to improve or create without any expalnations!Yarik1949 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD (like this one) is a community discussion. The Russian Law Journal was proposed for deletion by me (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Law Journal). The participants agreed with my assessment and the debate was closed, and the article deleted, by an independent admin, not me. SO it was deleted per community consensus, not some unilateral decision of myself. Once more, please familiarize yourself with our guidelines and policies. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 15 February 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 Carleton University#Arts and media. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock 'n' Buskin Theatre Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I stumbled across this article, which seems to be about a student theatre company at Carleton University. It appears to have been kept at a laughable 2006 AfD where not one person put forward a single reliable independent source - I sort of doubt these weak arguments would wash 8 years later! Though it is long-established it is still effectively a student club, run by the university's students and, in my view, would be better placed as a paragraph in the Carleton University article. Claiming notability on the backs of university students that subsequently became successful seems to be 'notability by association', which doesn't work on Wikipedia does it?! Sionk (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Carleton University#Arts and media. It already has one sentence in that section, and that is probably all it deserves on Wikipedia given the lack of significant coverage. Vrac (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Vrac. VandVictory (talk) 05:24, 3 February 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 13:51, 5 February 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 00:28, 13 February 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. Soft Deletion as no arguments made against nomination after 2 relists. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Thrills[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 January 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 21:52, 12 February 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. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015–16 Super Rugby transfers[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL; there's a long time until this season starts, and the name itself is highly misleading (it refers to the 2016 season, not the 2015–16 season, which doesn't exist). Transfers could change a lot in the mean time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the transfers included have already been revealed via press releases, etc. If it's already deemed newsworthy, how can it be WP:TOOSOON. Also, absolutely everything is completely verifiable, with references included to indicate as such, so it definitely doesn't meet WP:CRYSTAL either. The article refers to both the 2015 and the 2016 seasons, and transfers between those two seasons. It's definitely not just particular to the 2016 season. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:52, 1 February 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is already public interest in 2015–16 player movements as per the media reports mentioned by User:TheMightyPeanut above. Particularly as this is a World Cup year, there are players stepping down from international rugby and already transferring from Super rugby for 2015–16. Many have already signed contracts in Europe or Japan. The article is not merely a placeholder waiting to be updated in 6 months time because the news is already occurring. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL do not apply. -- Ham105 (talk) 08:53, 10 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 21:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated previously, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL don't even apply. There are tens of valid references from reliable sources supporting all the content on the page. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions for New Jersey[edit]

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

The references provided, sparse as they are, do not indicate notability. $5,000 in revenue for 2011? No suggestion that it has had any impact anywhere?Assuming this is accurate, this is definitely not a WP:GNG organization. – S. Rich (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) @ 21:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. My research yields no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not seeing notability. Neutrality^talk 02:31, 17 February 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. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Salkini[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Has not received any significant award or honor, has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field, and has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 January 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 10:30, 6 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Kutz[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability in ambassadors, ambassadors have been deleted in WP. Those voting keep should make a genuine attempt to find sources to establish notability, if they don't it will indicate a lack of notability. I could find a few one line mentions confirming she is an ambassador, but nothing to satisfy in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 January 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, 6 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Essentially everything I can find about her is that she is an ambassador. As a rule we have found that insufficient. Seyasirt (talk) 13:43, 13 February 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 Sita. (Closing as been up for 3 entire weeks with only 1 vote - This article appears to be a duplicate of Sita anyway so personally feel redirecting is best) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeta kalyanam[edit]

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

This is nothing more than an WP:ESSAY, with no WP:RS and probably full of WP:OR Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 31 January 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, 6 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sita. Delibzr (talk) 15:45, 13 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan (comics)[edit]

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

No significant coverage at all. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 31 January 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two sources which mention and describe in some detail the series and added it to the article. I see that the comic series appears in the index of this encyclopedia, suggesting there is an entry on it, but the corresponding page is not available. Unfortunately I do not have time now for full-scale digging, and it is not a topic that interests me, but I am sure given that it was last published in the 1970s and in Italian, there is a lot more out there, in offline sources and possibly in editions of the Italian Cartoon Museum in Lucca.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being unsourced is not a valid rationale for deletion, however sources have been provided and WP:HEY applies: [32]. Cavarrone 08:51, 20 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Magnuson[edit]

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

Should be moved to the TV show. Way too soon for sure (of course she is very young so maybe she will deserve her own page eventually, but for now a redirect) Wgolf (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 19:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 19:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 19:52, 6 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, WP:NACTOR does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every single actor who happens to have an IMDb page, because all actors (even ones who only have a single credited "background extra" role) have IMDb pages. It's reliable source coverage, not confirmation of mere existence, that gets an actor into Wikipedia — but no evidence of any RS coverage has been demonstrated here, and the television series on which her claim of notability has been staked has not even premiered yet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the sourcing is there. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her one role is in a work that has not even been released yet. Way to soon to assert notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 14 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Moussi[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance or notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the main star of an upcoming $17 million film which is the reboot of the popular Kickboxer franchise. Why in the world would anyone want to remove information about its star from the internet? People are interested in the film and, by extension, its star. Who is this actor we are unfamiliar with? It makes absolutely no sense to remove this info. It will just be added back as soon as we get closer to the release date, so why get rid of it? Donmike10 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the film has already been made, Moussi will be notable even if he dies before the film comes out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 12 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 21:48, 12 February 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. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makers Academy[edit]

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

This computer course is non notable IMO - and borders on advertising. The guardian has listed it in a list of top 10 places to learn about computer programming - is that enough to count as a WP:RS? Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 January 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 13:50, 5 February 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (prattle) @ 21:46, 12 February 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. Davewild (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Facini[edit]

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

No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. The most substantial, independent coverage I can find is here, which is little more than a brief mention. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:agree with above. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 February 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to warrant an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 13 February 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 snow close as delete. While there are a few sources that claim that Heng is performing in this or that film, there's nothing to confirm that it's this specific Heng. What makes this seem specifically like a hoax is that the article claims that Heng has won a Sundance Award and been nominated for an equally well known award, yet there's no coverage of her accomplishing this. Her age is also a pretty telling factor and a search for her on the Internet at large doesn't bring anything up. She's also not on IMDb, but I'd like to point out that people have used that site to perpetuate hoaxes in the past, as can be seen with Gretel Ashzinger, where they manipulated IMDb into backing up their hoax (even going so far as to claim that she presented a Grammy) so being on IMDb really doesn't mean anything. If anyone wants this re-opened I'll reopen it, but this looks like it's a pretty blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Heng (I)[edit]

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

This article is fake. Sophie Cookson act Kingsman: The Secret Service as Roxy, not Alisha. Jupiter Ascending and Love, Rosie too. besides, she is not notable. Kanghuitari (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC) She acted in kingsman as Grace idot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.139.69 (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. This is a continuation of repeated fake-credit edits in this name: see the deletion log for Alisha Heng as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alisha Evelyn Heng. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions were because of someone else not knowing what role she was playing this new article has good sources that verify the article her name can be found in the cast list.

Delete Obvious hoax is obvious. Its unlikely a 12 year old is a stunt double. The individual who has removed the WP:SPEEDY tags has also added similar information to other articles (those these articles are accurate apart from the new inclusions). Amortias (T)(C) 02:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a hoax. The sources that mention her name are all unreliable, and the sources that are somewhat reliable don't mention her name at all. The IP's been adding her name to several film pages now, so I'll go ahead and revert those for now since the existence of this person is in question. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's just a recreation of an article under a different name which was deleted per G3 as a hoax. Snowager (talk) 03:11, 14 February 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.

[1] ttp://sellmorenow.com/crm-review/simple-sales-tracking/

[2] ttps://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ZHdpX6BtR3kC&pg=PT70&lpg=PT70&dq=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&source=bl&ots=bTCMyoi8mC&sig=oi8-mtJ6q3trCoLRMg-ATvXeXnA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4sDWVP2NG4zl8AXhnYLQAw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&f=false

[3] ttps://books.google.co.nz/books?id=qwIZDpXW8HkC&pg=PT420&lpg=PT420&dq=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&source=bl&ots=NplZCvPRJ8&sig=41mXyjj2rLVkWkX6JvOPuXOwCyc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4sDWVP2NG4zl8AXhnYLQAw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22simplesalestracking.com%22&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]