Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 February	20 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 keep. Nakon 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafeŕoor[edit]

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

This appear to be a hoax or neologism, with so few on-line sources that it appears virtually unknown or not-notable, with no sources to be able to write a contextual article. (I am aware not all information is online.) MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote the article. It is a legitimate entity within a legitimate navigational system. There are two references already. While I appreciate that sometimes it may be useful to request article deletion, that is actually a rare situation and in most cases it is an extreme and final course of action. In this case, there is no evidence. In future, if you want to call referenced articles written by long term contributors and administrators hoaxes — without even bothering to provide any evidence — I would point out that you are simply wasting people's time. prat (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two references with only one sentence in each, nothing else, at all. If you would like to quote the policy that gives long term contributers and administrators a special symbol that says their articles are above Wikipedia policies, go ahead, then I will recognize the indicator in the future and know that the articles are off limits to me. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Length of reference is irrelevant, and I claim no special status... simply point out that even circumstantial evidence here points towards legitimacy. This article was created as part of my significant contributions to sailing articles, including Wa (watercraft) which incidentally earned an editors barnstar, and significant expansion to templates and their entries like Trimarans and Multihulls. prat (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Length of reference does matter, it goes towards establishing notability if someone writes a book or a paper about something versus mentioning it in passing. In the forner case you wind up readily finding agreement of notability as the source has been vetted, the topic, by publication and citations. In this case you give no indication that you plucked your terms out of anything but thin air, two sentences. There really seems to be nothing else on this topic, nothing. And you do claim special status, that of "long term contributors and administrators", so, what policies say that posting an AfD requires a check of how long you have been contributing and whether or not you have privileged AfD prevention status as an "administrator". MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective it's usual to see who created a page and in what context before calling for its outright deletion and I'm sorry if you feel this is somehow strange or requesting special treatment, which it is not. This is good encyclopedic content. The thrust of your argument in this case seems to be that you feel the subject is a 'hoax or neologism' because you can't see many references to it online. In fact, a lot of human knowledge existed before the internet, still exists outside of the internet, and will continue to do so. In this case, perhaps you are not aware that the subject is an element within near-extinct traditional celestial navigation system of a barely populated region of the Pacific Ocean. All the references are academic, in fitting with what you would expect for such a subject. Academic references are one of the most solid types available, because an author providing false or misleading information faces serious recourse in their career and reputation. Admittedly, there is little content here presently, however the correct option for Wikipedia in this case is to let the article grow as people find time and interest to bring in additional sources. Deleting it would negatively impact both context in other pages and the future of Wikipedia's coverage of the important historic navigation traditions underlining the Origins, exploration and settlement of Polynesia, one of earth's greatest and last peopled frontiers. This will be my last comment on this deletion request, which I consider ridiculous. prat (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to ping me when you find the "can't delete article because an administrator wrote it" policy. It is not a shortcoming, it is two sentences on the entire subject. Almost a Googlewhack. While claiming special administrator privileges, and that the writer of the article determines its notability (an anti-Wikipedia concept), you still have not offered more sources from anywhere, which may indicate you based this on only those two. I think the nomintation can based on policies which require the topic, not the writer, to be notable. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mythological places, historical mistakes and "lost" things are not hoaxes. This journal piece is a solid RS. It should also be noted that extinct volcanic islands in the central Pacific are always gradually subsiding under their own weight (the Hawaiian island chain being the archetypical example of that in progress from younger to older islands), with coral atolls being entirely coral perched atop now completely sunken volcanic features - sometimes precariously and prone to collapse after great storms or earthquakes. Since it was used in navigation, it is likely that Kafeŕoor once existed as a coral reef, but is now a seamount or guyot of indeterminate location. Pax 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If it did it would be mentioned in more than one single source, one mention in a single 40-year-old source is not an encyclopedia article. Maybe it was never mentioned again, anywhere, because it was corrected out of that source. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Kaferoor" (no accent on the 'r') helps. This RS deals specifically with the subject of "ghost islands" in Polynesia, Kaferoor being one of them. Pax 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a stub on a fairly obscure topic, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Google Scholar search found several academic references.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Several?" The same one plus a single regurgitation and nothing else before or after for decades? It was probably a misprint, now Wikipedia mirrors will have it rise out of nothing. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:44, 25 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) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Falcons Noise gate[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS might apply here. When searching for this "Noisegate" thing, I found most sources are from the first few days of February; compare it to Deflategate, where, despite being from late January, coverage continues to this day. A mention at Atlanta Falcons might suffice, but I don't think "Noisegate" is notable enough for its own page, especially considering only one source was sourced on the page. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it hasn't had any lasting power that I can find. Should it be referenced again later on, then we have something. Mentioning in the Falcons article is a good place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS; as Paul McDonald correctly notes above, there is no evidence that this one-cycle news event has any long-term notability. Depending on sources and outcome, this may or may not deserve a mention and a footnote in the 2015 NFL and Atlanta Falcons season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and subsequent comments; there's nothing I can really add to the above votes, no substantial coverage since the story first broke mean this now falls down on WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think we need a corollary to NFT: Wikipedia is not for something a bored sportswriter scribbled to beat deadline. (Oh, wait, there is ...) Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable event, article even specifically states that this has been a very minor story -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Atlanta Falcons 2014 season (unless an article is written on 2014 NFL controversies generally). Minor non-notable infraction of sporting rules. Only passing notability results from (i) contrasts with DeflateGate hysteria, and (ii) what was presented as (and felt like) a scandal ridden year for the NFL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:50, 23 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. Article's subject is found to not be suitable for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Railway Ticket Reservation Codes[edit]

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

Personally I'm not sure what to make of the article....... Anyway can't find evidence of notability fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 04:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to Merging but IMHO none of it seems mergable and then there's the question of "What do we merge?" ... Personally I think deletion is the better option here I honestly do... –Davey2010^Talk 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm actually sort of at a loss as to just which notability policy to best link here. But a list of ticket processing codes for Indian rail is going to run afoul of many of them; there's not even a credible claim of notability to be had here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge this article with the Indian Railways article, rather than delete it. It is likely that these codes are useful in buying tickets and traveling on the Indian Railway trains, but we all know that being useful does not help someone seeking to retain some information on Wikipedia.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is I'm not sure where or what parts could even be Merged, IMHO It doesn't look like it can anywhere but meh that's my 2¢ on it. –Davey2010^Talk 10:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not for this purpose. Proposing for delete. Athachil (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not the place for this subject. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interface) @ 10:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -We already have a parent article, information from present one could be covered into, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation. (courtesy ping : Dthomsen8, I think, IRCTC could be a more suitable merge target). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into IRCTC, Indian Railways, or Railway tickets. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:41, 17 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 // 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an Indian railway ticketing manual. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:LISTCRUFT in its purest form. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can be merged rather than delete as they do contain encyclopedic content. Wont warrant a separate article but can be merged into any of the parent articles as mentioned by Anupmehra or RSrikanth. Just a table of the codes along with a short description might suffice in any parent article. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:44, 21 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. There is clearly no consensus on either side, both with well formed arguments in policy. This is a case which shows our policies can indeed conflict with each other, and as the community cannot decide (via a very thorough discussion at AFD) which ones outweigh the others, I have no choice but to close this as a true representation of the debate. Lastly, as MZMcBride stated below, any further discussion regarding whether this should be redirected or merged elsewhere can be worked out on the appropriate talk pages, as it's clear that consensus will not be found here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bromance[edit]

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

"Bromance" is just a buzzword for concepts that already exist and are already well documented at platonic love, romance, friendship, male bonding and in other articles. (There is already a bromance article on Wiktionary.) Gronky (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Reluctant Keep -Other fandom terms that would usually belong in Urban Dictionary are kept, I do not see any difference to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.146.46 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 February 2015‎ — 2.27.146.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Would be more in place at wikitionary or merged with Friendship or male bonding articles. Wikipedia should be more serious than having articles as long as this on "bromance", which is just a male bonding term. Have some credibility, please. bladez (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladez: Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with notability on the article subject. "Seriousness" is not a notability requirement. I have presented sources down below that discuss the article subject extensively and distinctly from simple male bonding, as Bromance itself is a genre of film. Silver seren^C 20:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverseren, you've added 26 comments to this page. I think we know your opinion. (This is the only comment I'm adding.) And your list of sources is off-topic. It only proves the word is in use. That means it deserves a Wiktionary entry, and it has one. Documenting words is not Wikipedia's goal. In 20 years time many men will still like and love each other, but this word will have disappeared. That's because it's a buzzword, not a distinct concept.

P.S. Happy Valentine's Day guys! Gronky (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gronky. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smowton: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below Chris Smowton (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to male bonding. ubiquity (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to friendship. YitzchakF (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, it's a material for the Urban Dictionary, not even Wiktionary. KiloByte (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KiloByte: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, It may warrant a footnote on an existing page, ie male bonding or just friendship. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 12:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@E0steven: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also believe this belongs in the Urban Dictionary. An article may make sense in the future, if use persists. --Uncronopio86 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Uncronopio86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Uncronopio86: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren: Your insults are not such good "sources".--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read other opinions I agree that this would make a nice complement to other more pertinent articles like friendship or male bonding and such. Perhaps include it in "in popular culture" or make a new section.

Delete. The word bromance is in the OED, so it's probably worthy of inclusion in ~~Wikipedia~~Wiktionary, but I fail to see how it fits in an encyclopædia. I feel sad that Wikipedia is so obviously influenced by xkcd. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be having this discussion. J Alexander D Atkins (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex.atkins: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Wiktionary. Your 'sources' link doesn't appear to go anywhere. What are you trying to link to? Information, or instructions, or something else? J Alexander D Atkins (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Merge with Male bonding. Well-sourced article, and the subject is clearly not a passing fad. Wikipedia doesn't ban use of all slang terms. But there is a lot of duplication between this article and Male bonding, so they should probably be merged.Chessrat (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This is my fifth time TRYING to vote on this. Its bullshit (the process). Bromance is a subcategory of platonic friendship. NONE of the articles references are to studies ABOUT bromance. They are to uses of the word. Words belong in dictionaries. If an article on platonic friendship exists, merge this with it. If not, then clearly this doesn't deserve it either!Abitslow (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abitslow: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to and Merge relevant content with Male bonding. A sensible article on the subject would include discussion of male-male friendships before the term "bromance" came into usage, as a subject in itself rather than as a "precursor". Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and Merge with Friendship. That article covers everything necessary and I don't see a separate need for bromance. Keenman76 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: The background to this DR is probably this xkcd comic of today. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Male bonding. Should not delete content that is well sourced, but it should be at the more established article name. Darx9url (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.

Keep This discussion is highly biased by the fact that xkcd targeted it today. If there is a reason to delete it, have the conversation at a future date. Jbeyerl (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to male bonding. The word has become ubiquitous enough that WP should give a user someplace to go. -R. fiend (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J Alexander D Atkins, except I'm pretty sure he means inclusion in Wiktionary.Yannick (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ytrottier: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 132.206.150.251 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the word is dumb and people should stop using it doesn't mean the well-sourced article about said word should be deleted. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Closedmouth (and also agreeing with Jbeyerl). -- KTC (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's possible the article is a WP:CFORK and per Jbeyerl. Pufflepets (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article appears to distinguish "bromance" as a distinct category of friendship, provides plenty of reliable references, and is clearly sufficiently important as a cultural phenomenon to justify a separate article. Whilst many people dislike the word itself, this is not an acceptable reason for deletion. I feel that it would be inappropriate to merge this article into friendship, as bromance is (as the article notes) a specific and well-documented kind of friendship. We don't attempt to merge communism into socialism, although the one is simply a form of the other. In the same way, a merge here would be inappropriate. It's regrettable that a cartoonist's whim should be driving this debate, but we do have a general wiki-principle: just because you don't like something is no reason to delete it from Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a clearly defined topic, which is well structured. I also disagree with the issue that it contains original research, as it appears to be well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
very reluctant Keep...per WP:NAD - and specifically WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. "...we have plenty of references here that do exactly that. WP:NOTE isn't an issue. However, considerable cleanup is required. Poor writing style isn't grounds for deletion. Suggested redirects such as Friendship are not synonyms - we wouldn't merge Love with Human behavior. Merge with Male bonding is possible, but there are connotations to bromance that aren't there in male bonding, so that merge seems 'iffy'. SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[s]Keep My initial impression was definitely delete. Then I saw how well sourced it was and I would have suggested merging with Male Bonding but that is an uncited stub and barely an article. Bromance is talked about, in reliable sources and the article while poorly written in places seems to meet all criteria.[/s] SPACKlick (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been convinced Merge to homosociality

Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.

Delete or Merge and Redirect. I agree with Abitslow, Pseudomonas, and Gronky. This article is just a present use-case of Male Bonding or Human Bonding, and should be merged into one of these. Additionally, WP:NAD says we don't really need an article just describing what the word is. Every reference in the Bromance article deals with a media usage of the term, not a reference for the term. Additionally, and I know this isn't a reason, but Bromance isn't really mentioned (and has no place) in the template. Shashwat986 → talk 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shashwat986: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, It may warrant a footnote on an existing page. Jhealy (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhealy: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above & mainly Closedmouth - Yup it's a dumb word but there's sufficient sources in the article so passes GNG, so I don't really see a reason to delete... –Davey2010^Talk 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and redirect to Friendship. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not an urban dictionary; just because some people use a term indistinguishable from friendship doesn't mean it should have its own encyclopedia article. The word is different, the meaning is not. Therefore, redirect to Friendship. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the meaning is the same, you clearly have never had a bromance. I've got lots of friends, but bromances are rarer and entirely different from most friendships. RomanSpa (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are they different? They may be good friends, which are indeed rare. Other than that I fail to see the difference.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerritho: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Notable, well sourced. Now would be a good time to improve it, given increased traffic from xkcd. Mathiastck (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.

Current version has 27 citations, which seems like a lot given the article's small size. Mathiastck (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a non-notable trendy hipster slang word of the month... WP is not a slang dictionary. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC) /// Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ----->[reply]

Comment - Male bonding would be the encyclopedic term. Merging or redirecting to that makes some sense. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge with Yaoi. While I understand the distaste at the term, it is no longer slang, and is an interesting social phenomenon, clearly distinguishable from Friendship, Male Bonding or Platonic Friendship. Votes to Merge with Friendship should perhaps be ignored as XKCD-inspired vandalism. Votes to merge with the stub Male Bonding or nonexistent page Platonic Friendship would require there was something to merge with, and they are not synonyms. Bromance phenomenon is interesting mostly for its marketing and cultural appeal aspects, which mostly target women (qv Yaoi), which is markedly different from the target demographic for male bonding (an action movie, guy-film staple). In a marketing sense, Yaoi is closest, and likely an influence on Bromance, but is still very different in both context and meaning. Yaoi also exists as at least a half-decent, well-cited page. DewiMorgan (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaoi is a completely distinct topic from this article: it is about specifically sexual/romantic relationships between fictional male characters, rather than non-sexual/romantic relationships between real or fictional males. IF this article is redirected, yaoi would be a very poor choice. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When there is a commonly known name for something it changes that thing in meaningful ways — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.53.32 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This gets plenty of usage and so should not be a redlink. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect friendship to here, and replace all occurrences of the word bromance with friendship. rerdavies (talk)
Keep The term is (IMO) silly, but it's relevant enough to warrant it's own article independent of male bonding. chrisFjordson (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect friendship to here, and replace all occurrences of the word bromance with friendship. 129.25.18.122 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — 129.25.18.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I agree that Male bonding is a more appropriate location for this information -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtgriscom: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid article BrentNewland (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But make it an article on the history and use of the word. There are many such articles here. People looking for an article on "bromance" are probably looking for this information, not for information on male-male friendship itself. Borock (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a pretty well-written article, and it may have value that merely documenting "friendship" wouldn't. —ajf (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Male bonding, the differences in meaning are very slight (if any). Rur (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While everything's sourced well, that hides the fact that there's very little here that goes beyond the dictionary definition and examples of the term.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or Merge and Redirect, as weak second choice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The fact is this is under heavy debate precisely *because* this word is an interesting cultural battleground. If anything, the article needs to be expanded and improved, but I hardly see how deletion is in order. What is being challenged by those advocating deletion is that the term "bromance" describes a new phenomenon; this is arguable, but the novelty of the descriptor is not. *Why* people say "bromance" instead of "friendship" (presumably something about newfound comfort/discomfort with the changing status of male sexuality in the context of modern acceptance of homosexuality) is an interesting subject, and deserves to be written about in an encyclopedia. If you have any doubt that this is a subject pop culture is deeply concerned with, go watch 22 Jump Street. Graft | talk 22:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Redirect to friendship. This is really not noteworthy and really seems to just be a word made for marketing. The information here is dubious and questionable at times. ETA: yes xkcd has influenced the having this conversation but it doesn't make the conversation less relevent. lunisneko^(talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunisneko: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silver seren^C 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the concept itself is a subconcept of friendship and male bonding and there may be lots of overlapping issues but we could use the same argumentation to merge friendship and male bonding. And whale and dolphin, plants and trees... --Enyavar (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: The allegedly well-sourced article had a bunch of broken links. I've fixed them now, but still, having little superscript numbers all over the place doesn't necessarily mean it's actually sourced :) Chris Smowton (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into male bonding, which is itself too short. The only thing worthwhile in the article as it stands is the mention of Korean and Japanese record companies encouraging these kinds of friendships. I would be happy to see 'Bromance' become a section in 'Male Bonding'. 7daysahead (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article has gotten strides better in the last ten days. It's still not a great article; I finished reading it feeling that I had read maybe two interesting sentences that could have been expanded upon (specifically the 'Characteristics' section) - but I now believe that it could be improved to become a good article in its own right, and that merging it into male bonding would require careful flagging of those sources that specifically talk about 'bromances'. 7daysahead (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with a stronger parent concept like platonic Friendship or similar. I am for keeping the article if it can be adequately differentiated from concepts like male bonding. Comment: I disagree with the claim that it is adequate as it is. The strong references are often about masculinity or masculine social etiquette (etc), but some citations are not clearly about bromance per se, just related, and are being used to pad the article. If there is relevant and strong academic literature there should be no need to hedge around the subject. Strangejames (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to male bonding, which should redirect and merge to friendship, as per everyone above who said the same thing for all the obvious reasons.

Comment - the article was nominated for deletion in 2006, which concluded in a determination to delete, it is unclear why it ever returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.225.41 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 129.98.225.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps this deletion review will shed some light... —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with male bonding. The concept is worthy of attention, but the name is a complete misnomer. When an article about a word that is created by combining "bro" and "romance" needs to be initiated by clarification that it is not romantic in nature, that's a pretty good sign that a serious encyclopedia shouldn't have that as the primary term used. The 'male bonding' article would be dramatically improved by the contents of this page, and they would have a title that makes sense.65.131.3.138 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 65.131.3.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Jbeyerl, Pufflepets, RomanSpa, Joseph2302. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As much as I believe this article does not warrant its own page and ought to be subsumed into homosociality, this AfD should be resolved later. Hollth (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Merge, but as the article is right now, I find myself wondering where the information is. At least some of the cited sources are just there because the word occurred once or twice, and as I stated earlier, it seems to be a lot of words and not many actual facts. In the interests of full disclosure, I came here via xkcd, so that is a thing.108.50.51.25 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 108.50.51.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per KiloByte 100.6.6.151 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graft | talk. Benjamin (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term is commonly used. The article needs work, but it's possible to improve it. Empire3131 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a discussion of the term as a socially constructed phenomena in and of itself, distinct from male bonding. In particular, it's usage in modern fiction media, including criticism of such, has been fairly common of late. At the absolute least, it's clear that the term "bromance" would need its own section in the male bonding article, but I fully believe that there is sufficient information about Bromance specifically that an entire article can be derived from it. It's not just male bonding, it's male bonding in a cultural climate of homosexual acceptance/rejection overhauling, and the term came about because of this. It's an interesting topic, and one that has been extensively written about in the overall culture at large. I would not be surprised if there were papers published in academic journals about it (I do not currently have access to a university library to check though). Fieari (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I just noticed AfD has a quick link to google scholar now. Check it out, bromance is actually discussed in academic papers as a concept independent of friendship and male bonding. This appears to confirm independent notability to me. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (first choice) or Weak Keep (distant second choice) - It's a notable neologism but notability and sourcing doesn't mean it merits its own article if it's insufficiently different from existing concepts. I'm not convinced it's a distinct topic from e.g. friendship and/or male bonding. That doesn't mean there aren't nuanced differences, but there's not enough to say about those minor differences such that a separate article makes sense. The "characteristics" section strengthens my skepticism while the rest of the article is just a series of examples from pop culture. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and Redirect, a mention or perhaps a subsection on either Friendship or Male bonding should more than suffice. 194.16.178.140 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Gronky, or Redirect to romantic friendship or life partner. In re: Fieari, they may exist, but presently, the article's references are mainly/only people 'using' it, not studying nor talking about it. The actual study referenced (Rowan, George, et al.) does not appear to mention bromance. "Faux Friendship" does not distinguish 'bromance' from other friendships in any substantive way. "Male Imitation" is not a study of bromance but attempted application of the term to a fictional relationship.174.45.249.100 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 174.45.249.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Additional Comment Bromance, romantic friendship, and life partnership are all very different. Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect is the best option. Merging it into either Friendship or Male Bonding makes the most sense. That way, people still get the information they about the topic. (And clearly, it's something people want to know about.) But the information is better organized. A Bromance is really just a male friendship. The term has, I think, enough currency to warrant a section in another article, but not enough to warrant it's own page. Rylon (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and Redirect, bromance is just a synonym for male bonding or male friendship, a subsection or addendum in either of those articles would suffice. High Tinker (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT If it is merged, it should be merged with homosociality (which already has a subtopic on 'bromance'), not male bonding and most certainly not platonic love. Hollth (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT If homosociality already has a section on 'bromance' then that does make it a good target for a merge. Rylon (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. The article barely contains anything except etymology and example usage, i.e. discussion about the word, which should be in wikt:bromance, per WP:NOTDIC. The rest, if not already covered by the current article on homosociality should be merged into that article. Original research trying to establish that bromance is a new phenomenon, not covered by pre-existing terminology, should be removed. - PeR (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to friendship or similar. It's just a modern word, which is currently "In" for male friendship. Scarvia (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. This might qualify as a subheader on a friendship page. The word itself is notable but certainly this does not warrant its own article. Neil n SM (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Neil n SM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment, maybe stubify - as a neologism it's suitable for a dictionary, not WP. For a proper Wikipedia article it needs serious sources (scholarly if possible), not just proof of pop-culture usage. Wikipedia could probably have an article on "bromance" that treats it as a noted cultural/artistic phenomenon that's received commentary in the academic literature (it must have spurred some articles by now): but that will at minimum require a stubify. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Friendship or homosociality. This is really nothing more than a dicdef, further expansion seems difficult. Very subjective in many regards. Content may be better served in another article. Roodog2k (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reluctantly. Silly word or not, "bromance" is a concept that is very widespread in the world. It has different connotations to "platonic friendship" and is something that a Wikipedian might conceivably want to research. Therefore, it should have an article. Charles Baynham (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While the number of uses of a term can be used to determine notability of the concept it refers to, there is no need for a separate page for each synonym. The word 'bromance' seems pejorative and the only conceptual difference from Romantic friendship seems to be that it is all male by definition. I don't think this is sufficient to warrant keeping this content separate from both Romantic friendship and Male bonding. Additionally, expansion would not harm the Male bonding article. The argument that it refers to a genre of film similar to Buddy film seems moot since the current article is not about that genre. If needed the title could be repurposed as a page for the genre (with reference to the merge location of the current page at the top). However, this should only be done if it conceptually differs from Buddy film otherwise we would be having this discussion again for the new page. An alternative would be a disambiguation page. PinkShinyRose (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This is just a new and amusing term for something that existed and was discussed long before 2102. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been convinced that the article does not have enough distinct content to warrant a separate article from homosociality. !Vote above changed accordingly. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Are we really doing this? Are we doing this and you all didn't even bother to look for sources first before arguing with each other? Both sides are stupid here, Delete and Keep. Ugh. Once again, it comes down to someone who actually follows how Wikipedia works to actually look for sources. And, surprisingly, I found them. Easily found them. Sources listed below. Silver seren^C 08:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chen, Elizabeth J. (Spring 2012). "Caught In A Bad Bromance". Texas Journal of Women and the Law. 21 (2). University of Texas Press: 242–266.
Batty, Craig (July 30, 2014). "And the Screenwriter Created Man: Male Characterization in Bromance and Bromedy". Screenwriters and Screenwriting: Putting Practice Into Context. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 238-255. ISBN 1137338938.
DeAngelis, Michael (June 1, 2014). Reading the Bromance: Homosocial Relationships in Film and Television. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 0814338992.
Nikoloutsos, Konstantinos P. (Fall 2008). "The Alexander Bromance: Male Desire and Gender Fluidity in Oliver Stone's Historical Epic". Helios. 35 (2). Texas Tech University Press: 223–251.
Harbidge, Lesley (January 3, 2014). "Redefining screwball and reappropriating liminal spaces: The contemporary bromance and Todd Phillips' The Hangover DVD". Comedy Studies. 3 (1). Routledge: 5–16. doi:10.1386/cost.3.1.5_1.
Thomas, Kayley (July 30, 2012). ""Bromance is so passe": Robert Downey, Jr's Queer Paratexts". Sherlock Holmes for the 21st Century: Essays on New Adaptations. McFarland & Company. p. 35-47. ISBN 0786468408.
Lavigne, Carlen (April 1, 2013). "Two men and a moustache: Masculinity, nostalgia and bromance in The Good Guys". The Journal of Popular Television. 1 (1). Intellect Publishers: 69–81.

The fact that you found a couple instances of use is barely relevant. In any case, even if it were, your insults are absolutely out of place (and against Wikipedia normative, which you boast to know so well). I would suggest an apology on your side is in order.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "insult" isn't really directed at anyone specific. It is a general statement pointed at anyone who didn't bother to look for sources before voting. And, since I assume you followed the rules of AFD and did look for sources first, it is not directed at you. As for the sources, you're saying sources that are, especially for the first three, entirely about the term, its use, its meaning and representation in culture in media, and its evolution over time are not relevant? Silver seren^C 09:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you edited your comment it was clearly insulting. I won't take notice, especially since you softened it. Regarding the sources, they may be relevant to this discussion, sure, but they are not as good as you may claim. First line in the abstract of your first reference: "male friendship, or the "bromance,"". This calls for a merge more than a keep in my opinion.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:, surely the primary reason to delete or merge the article is that it does not describe a distinct concept from existing articles with more "proper" (formal) titles, such as platonic love? Various people above have asserted that bromance == friendship, which is clearly not the case, but can you convincingly distinguish the concepts of bromance and platonic love? Isn't the former just a slang euphemism for the latter? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't see how those sources can be uses for a keep vote. The ones that I could read online, and that actually talk about the word bromance (as opposed to just using it) define it as either friendship or homosociality that already have their own Wikipedia articles. Those sources support the merge and redirect vote. A source supporting the keep vote would have to establish that bromance is something different from other concepts and not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. - PeR (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeR: According to the sources I linked, the bromance is more related to a genre of film, separate from bromantic comedy, which only deal with comedic films. This source has a lot to say on the topic and directly compares it to another genre known as chick flick. Silver seren^C 17:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:, sure, if the article were re-written so that it was exclusively about the film genre, then I would have no problems with it. Probably the best thing would be to re-name it as bromance genre and let bromance be a disambig page.

There's more to Wikipedia's AfD guidelines than whether or not an article or concept has sources. There are legitimate complaints about this article (which has had a multiple issues template on it for going on five years now) and those issues need to be addressed. I voted merge and redirect because I think it's the best way to help solve thous issues. The fact that Homosociality is well sourced, has a sub topic for bromance already, and seems to be well written makes it a good candidate for merging. If someone goes a web searching for 'bromance' and ends up on the Homosociality page, I think that person will get all the information they need. Rylon (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rylon: Personally, I feel like the article should be rewritten from scratch, as i'm fine with the concept of bromance as a social construct being under homosociality, but the sources I linked above very clearly discuss Bromance as a film and television genre, which I believe deserves an article. As I stated above, bromantic comedy (or bromedy) is considered a subgenre pertaining just to comedy movies of the overall bromance genre. Silver seren^C 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Rylon and various others. This word is mostly used to describe heterosexual male friendship, known as "male-bonding", from a sarcastic, sometimes cheeky POV. Should perhaps be mentioned as part of an Article re Friendship or Male Bonding. "Male Bonding" is the NPOV term that this clearly NON-NPOV word ("bro-mance") is attempting to describe. Also, by nature of the term, it could be confusing for the reader. Haven't found any sources that seem to indicate that it is used in the gay community for homosexual male romantic relationships...nor have we found any sources that indicate it is used to describe a sexual or romantic relationship between brothers...thus, it seems to be jargon or slang to describe male friendship or male bonding. Shark310 09:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let Wankypedia continue to be an embarrassment to itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.35.9.222 (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 31.35.9.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and move to TvTropes. Why would anyone resurrect it after the first deletion anyway? 178.236.140.170 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 178.236.140.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Silver Seren's disruptive badgering, spaming the same comment again and again, and pinging participants who oppose his view notwithstanding — this is still a REDUNDANT FORK, with this being the neologism and Male bonding the encyclopedic term. Sorry, SS, you only get one vote and spamming your opposition doesn't negate the views of others. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, male bonding is somewhat different. For example, the bond between father and son is one of kinship, rather than friendship. The bonds between a squad of soldiers are of honour and camaraderie, not friendship. The hazing rituals which form bonds between initiated members of a fraternity are quite unfriendly. Insofar as I understand a bromance, it's more a Hollywood thing — a genre concept, like the older term buddy film. Sorting this out is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, but AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: As Andrew said, it's a genre of film, separate from bromantic comedy, which would be a more specific iteration of bromance films. This source goes into great depth on the topic. And informing people in an AfD discussion when new sources have been presented (or the article has been expanded or significantly changed) is a common practice. You already know that. Silver seren^C 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete XKCD does make a valid point. This is not different from friendship in a way that is sufficently notable169.157.44.108 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 169.157.44.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources I posted just above disagree with you and you haven't discussed them in your vote. Silver seren^C 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Silver Seren, please stop. Even as an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, it is second time I see you engaging in grossly disruptive behaviour. The previous time, it was with Encyclopaedia Dramatica, where you went on a similar hate-fest just because of a prior disagreement with someone who elsewhere took offense to a (redacted personal attack). This is inappropriate. KiloByte (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the off-wiki harassment from ED trolls because they were upset I and other Wikipedians were stopping them from adding unencyclopedic information to the Wikipedia article? Also, watch it with the personal attacks or I will take you to ANI. Silver seren^C 20:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mostly the tone of this discussion. All sides are rather dismissive of the other sides, not specific to you but it would be a lie to say your posts are not slightly abrasive. It does not help anyone when insults are used, and it's not helpful when users are arrogant. But I don't care too much about these specifics of who challenging whom. It's more important to me that we try and understand what created the argument in the first place (ignoring XKCD, though ~~Monroe~~ [Munroe] certainly catalyzed the discussion). I think that part of what's going on is that the article is confusing its readers. I am one of them -- I don't know anything about theatre & media studies, but I do a bit about sociology. I remember reading the bromance article a while ago and thinking "okay, it's some sort of lay term for male bonding." For this discussion, I looked up the term in more serious literature and I got theatre essays and pop-culture references -- something I know little if anything about, and have less authority to judge in terms of reference quality, so I didn't. But this is confusing, because the article paints it like a sociological concept, not a theatre & media concept. So as it seems to me, readers who know about sociology, or whatever else, are looking at this article and saying "what is the point of yet another word for male-bonding?" While people with backgrounds in theatre and media recognize that it has less to do with "bromance in the real world" and more to do with stage and media productions. But at the same time, it is being used as a lay term for male-bonding when it shows up in pop-culture references to real people and not fictional ones. So, we have this problem where a theatre & media term is being applied to the real world, and so the article conflates the two uses of the word. I could also be completely wrong on this front, and there's some sort of unified bromance that I've overlooked because I simply am not well-read in media literature, so I hope I'm being constructive with this comment and not just blowing smoke. On the "keep, merge, delete" front, I'm still for keeping the article if it can be improved, and if it can't, I'm still for preserving what content has already been written as a merger with a stronger parent concept. Strangejames (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Suppose a popular TV show routinely called a dog a "barkie". Would we want a separate Wikipedia article titled Barkie that said about the same things as the existing Dog article, but called it a "barkie"? The synonym would belong in the Urban Dictionary, and so does "bromance". Furthermore, calling a friendship a "bromance" borders on claiming that the friends are closet cases. This might be true, but characterizing a relationship according to one's opinion is radically inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Ornithikos (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with what you've just said is that you've inadvertently emphasised that there is a difference between "bromance" and "friendship". If calling a "friendship" a "bromance" carries an additional connotation ("that the friends are closet cases") then "bromance" is clearly not the same as "friendship", and the two words are not synonyms. RomanSpa (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This turns out to be a real example as barkie takes us to the show which spawned the concept —— the All Barkie Dogville Comedies. This demonstrates that we do maintain such content and so the topic in question should not be a red link. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect, which is what Ornithikos argued for. Samsara 20:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Male bonding. Not a sufficiently different scope to warrant a separate article. MoreTomorrow (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Silverseren. The idea of "bromance" being a thing has been the subject of gender studies research. Wincent77 (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Romantic friendship with possibly portions going to Homosociality and Male bonding--all three concepts are interlinked, and part of the connotation behind the term's existence is that in modern Western culture the friendship is so close that, as Ornithikos unintentionally hits upon, people around them may mistake them for "closet cases" due to its intensity and romantic tones...which, unlike suddenly changing the word used for Canis lupis, carries social consequences such as the risk of being subject to discrimination and gay bashing. Romantic friendship has the advantages of being a gender-neutral term, with wider opportunities for examples and precursors, and clearly indicates that what is being talked about is a relationship more intense than the term friendship normally indicates in English. Werhdnt (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with the sources offered so far is that, for the purposes of this discussion, they're only primary sources. They don't discuss, on a scholarly or even informal level, whether either the word bromance or something it points to is something separate and significant from bonding, friendship or affection; they merely use the word. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. For example, the first source listed above, Caught in a Bad Bromance is a paper in an academic journal and analyses the concept in a scholarly way, e.g. "First, bromances mimic marriage and its burdens by privileging exclusivity and dyadic pairings. Second, bromances encourage heteronormativity, ...". As sources go, this is bang on target per the customary guideline. The page male bonding, by contrast, is comparatively poor. There is hardly any content and only one of its sources has the term in its title. Even that source seems quite weak in justifying the term as an article title: Material and Visual Cultures Beyond Male Bonding. So, bromance seems to be doing just fine as a notable title in scholarship. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect* to Romantic friendship. @Werhdnt has the right idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozarin (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Jozarin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep* I read this whole debate and find that silver siren's reasoning it being argued against by semantics and excessive wiki-lawyering. 71.55.24.101 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think my plan is, since everyone in this discussion seems to be caught up in how the article is currently written and its current relation to homosociality, to wait until after this AfD and this article is merged or deleted and then recreate a Bromance article that is specifically about the film/television genre of Bromance, which is what the vast majority of the scholarly sources seem to be treating it as. Silver seren^C 18:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that i'm thinking about it, it may be best for the Bromance page itself to be a disambiguation page so that it can link to all the different articles mentioned by others above and include a sentence description of them. That can include linking to my Bromance (genre) page i'll make at some point. I think that would be the best method to reducing confusion on what Bromance means and all the connected articles to it. Silver seren^C 18:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. In an ideal world, this article would be about the concept of bromance rather than about friendships between men. I think the arguments that this is a new word for something that already exist have something to them, and the article's sources are largely weak, with most of them being news/entertainment news documenting celebrity friendships rather than talking about "bromance" as a thing - so I can understand deleting. But I also think there might be an article in "why has this term developed now." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation. The problem with redirecting is that there isn't a single obvious target. A disambiguation page can have a link to Wiktionary and links to the topics that readers will be looking for (Homosociality, bromantic comedy). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually agree with Gobonobo that disambiguation would be most appropriate. The question that remains would still be where to move the current content to, though. And to which pages should it link? The page suggested for creation by Silver seren and Romantic friendship? What about Male bonding? I don't think we need to link to the latter due to it being a stub though. The reason I proposed disambiguation first was Silver serens suggesting bromance meant something completely different from what the page is currently about. PinkShinyRose (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I was having a hard time making up my mind about this AfD, but the suggestion of a disambiguation page pushed me to a weak keep. It suggests that there is no one clear target for a redirect. I am skeptical about articles that deal with neologisms lest Wikipedia be used to promote each new fad, but bromance seems well established on the pop culture scene, and it is likely that people will turn to Wikipedia for clearheaded information on what it is all about. "Bromance is a term that could refer to: friendship, mail bonding, ..." ignores the arguments of proponents and would not serve our readers well. The article can be much improved as many have suggested, but that discussion belongs on the article's talk page.--agr (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Bromance is simply a neologism for male friendships, especially popular in the tabloids and in describing movies. The movie genre information seems to belong in buddy movie and the male friendship in friendship or male bonding or some such. --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slang term with limited usage. Article with many issues. The Proffesor (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I dislike the fact that Randall Munroe may be remote-controlling this nomination through his comic followers (which equates to canvassing), I do agree that the "Characteristics" section is currently unsalvageable and should be deleted. Insofar as through its prominence, it tarnishes the rest of the article, I see two options: delete that section or replace the article with a redirect. Essentially, I'm willing to accept that bromance may have a raison d'etre as a meme/fad, but I also see that with the offending section removed, it borders on dictdef with, in that case, an overly long list of usage examples. There also may be insufficient WP:RS about this topic to allow a full article to be created at this time. I also vote for homosociality as the most appropriate redirect target. Perhaps in time, the new section there can be spun off into its own article as WP:RS become available. Samsara 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just look at how charged this discussion is, above. Encyclopedic topic, references, yes the term is a bit dumb but so what.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Redirect to a section of the several other articles that already cover this topic. If this is a genre of film, then make a separate article about the genre of film. --jag426 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Silver said, an article for the film genre would undoubtedly be warranted, even if the fad element of the term is considered, it would be significant in its impact on culture an media. Benjamin (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term has widespread usage across a variety of reliable sources and the article consists of a lot more than just a dictionary definition; we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Randall. Nik thestunned 11:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the term has an informal tilt to it, the concept has broad usage and has several analytical aspects - which are reasonably referenced. I am aware of additional references, and I may try to keep adding. The article has had some work since the AfD opened, and I think as now referenced it is clear that bromance as a concept is reflective of a shift in "us collectively" in how "we" perceive and depict the theme, and also has aspects in relation to law, sexuality, and expressivity. I think that conflating the concept with romantic friendship badly misses the clearly referenced distinctions and cultural context of both articles - instead I linked from bromance to romantic friendship to pull in that historical background, as a partial match/equivalent. Some of the delete recommendations here have included the caveat that should a cultural aspect or a conceptual aspect be reliably sourced, things would be different. Although bromantic comedy is a substantial theme within bromance movies, it is a subgenre pertaining just to comedy movies within the overall bromance genre, which would be an awkward venue for encompassing the real life or social construction aspects of bromance. Although this article can definitely be further improved, there is no single obvious merge destination, and given the amount of sourcing here, an attempt at conflation from here to multiple destinations would be an impressive cost of labor. Please note that several references are chapter and book length analyses. I would have thought that help from additional eyes actively working on these would enhance the article.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC) updated FeatherPluma (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article barely cites any sources on the term itself, and is more focused on a description and example of the kind of relationship. Would be much more relevant under a generic term describing the relationship (i.e. male bonding). Magedq (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Granted it's an informal term, but it's received significant coverage over many years, and is encyclopedic. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well defined topic, well referenced article, appears to be more than a WP:DICDEF, I'm just not seeing any grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 14:51, 19 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 // 23:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several editors above discuss this "term" and mention it "has attained broad usage" or that it has "received significant coverage". But WP articles are supposed to be about concepts, not about terms. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary says, in an encyclopedia, "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing... should be merged". Of course, nuances in terminology should be treated in the merged article: "whore" and "prostitute" are synonyms and belong in the same article (Prostitution), but have different connotations, which are discussed in that article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and combine with homosociality which more or less could include this article that could discuss this same concept. 143.44.78.174 (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to male bonding or some other appropriate article. The notability of the term itself (as opposed to the broad concept) is a red herring and covered by WP:NOTDIC - I'd have said this was a better candidate for Wiktionary except that the nomination points out it's already there. No need for it here, just pointless duplication of other topics. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or redirect. Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see the point of relisting this debate. Before the "RELIST" we had 27 Delete (6 of which were "delete or merge/redirect") 38 Keep (3 of which were "keep or merge/redirect") and 28 Merge/Redirect. There have been plenty of discussions based on policy/guidelines. It's clear that we don't remotely have a consensus, and further discussion is highly unlikely to produce one. There is a clear majority for Keep - and that's the default action in the event of us not achieving a consensus. It seems highly unlikely that a killer argument will emerge that'll overturn 60 to 70% of the !votes to form a consensus. No new arguments have appeared since about the first dozen responses...no surprising insights from policy/guidelines has emerged. People disagree solely on how they imagine the English speaking world uses the word - or whether the Wikipedia entry is anything beyond a dictionary definition...both arguments have been turned over and examined carefully.

We simply don't agree.

So it's over..."No consensus"...not gonna be a consensus. Wrap this up and move on. SteveBaker (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Delete/Redirect have a majority, as both have similar effect on the article: its content gets deleted. AFD is not a majority vote, but there's enough proponents of getting rid of this joke-of-an-article. YHBT. KiloByte (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, bromance is definitely a reasonable search term. Whether it deserves a standalone article or should redirect to friendship or male bonding is a question for the talk page, in my opinion, not AFD. Keep. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus SteveBaker, note that AfDs are not votes, they are discussions. If you read the "Keep" comments above, many of them are clearly saying that they believe that the term or the word is notable. For example, one Strong Keep says "What is being challenged by those advocating deletion is that the term "bromance" describes a new phenomenon; this is arguable, but the novelty of the descriptor is not."; or "Just because the word is dumb and people should stop using it doesn't mean the well-sourced article about said word should be deleted." Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, notability of a term does not mean that an independent article should appear under that title; cf. cinema, film, motion picture, movie -- each of these has its own nuance, but they're all about the same basic concept.

MZMcBride, I certainly agree that bromance is a reasonable search term. I'm not sure why you say that whether it should be redirect or independent article should be a question for the Talk page rather than the AFD -- after all, lots of AFDs (including this one) offer the option of Merge/Redirect. --Macrakis (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis: The talk page is the default and canonical collaborative space to discuss an article. I'd say that the articles for deletion process is focused primarily on deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that a merge/redirect discussion would be appropriate on the Talk page in the absence of an AFD. But once the article has been brought up in AFD, it is worth discussing a range of possibilities here. As WP:AFDFORMAT says: "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view." --Macrakis (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to male bonding. Bromance is a notable term, but this isn't a quality article. The male bonding article/stub is more straightforward, and a better jumping off point for related links. Maybe some content can be carried over, but I don't think celebrity examples, for example, are particularly appropriate. Mcavic (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to male bonding. Nothing new about bromance.—indopug (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concept is clearly notable per per SilverserenC's references above; concept is clearly independent of friendship per academic literature mentioned by Fieari above. Multiple WP:RS sources use the term as a central concept, not an incidental one. Article quality issues can be addressed by a rewrite.Dialectric (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't see SilverserenC's references as relevant, because they talk about examples of the term, not definitions/explanations/descriptions. I haven't seen one non-paparazzi related reference in the whole lot (not even in the references in the actual article), and definitely nothing related to biological relationships. Male Bonding, Human bonding, Platonic love, Same-sex relationship do refer to these biological relationships in a much more holistic sense. If it doesn't have that kind of information, shouldn't it redirect to an article that does? It definitely shouldn't be considered an article in human inter-personal relationships without such information. Shashwat986 → talk 18:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is just another term that is a subset of existing concepts, such as friendship. pschemp | talk 04:01, 26 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) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zelfo[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage that shows this material/trademark is notable, which means any effort of making this rather spammy article into something good futile Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As soon as the product gets rolled and discussed in papers and the news, an article can be written. Press releases and product brochures are not for Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It also seems like it has been recently promoted. SamuelDay1 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as above, fails GNG --Gaff (talk) 00:51, 26 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) 03:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otar Kakabadze[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. Also, as a correction, the article's been axed twice, once as a csd-a7 delete and again as an expired prod, meaning this is the third time its been under the axe. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 20 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) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 21 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) 13:04, 25 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) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitarth Bhat[edit]

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

This biographical article appears to have been created for the purposes of self-promotion. There is a relationship with Mohit Raina (cousin) but notability here cannot be inherited, and there does not appear to be evidence that this article meets our standards for general notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully agree with above mentioned reason of proposal-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:44, 25 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. Missvain (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone (humorist)[edit]

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

Non-notable web writer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG/WP:CREATIVE. Concerns / proposal of a page rewrite from 2012 nomination were not addressed/executed. Sources in article still insufficient for stand-alone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:57, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any coverage about this person - except for a partial review of one of his books in the Washington Post. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 25 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.

Hello Missvain, I was looking for information on author Wayne Gladstone and found you had recently deleted his wikipedia page for lack of content written about him (as opposed to content that he has written). At the time the original petition for deletion was filed in 2010, he was a columnist for Cracked.com, as well as a contributor to various other online publications and creator of a popular video series. At this point in time, he is also an author of the Notes From The Internet Apocalypse trilogy. It seemed that many interviews and writings about him were overlooked and I would like to know how one would go about reinstating his page. Links of reference include: 1. An interview with author Wayne Gladstone on Tor.com http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/03/the-pop-quiz-at-the-end-of-the-universe-wayne-gladstone 2. An interview with author Wayne Gladstone in Esquire http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a27719/what-is-the-internet-doing-to-us-really/ 3. A review of his novel Notes from The Internet Apocalypse in The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/notes-from-the-internet-apocalypse-the-tropic-of-serpents-and-the-stone-boatmen/2014/03/18/bcfb869c-a9e0-11e3-b61e-8051b8b52d06_story.html 4. A review of his novel in the Onion A/V Club http://www.avclub.com/review/debut-novel-cracked-writer-just-trolling-its-reade-201674 5. A review of his novel in the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2014/03/12/notes_from_the_internet_apocalypse_review.html 6. A review of his novel in Kirkus https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/wayne-gladstone/notes-from-the-internet-apocalypse/

I believe we could also find more, however this is already a significantly greater amount of written press about the author and his works than many other figures who still have pages dedicated to them. For instance, this is far greater depth than the information shown on voice actor Lucky Yates (about whom there is no written press) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Yates Further, Wayne Gladstone is already mentioned in several other Wikipedia pages and therefore has a fair amount of click-through information on him already present on Wikipedia that deserves to be housed on its own individual page. Examples of places that he is already mentioned by name on Wikipedia are: 1. As a Cracked columnist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracked.com 2. As a notable graduate of Syosset High School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syosset_High_School 3. As a reference for this Blade Runner entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Blade_Runner 4. As a winner of Literary Death Match https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Death_Match

I hope this proves sufficient to reinstate his page. Thank you very much for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherskirt (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Waukegan, Illinois. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waukegan Fire Department[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination only. This article had been redirected to Waukegan, Illinois in February 2007. After a recent discussion at RfD, I decided as the closer to let the article stand or fall here. I'm neutral on the question, at least for now, and will not be watching this page. BDD (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge briefly if any reliable sources show up. Siuenti (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with no prejudice to un-merging if enough material is found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
Redirect Restore the redirect. Nothing worth merging. Run-of-the-mill fire department. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waukegan, Illinois. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 26 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. Missvain (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seiha English Academy[edit]

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

Google search puts the notability of this school in question, because the only non-primary sources I could find are self-published. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete Oricon customer satisfaction survey ranked this place at 3rd among other toddler English learning institutes [2], but that's the only one more independent source and definitely not enough. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major player in the kids market, but the article does need outside sources.182.250.240.89 (talk) 01:57, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that references will be difficult for that average wikipedian to manage, because they're mostly going to be in Japanese. That said, difficulty is not a reason to delete. This is clearly a large scale private school network. Individual local schools might not merit an article, but 400 schools under one name? That surely should. The article, as it stands, is pretty barebones and not great, but that just means it needs improvement. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 19:47, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Naog[edit]

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

Unotable fictional character Wgolf (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't verify that the character or the TV series exists outside Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And suggest a (very non-speedy, at this point) speedy deletion on likely BLP grounds. There's zero evidence that any MTV program with the name given in this article exists. Given the nature of the content, I strongly suspect that this is a thinly-veiled attack page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-You can't do a BLP on a fictional character though. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the names mentioned is not fictional. It's possible that this is merely a hoax; alternatively, it's worth considering that this could be an A10-attack page merely dressed up as fiction. In either case, its eventual fate is hardly in question, only the timing of its removal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. The "Black Ugly Girls" TV series is non-existent and is also an attack page laced with fiction. Google lacked any reliable sources, making me conclude that she was imaginary. Snowager (talk) 08:06, 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. (I'm closing as Nom's withdrawn as with the greatest of respect He seems clueless to AFDs) / Per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kozí Vrbovok[edit]

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

Hasn't been sourced for 8 1/2 years! Eeek! Lightspeed2012 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, why didn't you source it yourself then? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. "Unreferenced" is not grounds for deletion, let alone "Eek". Wikipedia verifiability policy is "all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". A glance at a map is enough to show that this is a genuine town, so no sane person is going to challenge that, and there is no contentious statement of any kind on this page of the kind that would bring WP:BLP into play. Mogism (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:BEFORE wasn't followed at all [3][4] (There's tons of books on this area but I can't speak Slovakian so not sure how relevant they actually are), Being unreferenced is not a valid reason to delete, It needs some work doing but IMHO deleting is pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for reasons indicated above. I think the article should be improved, but deleted is misguided. Why are we wasting our time on this? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this article would be a waste when it wouldn't be too much trouble in sourcing it. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like I made a mistake :/ . @Dr. Blofeld: You're the one who created the article. @Davey2010: I should of read WP:BEFORE. @Mogism: You do have a point. Thanks, I've gained knowledge from this mistake and I will apply it in the future. :) Lightspeed2012 21:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the article I'd only been here three months, in fact it was a lot longer before I actually learned how to reference!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Understood. Myself I don't know most of Wikipedia's policies. But you've been doing major contributions to Wikipedia! I hope we are on good terms now. :) Lightspeed2012 21:54, 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. postdlf (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zura Barayeva[edit]

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

No notability. Axakov (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page created without the afd2 template and was never listed on a log page. I've fixed this--no comment on the nom itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep, obviously notable enough that you found the article, created an account, and posted for deletion. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason given for deletion. The stub has two good references. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reasons for nom or deletion are given. as per Bearian the article has two sources and is currently a stub that we can work on.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search on her name provides ample evidence that she is notable. The article needs improvement, someone should expand the article on her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 25 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. WP:SNOW. No serious dispute about the notability of the concept, and the IP's delete comment does not rise above WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queer theology[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. An IP editor redirected the article to Marcella Althaus-Reid with the rationale, "term used by only one author, this "field" simply does not exist and is hence not notable". I reverted, but started this discussion. I am not actually advocating deletion or keeping at this time. LadyofShalott 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my Googe Books search, some of which I have listed in a further reading section, I now say strong keep; this subject is notable. LadyofShalott 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since a basic Google Books search turns up at least a half-dozen books by different authors with the exact phrase "queer theology" as part of their titles,[5][6][7][8][9][10], and Google Scholar yields 666 hits for the phrase, the "used by only one author" contention falls flat. This certainly appears to be a legitimate subject for an article, unless it's already subsumed in a broader related topic like LGBT and religion topics or one of the subtopics listed there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. While I wouldn't go off the search results alone, as the sources would need to be reliable, it is clear that the topic is notable and discussed in reliable sources. Synonyms like "gay theology" are also used. Article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP. HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that numerous other authors have been shown to discuss this (some at least with academic publishers), can you please elaborate? Are they all bunkum in your opinion? LadyofShalott 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources cited by Arxiloxos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no statement by AfD postert or indication of topic not being notable, and IP editors vandalize articles all the time, their actions should not demand discussions, but should be reverted and ignored. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT and religion topics. This topic simply does not exist as a field of study, it's just queer people doing theology – should we have articles on queer biology, queer philosophy, queer logic, queer metaphysics? No of course not, and this should be no exception. Read the article, it says nothing about the topic actually existing, it's just queer authors inventing a term to be edgy and try and get themselves funding by making up their own "specialisations". If someone could provide me a definition of "queer theology" that isn't just a restatement of the term, I'd be amazed. Those arguing to keep this page as is and not redirect need to demonstrate what it is that differentiates this page from LGBT and religion topics. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable as a specific form of theology, as reliable sources show. Also, one of the top theology institutes in the world, Harvard Divinity School, offers a course on it - [11]. This one is pretty obvious. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:52, 23 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 2009 Thai Division 2 League North Eastern Region. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Udon Thani F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 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 // 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per the above. The amount of prose in relation to the amount of stats in this article is clearly too little. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to league season page. Several other season pages were recently merged in recent AFDs. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Udon Thani F.C. season, etc. Nfitz (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. This club is in the 3rd level of Thai football, which definitely isn't a top professional league. Tavix | Talk 15:44, 26 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) 18:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Night at The Palais[edit]

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

I have searched and this seems of dubious notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They have released 32 live albums and this one does not seem particularly notable compared to the others. ~Excesses~ (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that logic, 31 articles should be deleted, as they aren't as notable as the most notable article. Notability is established by meeting policy, not how x article compares to y article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The gig (and hence album) was important enough to attract attention in the national media and I have expanded the article from sources in The Guardian, The Independent, Record Collector and AllMusic. From that I conclude that WP:NALBUMS has been met. I appreciate Mark E Smith calling Gary Lineker "the man from Walkers" onstage is not particularly encyclopedic, but that's just who he is and it does make me raise a smile. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the performance seems to have been of some historical significance, but only one source (#3) is really about the album itself. A second such source would seal it, but I think the album is probably still notable enough for an article, just barely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 19 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 16:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet the GNG, in my judgment, though further expansion would be appreciated. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ritchie333 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Meets GNG, and I'd say the sources given by Ritchie333 satisfy WP:NALBUMS in a situation like this where the event and the recording are hard to separate out. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's inability to find sources isn't a good reason to delete articles. Clearly satisfies notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 21 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) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DesiCrew[edit]

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

Not a Notable Company Bentogoa (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its simply promotional, hence deserve no place on wikipedia.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possible WP:CSD G11 candidate as a spam article. No secondary sources to indicate notability either. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:25, 26 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) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricio Fernández[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) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 19 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) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 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) 13:03, 25 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. Missvain (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Magdalena[edit]

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

I don't think this individual is notable based on lineage — her grandfather was a king, but her mother was merely a princess. As for sources backing up other claims of notability, those don't seem to exist. We have a couple of things on the Romanian Royal Family's site (i.e., not independent); passing mention in a no-name newspaper; directory cruft; and passing mention in an article the main subjects of which are Dominic von Habsburg and Bran Castle. In other words, the subject is notable neither by lineage nor by sourcing, and the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Notability is not inherited. Cavarrone 07:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a listing of all members of all royal families.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 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) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryeland Allison[edit]

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

Contested Prod restored after request at WP:REFUND. On the face, the subject reads as a Session musician for several artists/performers of notability. Considering the Specific Notability Guideline WP:MUSICBIO, I'm not seeing a substantiated claim of notability. Falling back to WP:GNG there's a bunch of interesting prose, but the sources do not back up the claims. We have 4 categories of references: Sites that are dead, Sites that do not mention the subject, Sites that list the subject (but in a very generic database maner), and interviews/ghostwrites of the subject.

In short, I'm not convinced that the subject's notability has been proven to merit a article here. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the others in this discussion. On the basis of notability WP:N the article should be deleted. The sources are lacking, and the only contributor is the subject. I feel that this page is being used as a tool for self promotion. Pantherjag (talk) 23:46, 18 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 15:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the notability. The article is enormous and very detailed, but the sources are too weak for a keep. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 25 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. Missvain (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Reflections: The Best of Crimson Glory[edit]

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

No sources, google search yields no results, suspected hoax article. Mika1h (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Possible hoax per nom. As an aside, it appears the band did put out a compilation box set under the title In Dark Places a few years ago, which isn't mentioned in their article. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 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.

Snoppe[edit]

The result was Speedy Deleted. Definition of slang term in foreign language; no references, recreated after prior speedy deletion without explaining why speedy deletion was inapprppriate. --Trödel 14:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-English slang definition. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:15, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 EAFF East Asian Cup Preliminary Competition Round 2 squads[edit]

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

Unsourced article listing participants and their stats in a competition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS.- Mr X 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC) - Mr X 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, not a notable list. Giant Snowman 11:08, 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 keep. Nom blocked, Thanks to everyone who's fixed his delightful edits!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. John International University[edit]

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

The information on our page continually is edited by a third party with incorrect information, which is hurtful to our organization. The text they are adding and altering are opinion based. This untrue information is negatively impacting the reputation of the university. We have attempted to contact the editors but they will not respond or stop. Due to this, this page must be deleted for good. ClintonElamSJIU (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This is an encyclopedia, not a private website. If you can not handle that then mothball your account, otherwise deal with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Speedy close I presume the nom is talking about the St. John International University#Loss of Degree-Granting Authority, which was repeatedly blanked since January. This is a content issue over a clearly notable subject, and AfD is not the place to end a dispute like that. I must also note that the talk page of the article was never used to discuss the issue. As a reference, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close to keep The nominator has already been blocked. I edited the article to lift out the worst puffery added by people at the "university", but to keep all the factual information (ie the very information the nominator wanted to delete).Jeppiz (talk) 13:19, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCUL[edit]

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

To me it seems like it (was) only a small group of bicycle rides on strange bikes. The groups doesn't appear to be notable. It's really hard to find some sources. After a search I found two 1 (regional news site) and 2 (bicycle fan website). Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SCUL is primarily active in Boston, but also in Maine and Rhode Island. This article was in rather poor shape, but there's plenty of material in reliable sources to fix it up. I've added several references to the article that should establish notability, particularly Spiegel and this book. SCUL was also featured on an episode of the PBS series Design Squad. The audio for the WBUR piece also goes into much more detail than the brief description on the linked webpage. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 20:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 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) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Negi[edit]

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

I have searched the usual reliable sources for Bollywood actresses - according to the article "an Indian Hindi film actress" - but there are no mentions of a person of that name. Indeed Bollywood Hungama has no record for this female actor. In addition, I can find no mention in reliable sources that suggest the movies that Ms Negi is asserted to have acted in meet the notability guidelines for films. Shirt58 (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:19, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; appears to not be verifiable, much less notable. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not find any suitable sources. Ready to change my vote though if some one comes up with proper sources. Have also strong doubt on the category Maullywood cinema which appears to be an Original Research. Does Maullywood cinema really exist and if yes whether it is notable enough? Lakun.patra (talk) 04:26, 25 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) 18:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Detroit (The Stooges album)[edit]

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

I can't find any valid references outside of a DVD Talk review and a brief, fleeting mention in a biography book. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - expanded with references; notable release. Gongshow talk 19:58, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the expansion work done by Gongshow. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expanded. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources obviously exist. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 21 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 Could be a redirect..or a merge. You guys decide on the talk pages.. If you chose to propose a merge please do so on the talk pages of the appropriate articles. Missvain (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Destruction[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to The Stooges discography. Please consider alternatives to deletion before bringing articles to AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 21 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 Sailor ^Talk! 13:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fadak (TV channel)[edit]

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

Reason Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC) More content of the article don't have any sources. A few of them have, but their accuracy is controversial. Because of that the notability of the article is imprecise. According to Wikipedia:Notability, Only being one of the TV channels (or being famous) does not mean that is notable. So it should be deleted.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:GNG seems to be covered; even something as simple as a Google News search for Fadak, Fadak channel and Fadak TV reveal coverage across a wide range of sources (Press TV, Middle East Forum, Al Monitor, The Economist, Al Arabiya The Daily Mail, etc.) spanning over multiple unrelated controveries associated with the station such as instances of hate speech, support for terrorism and political conflict in the Mideast. While I am not sure what specific criterion a news organization might fall under, this Fadak station does seem to bear mildly significant, sustained coverage across at least three years and would also seem to satisfy WP:ORG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~At wikipedia article, We have to be careful that being notable doesn't mean being famous. The Notability must be verifiable and this is proven by the use of reliable sources in articles But there isn't any source at the article that established the notability.If there are reliable sources, why not have been used of them at the article? As far as I know, there isn't any contents that is prohibited at wikipedia.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck out @Samaneh-davoudi:'s !vote above, as they are the nominator. -- Sam ^Sing! 10:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFadak is not notable enough to warrant its own article. The searches carried out above by MezzoMezzo shows Fadak with various qualifiers getting between 37 and 136 results. Other random news channels from the category international news channels such as Al-Nile, eNCA and Kompas TV get between 35,000 to 250,000 hits on google news. The channel is simply not notable enough and giving it, its own article is free advertising. Mbcap (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per searches for: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere are several satellite channel in the world and all of them are not important. Several channel are local and are for specific people or religious. The Fadak is not notable channel and this is for promoting a negative ideas about Muslim and defamation towards religious and historic characters. Also, there is not any source at the article and It seems to writing according to personal idea.Charm4Fasl (talk) 10:27, 19 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough coverage, just needs a lot of cleanup. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 08:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the Fadak in wikipedia and you see many pages with this name but only one of them is about Fadak, TV channel. In google search is like this. Fadak is the name of village, Islamic center, shopping, school and so on.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:35, 23 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. Missvain (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jackson (filmmaker)[edit]

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

This page appears to have been created and maintained by its subject for purposes of self-promotion. Little of its content is sourced, and seven of its nine reference sites are database-generated, even when housed at notable publications' websites. No articles on Wikipedia link to this one.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marjobani (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. I can't find significant coverage, only trivial/ routine snippets, wikipedia mirrors, or modules on NY Times or Washington Post that merely (barely) indicate existence.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{Comment to admin): Is that 2nd Afd nomination tag correct? it links back to this discussion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The creator of this article, Sarahent, has only edited this and Carl Jackson Entertainment (deleted as spam), has an obvious COI and greets deletion with accusations of bad faith, including racism. the article should be considered on its merits, but the intention of its editor is clear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (There is no unambiguous advertising or promotion on this page: there is evidence of independent sources and notability which was why the first page was deleted. I followed the guidlines to a tee by using this page as my example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Pictures Finally someone under the name anonymous keeps flagging these pages. I feel this person is bias. They went as far as adding this in the catogory of the United States Of America- related deleted discussions. Wiki clearly states: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area.

) --Sarahent (talk) 17:42, 22 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. Missvain (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chelse Benham[edit]

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

Article is about a person who lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent sources to meet notability. As a creative professional, WP:CREATIVE is not met either. There is a claim for winning three Emmy awards. However, these are regional awards. And of these, one of them does not pass verifiability. The claim for a SouthEast regional emmy in 1999 for "Celebrating Knoxville" is not referenced. However, I looked at [12] whichj lists the winners and nominees for 1999 for that regional emmy and there is no listing the show or Chelse Benham. The Lonestar Emmy awards for 2007 and 2009 are awards in the student production category. See [13] and [14]. Whpq (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable student filmmaker and businessperson. No good-quality independent sources confirming any kind of notability. Fails GNG and WP:CREATIVE. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:58, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reel to Red Productions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an internship program run out of University of Texas–Pan American which does not establish notability. I can find no significant coverage about this program. Whpq (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability outside one particular American college's own internal sphere, poor sources, no outside confirmation of that notability beyond a couple of awards which in and of themselves don't confer notability per WP:CREATIVE. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 17:03, 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. Nakon 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Meerut riots[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. whilst 3 people died, this is not the first and last time people die in a riot. the article was mostly worked on in the 2 days following the event. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No lasting effect, no coverage afterwards and routine kind of news reports make subject ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia (fails WP:EVENTCRIT). In an attempt to analyse the nature of event under discussion, I found a riot that happened in 1987 is rather more notable and a Wikipedia article should be written about instead (last coverage of 1987 event was few days ago -[15]). According to this source, 2014 riot was apparently first since 1987. So, if we write an article on 1987 riot, then we could mention a little of this one (first since then and three died and 50 injured, that's it). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you know that we can have articles on both riots, not just one? I look forward to seeing your work on an article about the 1987 riot. Everyking (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can, if they satisfy the inclusion standard. I'm not sure how does 2014 riots meet the EVENTCRIT standard. May you please explain your keep !vote a bit? It would be helpful to know if I am missing something. Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sources don't establish if WP:EVENT or WP:LASTING is met. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Be specific, please. Everyking (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the last source added was 11 May, a day after the event. LibStar (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you want a source later than that? OK, how much later does it need to be? Everyking (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, required criteria is described in detail at No lasting effect, no coverage afterwards and routine kind of news reports what I assume you to be already aware of. We cannot really create articles on each and every news reports, like a political party wins an election, it hits almost every national and few international newspapers, but that story belongs to political party and/or candidate parent article and do not justify a standalone one. It is the case here, all three points (in first line of this comment and my delete !vote above). One essay which I too suppose you already are aware of, is COOKIE may be relevant here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you write that much and still manage to not answer the question? Everyking (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only I have answered your primary question, but also you may further have and I really will suggest you to take a serious look at that. If it still is not clear, you asked for "How much later..", OK. See, routine kind of news reports. It helps? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If someone is going to look for a later source to get you to change your mind, they need to know specifically, in advance, what you will accept. How many days after the event must the source be, in your opinion? Everyking (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many years, since we expect event to exhibit a lasting impact. Before you take on me that it has only been few years and as we don't have yet any time machine, we cannot have that coverage, therefore article should be kept, I would again suggest you to take a look at WP:COOKIE. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you are opposed to all articles about recent events. Thanks for the answer. Everyking (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of recent events do not qualify for Wikipedia articles. You seem to fail to grasp this. A lot of coverage in a news spike does not automatically mean an article. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say all recent events qualify for articles. I said this one does. Everyking (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really interested to know how?.. and seriously if you tell me what criteria does this event qualifies for and substantiate it with sources, I'd change my !vote to keep. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just said you don't want articles about any events until "many years" have passed. So how could I possibly change your mind just by digging up a few sources? Everyking (talk) 00:47, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyking: I didn't say, I don't want.. You asked me for my opinion, and I answered and that's just it. Anyway, personal opinions are not going to shape course of the deletion discussion but the arguments based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines.

I was saying, if you tell me how does this (subject) meet any of the required criteria in particular wp:eventcrit, I would /probably-if convinced/ change my !vote to keep. I hope, it is clear and I will receive a plain answer. Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large riot with injuries set off by strife between communities covered in national newspapers of the largest country on earth with a free press. OF COURSE it's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many riot article exist in Wikipedia with just one or two lines. Also, this has more credible sources. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:50, 25 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 // 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90.0 FM[edit]

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

Non-notable radio frequency/station SageGreenRider (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep as part of a notable list/series of articles, quick google shows other stations at this frequency, too. Deunanknute (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as other frequencies are included in a list of frequencies. Many stations worldwide use this frequency.Stereorock (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a valid list, just needs expansion. I pick up BBC Radio 2 on 90.0Mhz from the Sandgate, Kent carrier and have sourced this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable frequency. Wikipedia is not a directory, and certainly list of everything that exists, even if articles exist about other nonnotable frequencies. This is as pointless and unencyclopedic as a list of elevations with every place located at that elevation, or every fractional degree of latitude and longitude with cities which happen to be located there, or heights and names of persons of that height. It just seems like a poor excuse to create a mass of articles. Edison (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - This page also acts as a disambiguation page of sorts. Deunanknute (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion I concede that I hadn't thought of @Deunanknute's insight. Is there any automatic, scripted way of converting this family of "articles" into disambiguation pages? People do refer to radio stations colloquially by the frequency they (locally) occupy rather than their full names. In any case, we need a consistent solution. Keep all. Delete all. Repurpose all. Moving from the status quo is going to be a big job but as @Edison and I agree, these are not encyclopedic as they are. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List articles tend to polarise opinion, but I think FM frequencies used by radio (selected bands from 88 to 108MHz) are more notable than has been suggested. In the UK, it is illegal to broadcast anything on these frequency ranges without an appropriate licence, which costs something in the region of £8,000 a year and requires you to adhere to a strict code of conduct - every now and again famous British DJs hit the news because they got fined, suspended or even sacked for either swearing, making personal attacks, or making comments to incite intolerance. Example - The Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I tend to assume any FM station is notable provided a reliable source can confirm its existence. Plus some frequencies, such as BBC Radio 2's frequently used "88 - 91 FM" tagline, do achieve national attention. As for whether a list of them by frequency is a good idea, who knows? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Example of conversion to disambiguation page I boldly (and manually) modified one of this article's sister articles, 89.2 FM to make it into a disambig page, so you can all see what it would look like. We'd need a script to top each existing one with {{disambiguation cleanup}} (newline) Thetitle may refer to: and tail them with {{disambiguation}}. There are too many of them to do by hand. ( @Nedim Ardoğa reverted it so I'm now linking to my reverted revision instead ) SageGreenRider (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media~~ above - Personally I think it needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also closed as Keep as only half the discussion had appeared, Wasn't till I closed it the bottom half had shown hence reopening it, Oh and I listed it under Christianity [16] - Oh what a fun day it is today! . –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Davey2010 (Sorry about the edit collison) Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media isn't pertinent here because the "article" (such as it is) isn't about a radio station: it's about a frequency that one or more radio stations may or may not broadcast on. A best, it's a disambig page, not an article IMHO. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god sorry I was meant to have added your additions back my apologies there, Ah nope you're right O#BM is completely unrelated so have amended, Thanks (and sorry again for earlier - What a disaster eh

). –Davey2010^Talk 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree it's more of a disambiguation page than an article in its own right, but as long as it's serving that purpose, it's useful to have it (and its various stablemates) stick around here. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 17:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure directory info. Neutrality^talk 02:08, 21 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. Missvain (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Pete[edit]

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

Non-notable random mixture of ingredients SageGreenRider (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was unable to find any references predating "there will be blood" Deunanknute (talk) 03:37, 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 05:56, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:37, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Brazil network television schedule[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a television guide. I am also nominating these articles for the same reason: 2013–14 Brazil network television schedule and 2012–13 Brazil network television schedule. Dcbanners (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 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 05:49, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such a listing is not just an electronic program guide to be used to select what to view, which is what the cited guideline aims at.The guide says "For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. " bold added) It is part of the historical record of what decisions were made in creating a program lineup to gain and hold viewers. We have kept numerous such historic network programming lineups in previous AFDs, and the guide specifically makes an exception for such historic schedules. It is not a listing telling what will happen in the programs to be broadcast tonight. Edison (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison; yeah, we already have stuff such as the links that go here and they've gone through without an AFD deletion. m'encarta (t) 23:20, 21 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. Missvain (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Community Media Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. unreferenced for 4.5 years. only primary sources in Australian search engine trove. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 4 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 05:41, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:34, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Vladimirski[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from the authors of the books the subject has illustrated. Google results show passing mentions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 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 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notablity guidelines for illustrators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found and added to the article a reliable source confirming that books illustrated by Vladimirsky were sold in 20M copies.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added two more sources, now the article contains three reliable sources, which are all among top Russian media, discussing the life and professional achievements of the subject in quite some detail. In my opinion, passes WP:HEY.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 21 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not seeing the significant coverage here. Neutrality^talk 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote based on new material added to article; count me as neutral for this nom. Neutrality^talk 00:21, 22 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) 18:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wallace (keyboard)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from people one's worked with. Google results show passing mentions ~~except for this~~which turned out to be a mirror site! Mr. Guye (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 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 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor musician who has minor parts in a few notable albums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable session musician, no independent sources confirming notability. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 17:14, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Windwalker[edit]

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

BLP with no sources. Google results cannot establish notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 4 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 05:34, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, subject fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR and the books mentioned (one a 99 cent ebook, one a free) fail WP:NBOOKS. No sources asserting notability. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 17:17, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Chandler (comedian)[edit]

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

Non notable comedian, doesn't meet criteria for notability at WP:ENT Flat Out let's discuss it 04:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 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 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for comedians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 14 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:31, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CK Morgan- Singer[edit]

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

I don't believe that this singer is notable and I believe he fails WP:MUSBIO. He has released a single picked up by RCA but thats it. A lot of the sources are a blog (cypressgh). Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 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 05:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:30, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bisila Bokoko[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 4 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 05:21, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:30, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PythonIDE[edit]

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

Ineligible for A7 since it's software, but still this doesn't appear to be notable. A search fails to find any reliable coverage; in fact, most hits I found are false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a new editor and there is an article on Habrahabr about it - http://habrahabr.ru/post/249727/. Google or other search engines you might use didn't add it to their indexes yet

That link doesn't go to an article. It goes to some page with a few hundred characters in the cyrillic alphabet. Also, that isn't how google works. The people at Google don't sit around deciding what and what not to add to their indexes. They have algorithms that update the indexes automatically. So if its not showing up on Google then that means there are no articles about it that are generating significant hits yet. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable. IDE is a generic term used in software to describe any development environment hence all the false positive for "Python IDE". I couldn't find any actual refs for this particular tool except their web site. It looks kind of cool from the site but not wp:notable yet. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:37, 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 04:51, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable yet. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per above. PianoDan (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per MadScientistX11. ~KvnG 05:36, 22 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. Missvain (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Carlson (artist)[edit]

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

From the sounds of this, he may pass notability, but the article is so autobiographical and the "sourcing" is useless that this is effectively an unreferenced BLP. I did some quick searches but couldn't find anything immediately compelling to show notability, (at least one other artist with same name) hence bringing to discussion. I would have PROD'd , but thought there was enough here to make a discussion worthwhile. Had already killed a whole section previously as being copyvio, not altogether sure the rest isn't copied from elsewhere too. Mabalu (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 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 04:27, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:28, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo 40A[edit]

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

Not notable, and no references added since tagged in 2012 Warren (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found this [17], The images seem to indicate it's a 1950's or earlier bus which if that's the case then sources are going to be hard to find, The article does need rewriting tho. –Davey2010^Talk 05:15, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The source that Davey2010 found led me to a few others that indicate that the A40 was one of the first Alfa Romes buses, and among the most prevalent buses of its time (and thereby notable on its face). Online sources seem hard to find, though, and Italian Wikipedia is pretty thin on many subjects, including this. @Powerfox: where did you find your original material? Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search throws up plenty of images and several websites that could be used for reliable sourcing. Emeraude (talk) 14:58, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Formula Ford Championship[edit]

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

Amateur racing series with no apparent notability. No references provided, and Google provides nothing outside of mentions from the club racing community. QueenCake (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cybervoron (talk) 18:33, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article hadn’t been written well, there are some large gaps in terms of content and there were no references included. There are however numerous instances of the events, the championship and the champions being mentioned outside of the club racing community. I have made a raft of changes to try and show the notability of this championship, as shown by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Although it is an amateur championship, it is notable for having had several champions and competitors who have gone on to race in other professional events, including Formula one. I see that improvement notices had been applied some time back, but hadn’t been acted upon. The article hadn't been linked in to other pages or relevant wikiprojects. At the very least the content from this article could be merged to the Knockhill Racing Circuit article but I think that there is enough reason to keep it in its own right. It could, of course, benefit from the attention of editors who have specialist knowledge. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:10, 15 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drchriswilliams. Dalliance (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as expanded, it's a much better article now than at the time of nomination. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:38, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayato (kickboxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer (WP:KICK), does not meet WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially an unsourced BLP. Nothing shows he meets WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent sources to meet WP:GNG and he has no achievements that meet WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 22 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. Missvain (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Industrigruppen JAS[edit]

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

It's not clear why this article is notable Verbal.noun (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consortium of several major companies to build major military aircraft. The Swedish WP has a much longer article, including a number of very good references. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substandard nomination that really can't be taken seriously. --Hegvald (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The decision was made to lift the section out of the article about JAS 39 Gripen into an article of its own since it was relevant but the information not directly related to the aircraft article. BP OMowe (talk) 22:44, 21 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. Missvain (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Ruth Sison[edit]

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

Low-notability beauty pageant contestant per WP:TOOSOON, not yet notable per WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Unplaced in 2014, third place in 2014, and 2015 contest is still in progress. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps it is too soon for the subject to have a stand alone article. Subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary and non-secondary reliable sources however none that I would consider in-depth or rise to the level of significant coverage, thus failing WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject has not won a major pageant thus are received a notable award thus fails WP:NMODEL or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as while winning the pageant might ensure the sort of reliable third-party coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, apparently only not winning has failed to yield sufficient coverage. If an editor can find such in-depth coverage of the subject, I will gladly reassess my !vote. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 23 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. Nakon 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Scott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article originally created by a banned SOCK. Now extra sourcing added consisting of short WP:ROUTINE mentions in a University newsletter (name and competition only as part of a list), a commercial blog (which has spammed WP extensively for links), a short blurb on an AM radio station site, a captioned photo in a series of photos for SeattlePI, and the sponsoring company's website as a mention on a list. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL, WP:BIO1E. All the info that can be gathered on the subject is already in the article, most of which is already in the articles about the pageants she was in. Further, no Miss Wyoming so far has been notable enough to justify a stand alone article. There was consensus to delete this article as a batch [18] but they were kept only on the basis that the Admin preferrred they be relisted individually. Sister articles Natasha Martinez and Elizabeth Cardillo (contestants in the same year, same pageant company) were recently in deleted separately. Legacypac (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the two references in the article that aren't primary do not have significant coverage of this individual. Vrac (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article subject has achieved notability by winning pageant titles in two different years. There are a total of five references which include university, news sites and other sites that cover pageant happenings. With sources across numerous independent reliable sources this article subject passes WP:GNG WordSeventeen (talk) 02:43, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winnings in teen pageants should not be used to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miss Wyoming USA - The correct sourcing is rather weak and the article has minimal content. In other words, notability is possible, but unproven. However, that doesn't mean the subject can't be covered at a broader article and the current article content (4 sentences) would not be undue weight at Miss Wyoming USA. I note also, that the two recent delete arguments are exceptionally weak (and the others preceded the current version of the article). One is flat out wrong (she won the adult version of the pageant this year, not the teen version, and no one is arguing that is automatic notability anyway) and the other is WP:JNN. --ThaddeusB (talk)

Saying someone fails e.g. GNG/BIO is shorthand. Consider the link to be a transclusion of those criteria. No opposition to selective merging to the contest article, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can say "keep per ABC" or "delete per DEF". As my link explains, doing so is a very weak argument because it does nothing to explain why you feel the article in question meets/doesn't meet the criteria. AfDs are not votes - achieving consensus generally needs actual discussion, which "k/d per XYZ" doesn't contribute to in any meaningful way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for me to prove a negative? Otherwise it's not a complicated thing such that it requires I write out what would effectively be a copy of the page I linked (just as you only linked -- rather than retyped -- that non-policy non-guideline userspace essay). Insufficient sources exist. Not sure why you need more. It's striking that you found it necessary to criticize other people's !votes as part of your own argument when your !vote, while using more words, barely even alludes to a policy-backed rationale. Part one: The correct sourcing is rather weak and the article has minimal content. In other words, notability is possible, but unproven. In other words, you're admitting the sourcing stinks and are not even claiming that sources exist outside of what's cited. Then in part 2 you "just say" (in the sense you have accused me of "just saying") that doesn't mean the subject can't be covered at a broader article and the current article content (4 sentences) would not be undue weight at Miss Wyoming USA. You have said the sourcing is not good but merge it anyway without giving any basis whatsoever for doing so (unless we are to assume that merge is the default, which it certainly is not). Perhaps you meant to say that sourcing is good enough to justify a merge, but that, too, is "just saying". You haven't argued your point at all, you're just saying it's good enough. Now, to be clear, I didn't take issue with this until you've targeted the integrity of my own !vote. That's because even though you haven't backed it up with anything whatsoever, I understand AfD arguments enough to know the implications of what you're arguing. Similarly, when I link to criteria and say that it does not pass, you know what that means. Assuming you're not really looking for me to prove a negative, and since you're presenting no counter-argument yourself, citing Cirt is just an empty attempt to try to discredit a !vote you disagree with on the basis of using fewer words. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for you to do anything, nor am I criticizing. I am sorry if you saw the comment that way. I am telling you that saying "not notable" (or in your case "fails BIO") is a weak argument because it doesn't say why you feel it fails. (Saying "keep is notable" is equally weak.) There are many possible reasons an article can fail to be notable - you should state why you think it is so in order to make your argument strong. Saying something like "insufficient sourcing to prove notability" while barely more words is a much better argument. An even better argument is "Current sourcing doesn't prove notability, and my searches didn't turn up anything either" is even better (if true). As to my merge !vote, I do not have to prove notability - content inclusion is not a matter of notability, but judgement. There is no policy to point to tell me material X is or is not appropriate in article Y. (But if you need one, see WP:PRESERVE - content should be preserved when possible and it is possible here, even if notability is not proven for a stand-alone article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something there have been only minor changes to the article since nomination for deletion: punctuation fixes, a place of birth and a new category. I'll reiterate my Delete !vote: the secondary, independent source coverage amounts to photo captions. Vrac (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sufficient references from reliable third-party sources exist ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc.) to push this article across the WP:GNG threshold. As the winner of both the Miss Wyoming Teen USA 2010 and Miss Wyoming USA 2015 titles, "one event" concerns do not apply. Nominator misrepresents the closure of his mass-deletion attempt as it was originally "keep" before he personally reverted it. - Dravecky (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Please, in particular dicuss the new links and whether they create notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have significantly rewritten and expanded the Caroline Scott article with improved sourcing from a variety of reliable third-party and primary sources to address any concerns of verifiability or notability. I respectfully request that any interested editor review the article as it currently stands and consider revising their !vote in this discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:43, 24 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. Missvain (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv through the ages[edit]

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

I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough for an article. This may be a case of a book that has never been translated into English and is likely something released only in the Ukraine, so I've alerted the applicable WikiProject about the article so they can help look for any Ukrainian sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its present form does not meet WP:GNG Coolabahapple (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or anyone else) wants to userfy the article and slowly improve it, I have no issue with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no indication that the book meets WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (books). Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone presents reliable sources that the book is notable. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:08, 26 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. Missvain (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn "Kitty" Kane[edit]

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

Article subject was one of "over 200,000 applicants" for a trip to Mars and was not selected. No articles exist on any of the other 200,000+ applicants who were not selected. Article is bloated to give the appearance of individual having notability. Regardless, this individual is not notable and article fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... offhand this does seem to be a bit of a WP:BLP issue since she's really only known for the application process. She did get far, but she wasn't ultimately selected. At most I think that it'd be better off to have a section in the main article that discusses the media coverage of the selection process and applicants, where she might merit a brief mention but that looks to be the most that she'd warrant. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely. It's a clear example of 1E, and the 1E (not winning a competition) isn't even worth writing about. A brief mention might already be too much--Google will do that for us. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an applicant/candidate is not inherently notable. Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Ala Drmies. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:08, 22 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. Missvain (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Kane[edit]

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

No notability other than applying for something that over 200,000 others applied for and didn't get. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every aspect of this, down to the description of her current job, is promotional, and the subject fails our notability guidelines by a Swedish mile. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an applicant/candidate is not inherently notable. Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Henrique de Oliveira[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:A7, very poor article. While this is not a valid delete rationale, the article fails both relevant notability guidelines. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played (seven matches, one goal) in 2014 for Boa Esporte in Campeonato Brasileiro Série B, which is listed as a fully professional league and so passes WP:NSPORT. Sorry, this is probably my fault: I removed the prod (one of a number of rather odd deletion requests added by the same editor) but never got round to adding a clear assertion of notability to the article. Have now done so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Struway2 pointed, this passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully professional league. I am assuming soccerway.com is a WP:RS since I cannot read Portuguese to check other sources. Tigraan (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:04, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unitwins[edit]

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

No evidence of notability beyond social media pages. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 4 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 04:17, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I could not find WP:RS in google hits, but this may be due to a collision with the UNESCO program and my inability to read Swedish at a decent level. Without any sources, it is hard to discuss. Tigraan (talk) 10:28, 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 redirect to Polish People's Republic. Nakon 00:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Poland (1944–1952)[edit]

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

The Republic of Poland is one of the biggest countries in Europe, member state of the European Union, with hundreds of articles about its history in English Wikipedia. However, this stub was written without a single reference to go by. Why? Because the subject of this article never existed; so, the sources couldn't be found, not even one. Poeticbent talk 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. – Fails WP:Verifiability Poeticbent talk 04:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comment. User:Elevatorrailfan, the creator of this entry, who does not have any particular interest in the history of Poland during World War II, but likes to edit Donetsk, Donbass, Lugansk, and Novorossiya, has been making highly controversial edits to the Polish People's Republic article since at least October 2014, while claiming falsely that Poland ended in 1939, and was replaced by Nazi Germany ... Please note, the Polish Underground State and the Polish Government in exile existed throughout the war. Elevatorrailfan's problem is the general lack of sensitivity to Poland's complex history. This new article, stitched from WP:COPYWITHIN is a perfect example of that. Poeticbent talk 22:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Republic of Poland 1947.svg. The map [uploaded by User:Elevatorrailfan and used in here] is falsified to fit a revisionist and anti-Polish POV. It fails to show the postwar border shifts... with outright offensive description of its actual content: i.e. the "Polish Zone of occupation" of Nazi Germany. Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion (quote from General reasons #1): "page containing nonsense or no valid content." Poeticbent talk 20:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see this as intentional? A lot of this editor's edits do not make sense, and I am wondering if there is a language barrier or something. The article is nonsense, other than the title. If it is done intentionally, this becomes more than a question of this article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Poeticbent talk 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redurect to People's Republic of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polish People's Republic to avoid the double redirect immediately above. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently added more information to the article along with references. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable mass copy-paste from other articles in Wikipedia without attribution, in order to save a wp:dead horse. Poeticbent talk 04:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and write proper article This particular article has problems, but the concept, as in the time frame, and the title, are correct, although the article on Polish Wikipedia uses 1945. I think it should be written and well, and the Polish Wikipedia article could be a starting point for sources, I have not looked but do not find it the least credible that there are no sources for Poland from 1945 to 1952 including the name of the country and historic events describing its government and relationship to the USSR at this time. Rzeczpospolita Polska MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Polish People's Republic - no good reason for separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A possible good reason is the name you suggest wasn't the name until 1952. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple change of official name definitely isn't a good reason for separate standalone article.--Staberinde (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol MicroPaLeo (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and write proper article The Polish People's Republic was not established until 1952. I think the article should be re written. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you seem to be the one who wrote the improper article. You article does not make much understandable sense and does not explain the political status of Poland from 1944 to 1952, nor does it contextualize global politics of 1945 and Soviet politics of 1952 on its own or within the international political climate as these relate to Poland during the years. It is just a lot of text juxtaposed on Poland without placing the article title in the context of the text. I see that an article is necesary, but I do not see how the one you wrote qualifies in any way under the title. Can you help by writing a coherent stub? MicroPaLeo (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish People's Republic was a Communist State that was established in 1952, the Republic of Poland the existed from 1944-1952 was a multi-party system. It would be kind of confusing to have the Republic of Poland (1944-1952) redirect to the Polish People's Republic. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and make a stub until someone writes the article. As others points out, redirecting to Polish People's Republic doesn't work, as it's not the same. From what I've understood the PPR started when Poland got a new (communist) constitution, while this article deals with the post-war government that was influenced by the USSR, but not controlled by it. As such it's a notable subject and shouldn't be deleted. The current state of the article is useless, so trim it down to a stub instead. Bjelleklang - talk 20:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. Please note, the first communist constitution was pronounced in 1947 (!), not it 1952. There was a "name change" in 1952 by the totalitarian government which pronounced it on Soviet orders. Everything else remained the same. Poeticbent talk 20:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Poles consider the name significant enough to write an article about it on Polish Wikipedia, so do many other authors in English. Is there some personal issue underlying this deletion discussion? MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There's NO such article in Polish Wikipedia for 1944–1952! There's a one-paragraph section in the article pl:Rzeczpospolita Polska which does NOT mention any of these dates: 1944 (1947) or 1952. It speaks only about the Soviet-formed Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego and Stalin's attempts at destroying the Polish Underground State. Poeticbent talk 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand.It is an important part of Polish history which often has dedicated chapters in Polish history books.The article needs expansion regarding such topics as rapid improvement of Polish industry, transport infrastructure, health care, education and electrification.Politically the centralization of power in hands of Polish communist party and its allied parties should be covered, while foreign relations should cover attempts by elements of Western intelligence organizations(not necessarily supported fully by their country) and left over sanacja regime forces to re-ignite war in the region, combined with refusal to accept Polish borders.This can be easily done using modern Polish sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. You idea is already covered in the History of Poland (1945–89) article sections and subsections titled: "Consolidation of communist power", "... first elections of 1947", "Polish United Workers' Party and its rule", "Stalinist era..." and the "Nationalization and centrally planned economy". This entry (per WP:TITLE) is about a State that existed for eight years, called the Republic of Poland (1944–1952), beginning in the arbitrarily selected year of 1944 and presumably ending with the Stalinist constitution of 1952. – Are you suggesting a possible title change in here, or the split from the parent article? Poeticbent talk 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Polish People's Republic – Superficial name changes do not necessitate the existence of a separate article. The existing article can cover this subject matter, as it does. The regime was the same, even if the name was different. This article is based in WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 00:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not different from Polish People's Republic except for the name change.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 26 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) 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hecht Poetry Prize[edit]

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

Searching this thing on Google brings up a bunch of event listings and some passing mentions in bios of writers who have won it, but I found no significant coverage of the prize itself. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about this prize, only passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this appears to be a significant award and may well assist some poets towards attaining wikiarticle status, it does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find any significant information on it, only information on people who have won the prize; parts of this article could be incorporated into article about Anthony Hecht under a legacy section?Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 24 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) 17:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faro Technologies Inc.[edit]

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

Looks like non-notable company. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current article is unreferenced, but they do appear to be makers of at least one notable product. A book search for FaroArm shows it is a notable product. [24], and [25] are a couple of example. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is LISTED. While that alone does not ensure notability it does suggest that there is likly more coverage out there. So I did a quick search on LexisNexis and found many sources. I'll try to add a few today but it is clearly a notable company. JodyB_talk 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest someone speedy keep this. I have added sources from Standard and Poor's, Investors Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal. JodyB_talk 14:49, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of stock news jabber about this company. ~KvnG 05:13, 22 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) 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7 Horns 7 Eyes (Self-titled EP)[edit]

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

May not satisfy WP:MUSIC guidelines. smileguy91^talk 23:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 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 04:07, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this EP is notable. (Indeed, the same can be said for the rest of their output, Convalescence EP which the article admits was just a sampler for Throes of Absolution and maybe even the band itself.) Emeraude (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. With minimal to no coverage, there is nothing notable about this EP. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:12, 24 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 Independent city#Germany. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent cities of Germany[edit]

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

Remainder of a previous content move (13 January 2013). Remaining content does not form a coherent, suitable topic. GermanJoe (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - all information in this article is already present (in better and more understandable detail) in related articles, namely Districts of Germany and States of Germany. The article in its current form mixes 3 distinct definitions of "indepedent city" (an inaccurate English translation), "city state" (German "Stadtstaat") and "urban district", but fails to explain any of those definitions. The present map doesn't illustrate any of those definitions. The article is misleading and largely redundant. GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of de:Kreisfreie Stadt suggests that our article is simply underdeveloped. Please echo me if you want to discuss this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I see your point, but the German article is a bad example to compare. It's overly detailed, largely unsourced and has a confusing structure (confusing even for native Germans, and probably much more for non-Germans). The fragmentation of a broad topic (districts) in several sub-articles would only make sense, when the split helps to clarify and organize the current information. But the current structure uses misleading definitions and fails to offer basic information in a clear and concise way. Additions of content can be done in one of the 3-4 remaining articles about Germany's political structure. The current flaws are too basic to fix with editorial polishing, especially when no editor has done significant work on that article in the last 10 years (aside from some occasional minor tweaks). GermanJoe (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to District-free cities of Germany, which is what these are (we are translating "kreis" as "district" here. These are in some sense successors to Free Cities of Germany. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but I think that "District-free cities" would be a, what's-it-called, a neologism? We don't want to create a new term that is not actually used. "District-free", in English, implies there is no district, when in fact there is one; maybe the German phrase does not imply that, and a different translation should be found. If "Kreisfreie Stadt" is the actual German phrase, and what are possible translations for it? If it is meant as a conjunction of a "District" and a "free state", that is quite different than a conjunction of "District-free" and "state". I would hope that sources in English have used translations, one of which we could use, rather than composing a new one. --do ncr am 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (was Keep, tentatively), and develop. Discuss rename/move at article Talk page, sure, but seems like a reasonable topic. Some more sourcing would help. Complaints in the nom seem to be solveable by editing, do not seem like deletion reasons. Seeing the AFD, I expected the article to be a list-article, listing the cities. Obviously, should add a section and list the 107 members of this set, why not? --do ncr am 04:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "urban districts" was part of this article, but has been merged in 2013 into List of German districts (I assume, for better maintenance and a complete overview of all districts). This remaining article stub is a sub-topic of Districts of Germany (covering all district types) - missing information could be just as well developed in the main article. The article exists since 2004 and still contains only redundant summaries from other articles, but no unique new information. GermanJoe (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay perhaps this could be resolved by redirect to an appropriate article. But the List of German districts list-article is currently inadequate. It's intro describes "rural" districts and "urban" districts, and states "the latter are "cities that constitute a district in their own right." Surely each of the rural districts also are districts in their own right. And is "rural" the right translation? Surely there are cities that are not themselves districts, so they're either in "rural" ones (and "rural" is a misnomer) or they're in "urban" districts along with other cities and towns in the same urban district. Is rural really the appropriate translation? And if so, then the fact of it being a misnomer should be clarified. And is it really asserted that every "urban" district is exactly one city, not multiple city or town entities? The German districts article is a bit better, but I would still have questions there. If you understand the topic properly and have sources, could you edit at those article(s) and make clear which article and section you'd propose for a redirect target? Also I wonder if Carlossuarez's suggestion that these are in some way successors to Free Cities of Germany could be worked into the text, if that is appropriate. I may try editing at the list and German districts articles but my edits would need to be reviewed/fixed by someone more knowledgeable. --do ncr am 20:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an English language link, page 48-49, that supports the usage of "urban" and "rural" district. The "official" statistical list of all German districts can be seen at this DESTATIS Excel list and is used as source for Germany and also for the list article (afaik). It shows, that even the main German statistical office throws both district types together and treats them as analogous entities. That's why I'd prefer a single article approach to cover this topic - the section Districts_of_Germany#Types_of_districts) (as possible redirect target) already does an OK job to list the main categories, but still could be a bit clearer and more detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see that English language link does support translating "Landkreis" to "rural district" and "Stadtkreis" to "urban district".

About "Kreisfreie Stadt" it states "As this is exactly the same level as a Stadtkreis, the translation ‘urban district’ will generally be satisfactory. Should it be necessary to distinguish between this term and a Stadtkreis, use ‘town constituting a district in its own right’." That leaves open the possibility, it makes the suggestion, that there IS a slight distinction between "Kreisfreie stadt" type of urban districts, vs. other urban districts, not but i am not sure what to make of that. Are there any urban districts that have more than one municipal entity> Or are they all like a U.S. Consolidated city-county?
I also see Google translate giving "landkreis" to "county", "stadtkreis" to "stadkreis", and "Kreisfreie stadt" to "independent city".
In English, "consolidated city-county" is very clear in its meaning, and I sorta think it would be the best translation for "Kreisfreie stadt" but the Wikipedia article about it only covers its application to U.S. In the articles, it would help to give as analogies, at least, "county" and "consolidated city-county" for "rural district" and "urban district". (Addition: Although there is even a bit more complication in the U.S.: see Independent_city#United_States.)
And the Wikipedia article independent city gives "county-free city" as a suggestion. For Germany, "different states have the kreisfreie Stadt (literally, "County-Free City") administrative division. The division is named Stadtkreis ("Urban County") in Baden-Württemberg. / Examples of German independent cities are: Stuttgart, Cologne (Köln), Frankfurt (Frankfurt am Main) ....[more] ... Münster. Additionally, the German city-states of Berlin and Hamburg function as federal states. The city-state Free [?? sic] Hanseatic City of Bremen consists solely of the cities of Bremen and Bremerhaven (which was originally founded as an ocean port for the city of Bremen)." (bolding emphasis added by me). That last is an example of a county that consists of 2 cities/municipalities, i guess? Should be mentioned.
I think it's best to describe the two as "counties" and "consolidated city-counties", at least by analogy to the U.S. applications of the terms. (Addition: Although there is even a bit more complication in the U.S.: see Independent_city#United_States.)

Assuming that Districts_of_Germany#Types_of_districts can be refined a bit, it should work as redirect target, right? So I change my "vote" to redirect, probably to that target. I hope this is reasonable. --do ncr am 22:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notwithstanding what i just wrote, just above, about accepting redirect to Districts of Germany#Types of districts, wouldn't it be better to redirect to Independent city#Germany? Either way, the AFD outcome would be "Redirect". And either way, all of at least Districts of Germany and the list-article and the Independent city article should be edited/updated a bit. I think redirecting to Independent city#Germany is a little bit better. --do ncr am 22:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a full, detailed coverage should be in Districts of Germany (link changed to show non-redirected target article) and an improved, but succinct summary in Independent city#Germany, but YMMV. GermanJoe (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would work for me as well instead of a full delete (sorry, if I mixed up the processes - it is my first full AfD). I would make sure, the current content (atleast the useable parts) are transferred to suitable target articles of course. GermanJoe (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent city#Germany, using template {{R to section}}, since that section explains and contains the list. --Boson (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - after copying the urban population estimate (for 2011) to Districts of Germany, the article's entire content is redundant in other articles, and can be blanked and redirected (to whatever target is deemed best). I also cleaned up the linking between the various related articles a bit (some wrong redirects, loop links, old labels and similar). GermanJoe (talk) 20:10, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:31, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as Independent City was suggested as redirect target: there is currently a parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent city about the viability of this second city article. Just noting here as related topic. GermanJoe (talk) 04:21, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo 80A[edit]

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

Not notable, and tagged for any refs since 2012 Warren (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found this [26], The images seem to indicate it's a 1950's or earlier bus which if that's the case then sources are going to be hard to find, The article does need rewriting tho. –Davey2010^Talk 05:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Fiachra10003 & Emeraude who had commented on identical AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 20 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, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 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. Article's subject is now found to be notable after being updated. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talyah Polee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [27] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[28] Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only renommed the first 8 off this list [29] - if 8 is too many, what is the limit please? Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMHO we don't need every pageant in the world on here, Dravecky's improved the article so don't really wanna see someones actions here go to waste especially when not only has sources been found but they've also been added to the article, So as well as that and the fact it now passes GNG I have to say Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 03:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This updated article now has four references including two tv stations and two newspapers. With numerous reliable sources cited in the article, the subject achieves notability and passes WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nice of you, editor User:WordSeventeen, to add references to the article. I just revised it a little bit. But, though there are i think 4 news stories, it is all about wp:ONEEVENT and it is wp:ROUTINE. The sentence mentioning her participating in track & field looked promising, but it's just a mention of the phrase in one of the beauty contest winner items, and is not any separate independent coverage of any track & field performance. It is guaranteed that there will be a winner of a state-wide contest; there's nothing special about a winner being declared. If/when there is a "substantialn subsequent career", as DGG suggests, could it be worth having an article in this encyclopedia, per our policies and guidelines. --do ncr am 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @doncram Thank you, but WP:ROUTINE is a small section of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy which is about events, not people. Talyah Polee is not an event - she is a human being. She is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the one about events. She has achieved notability here. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please consider WP:PSEUDO and WP:1E which suggest that an article on this individual is not warranted. Note the guideline talks about padding the article with trivia like where she went to school, what she wants to do for work, parents names, hair color etc. This is because there is no inherent notability for the accomplishment. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further I updated the article to give publication dates of all 4 sources: They are October 26, October 27, October 27, and November 6. They're all in one news cycle. I don't know Denver's NEWS9 is a week later than Denver's NEWS7 and the Denver Post and the Miss Universe tournament source, but they're all in the same news cycle, following the state pageant. --do ncr am 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep after article improvements by WordSeventeen. Sourcing is sufficient to establish minor notability. BLP1E doesn't apply as that is intended to prevent non-public figures caught up in a news story from being accidentally notable, not to prevent people "known for one thing" (which is the vast majority of all notable people) from having articles. A merge to Miss Colorado USA would be my second choice since the article is pretty short. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about 1E only applying to negative events or about other people articles--if a person is only known for involvement in one negative event, or in one positive event, they should not have articles. The 4 sources rounded up for Talyah Polee are all manufactured, wp:ROUTINE articles about the wp:ONEEVENT single state-level tournament win. And, as matters in wp:BLP1E, her role in the tournament is minimal: she did not create the event, she did not cause it to have any more importance or coverage than it would have gotten with any other participant being designated winner. She showed up, did not screw up too badly, maybe she had a little more "talent" or "beauty" than the average among the participants, or maybe not (maybe it was rigged, maybe there are non-disclosed factors, who knows). Her being designated winner is not discernably different, for our purposes, than anyone else getting designated, IMO. ThaddeusB, you're entitled to your opinion, but what impresses you enough to say that sources are sufficient to establish minor notability? The fact that there are four sources (despite them all being within a few days, being just one "story" in competing local news outlets)? --do ncr am 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:WI1E and the linked example of an article deleted based on WP:1E. Reality is that there are many winners in every state of various pageants run by various for-profit businesses (the biggest owned by Donald Trump) every year. The vast majority of these winners have never made the news before, get a few feel good "local person wins award" stories after the win, and go back to obscurity immediately afterward.

The WP:ROUTINE stories have a predictable formula... Susie Winner is from Springfield and a student at Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western State University where she is studying nursing/teaching/journalism/basket weaving. She likes kittens and wants to save the world. She was excited to win her 1st/3rd/15th pageant. Occasionally some winners go on to be notable actresses/news anchors/porn stars etc and then qualify for an article.

Pageants are just a business, with a local focus. Can you name the current (or any) past Miss Your State or can you remember seeing anything about the current title holder? If not, they probably don't earn an article. I can think of plenty of local business people who don't get articles even though they employ lots of people, get local press coverage regularly, have built impressive businesses/buildings and done actual charity work - a heck of a lot more then 99.9% of these girls. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For about the fifth time, ROUTINE is a section of the event notability guidelines. No matter how many attempts are made to apply event notability guidelines (demanding continuing, non-local coverage) to pageant contestants, there will still be no consensus that they have relevance on the notability of people.

I can't tell you anything about 99.9% of all Wikipedia articles - that fact has zero to do with notability. (WP:IDONTKNOWIT).

1E doesn't apply. The guideline is for people that get coverage as part of a news story (I never said anything about it be negative coverage, for the record), and don't have biographical information about them published. It is not about denying articles to people who accomplished only one thing, but did have biographical information published. If a source is reliable and biographical it is valid. The scope of the source doesn't enter into it. Beauty pageants and other contests are not "events" in the 1E sense. Saying they are is exactly equivalent as saying a previous unknown author who wins notable prize or a sports person who wins a big sporting event can't be notable for coverage derived from winning. In other words, it's a distortion of the guideline's intent. Biographical coverage confers notability regardless of motivation, while "X was involved in Y" coverage does not. And what we have here is biographical coverage spurred by a contest win, not coverage of the contest where the person is mentioned as winning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A small handful of local articles about a local resident notable for one local competition is not sufficient to pass any of the notability guidelines. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A state-wide contest is not a "local competition" and Denver is hardly a small town - getting "local" coverage in a big city does confer notability, as Denver newspapers/news programs are not indiscriminate in what they cover (unlike some small-town papers). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 16 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, Nakon 02:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bet WordSeventeen's work. Artw (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WordSeventeen's improvements to the article allow the subject to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds of WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: In the interests of WP:HEY, I have further expanded and improved the article, adding a number of additional references to a mix of primary and third-party sources, to further push this article across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:44, 24 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) 18:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Bull[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [30] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[31] Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nom's reasoning coulda been spelled out here explicitly, but re-stating from nom's link, nom also views that the subject fails WP:NMODEL as only notable for one event (winning a state level pageant). WP:NMODEL Criteria: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

a) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

b) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

--do ncr am 14:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I failed to mention above I also believe we don't need every pagent in the world on here, All that aside Dravecky's found a hell of a lot of sources and so despite my opinions I don't really wanna see someones actions here go to waste especially when not only has sources been found but they've also been added to the article, So as well as that and the fact it now passes GNG I have to say Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 03:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (changed back and forth here, vote Redirect below) "Votes" citing actual sources would be more helpful. The Google news search link yields several local news articles currently, including this WDDE article that asserts significance for her being the first African-American to "hold" the title of Miss Delaware USA, but another African-American was crowned in 1991 (althought she resigned quickly for some undisclosed reason). Although there's some more local news hits than I saw for another model in this series of AFDs, they seem just to be other coverage of 2012 tournament in which she is listed as a contestant and winner of swimsuit competition, or of 2013 competition where also listed as a contestant, among with all the others. Does not pass wp:NMODEL; has not yet had the "substantial subsequent career" that DGG notes would be necessary. --do ncr am 05:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC) --do ncr am 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has two references now. Passes WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources repeating the same one event do not suffice, IMO. --do ncr am 21:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (revised from "Delete"), Deletion justified per John Pack Lambert's comment in the similar Ashleigh Lollie AFD (linked above), that this person is not in the news in any permanent way, there is just the one event. One of the two sources in the article states that she hopes to graduate from one of two universities, but I doubt we'll ever know if she graduated or not. I agree, there's no indication this person is in the news for anything more than one event. I don't see substantial coverage in the article, or in the Google News search linked above. It would not suffice if her winning a state-wide crown was reported in even more local news resports. It won't change if there's local coverage of her appearing at local events, as part of the one-year "reign" as Miss whatever is her title. It's still one event; it's appropriate to draw the line that this level does NOT merit coverage in an encyclopedia. Also she does not meet wp:NMODEL, per the nomination. --do ncr am 21:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB's suggestion that it could be redirected to Miss Delaware USA, where this is a table row for her and a so-far-empty "Notes" column, is okay by me. A wp:anchor at that row can be provided as the redirect target. --do ncr am 22:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked twice at my Talk page by editor Dravecky to come change my vote here in this AFD, after Dravecky reported more sources below in this AFD and added them to article. And Dravecky likewise contacted Davey2010, ThaddeusB, Rhododendrites who each modified their votes in response. I'm a bit uncomfortable about this pressure, let me call it, though I am not sure of etiquette for this. Rhododendrites at their Talk page stated:

I did take another look. The Promote Peace Now articles are good since they add another angle, but I don't agree that these demonstrate notability. So I've changed my !vote from delete to weak delete. It's looking like it's going to be kept, so regardless of my opinion, nice job [potentially] rescuing an article.

I also did review the stated sources after the first request, and noted they add coverage of an idealistic "Promote Peace Now" event that Renee Bull led in some way i think as a high school teenager before the pageant-winning event. But the 2 items covering that were cheery news items announcing the PPN event beforehand, and it apparently didn't rate coverage of what happened, whether it was a total bust or a significant accomplishment. I feel this still is case like DGG suggests, where post-pageant accomplishments need to be shown, so I stay with my vote of "Rdirecct". However in this edit I also correct a "Delete" vote further above to "Comment", as I apparently had two votes showing. I ask the closer to really consider closing with "Redirect" rather than giving credit to the prior minor event. --do ncr am 14:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if you felt any unintended pressure. I asked only for reconsideration as, per WP:HEY, the article had been significantly improved since your !vote. My second note was just to alert you that you had inadvertently !voted twice without striking the first one. - Dravecky (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect/merge~~ to Miss Delaware USA. Notability is possible, but unproven at this time. That doesn't mean we can't have two sentences about her (the entirety of the current article) at a more general page. Incidentally, BLP1E doesn't apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news event, not prevent bios about people known only for one thing (which is the vast majority of notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After improvements by Dravecky, there is now enough sourcing to prove notability and enough content to justify a standalone article. Good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 18 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) 02:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Delete - Fails GNG/NMODEL, BLP1E issue, DENY, etc. No objection to an appropriate redirect, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficient references from reliable third-party sources ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc.) exist (and on topics other than her pageant victory) to push this article across the WP:GNG threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: I have used these and other reliable sources to significantly expand and improve this article. I respectfully request than any interested editor review the article in its current state and reconsider their !vote in this matter. - Dravecky (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:18, 18 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, Nakon 02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improved article passed GNG. Artw (talk) 02:26, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Golebiewski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [38] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[39] Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides the Facebook source currently in the article, and presumably pageant-related websites, there's this newspaper article in Middletown Press, a general newspaper, found from Google news search link above. I don't know if it adds up to enough coverage yet, or not. Maybe there's more. Can someone search any database including more Connecticut newpapers? --do ncr am 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA with no prejudice against creating a proper article if reliable sources can be found. The current "article", however, if not worth keeping. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep after article improvements by WordSeventeen. There still isn't a lot of content, but at least there are sources now. A history preserving redirect would be my second choice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Doncram I have updated this article to include four references from reliable sources. The sources can be viewed in the article. They include sources from two different newspapers plus some other sources. Having numerous different sources this article subject achieves notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:39, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few local paper articles about a single local event do not constitute sufficient coverage. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:32, 15 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, Nakon 02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements to article. Artw (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as earlier improvements (plus some improvement and expansion I have just completed) push this subject over the verifiability and notability thresholds for WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per current refs. Earflaps (talk) 08:14, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technika SH-Z625[edit]

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

We don't normally do separate articles for every digital compact camera out there; even those by major manufacturers are often grouped by family or series. The Technika SH-Z625 does not appear to be notable at all; Technika is a supermarket own-brand (Tesco's) and this is almost certainly rebadged third-party hardware. The article itself reads like a features/spec list converted to prose, and gives no real indication as to how this camera differs from countless other cheap digital compacts. In short, I don't think this article has even the potential to be worth keeping, because there just isn't likely to be much worth saying about a rebadged generic digital compact. Ubcule (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is an article on the generic camera family, or the most common variant from which it is rebranded, should it be merged?Billlion (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of sufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; @Billlion- Sorry for not replying earlier. Are there any sources that give meaningful background information on this model beyond a spec list and a model name (which might be absolutely meaningless by itself- we can't even assume that similarly-numbered models are related when it comes to purely badge-engineered "brands" like Technika). And even then, is there anything meaningful to be said about it? The generic camera "family" in this case would probably be the one it was technically related to, as different Technika models of the same time may be sourced from totally different places. Ubcule (talk) 23:51, 17 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding any real coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found no coverage excepted for e-commerce. ~KvnG 04:58, 22 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) 18:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chà Là[edit]

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

Article fails WP:V and WP:RS, having done a web search I am unable to find any information other than reverts back to this page. If the US really lost 18 planes and helicopters in the battle as claimed, then that would have been reported somewhere Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one is tough without access to paper military records. After much varied searching I found this, the dates line up. And "a major battle developed between Viet Cong forces and the ARVN's 21st Division at Cha La on the Ca Mau Peninsula" in Vietnam Air Losses: United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps Fixed-wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia 1961-1973. The other problem is that Kennedy was assasinated the day before so it is much like trying to observe a small star next to a supernova (if we were to look though old US news sources). —Noah 05:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I don't think that the Vietnamese army newspaper can be regarded as RS. I note the timing, but even with saturation coverage of the JFK assasination it would have rated a mention somewhere and would certainly have appeared in the MACV or USAF records, I searched Vietnam Air Losses and they seem to list 1 plane lost on 24 November 1963 at Cha La, which hardly supports the exaggerated claims of 18 aircraft lost, nor establishes notability.Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exaggerated claim might be from the Viet Cong docuemnt which presumably was translated to produce this article. Also, the losses were likely ARVN losses to US Army or AirForce may not have recorded it?? In any case, not arguing either way, just find this one to be a nice mystery. —Noah 06:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even ARVN losses would have made the MACV or USAF records as the US operated all the South Vietnamese aircraft and helicopters at this time. A translated Vietcong document cannot in any sense be regarded as RS. The problem that I have found is that these Vietnam War battles that have no or minimal non-communist Vietnamese sources are usually either exaggerations or complete fabrications Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless improved). I am not prepared to accept that a North Vietnamese newspaper is ab objective source, without corroboration from what South Vietnamese or American sources say about it. If improved, I will reconsider my vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:43, 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, Nakon 01:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. I have not found any non-primary reliable sources that verify independently that the subject of this AfD actually took place. Therefore without any non-primary reliable sources, I am inclined to believe that the event which is the subject of this AfD never took place, and thus the article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Battle of Pat To, I don't think this is a hoax. I think something happened at Chà Là on 22, 23 or 24 November 1963, but there are simply no WP:RS to verify what happened or establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hofer[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:PEOPLE and WP:SOLDIER no notability sources found Deunanknute (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current page is the beginning of a page that will be worked on my multiple people over the coming days, and will include more references as the page progresses. This is simply the start.Studlaff (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Former senior NCO with no especial notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure that a military college counselor, by itself, makes one notable. Have the new editors forgotten to add something? Bearian (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many fine men and women who are not sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article, and countless villains who are. This subject seems to be in the former category. But if substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources can be found, now or in the future, then we should have this article in. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:45, 18 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, Nakon 01:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing that WP:BASIC is met. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by no means a form of disrespect to the Marine Sergeant Major, the subject received passing mention in one non-primary or secondary reliable source, however that is insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Therefore failing GNG, the subject fails SOLDIER & ACADEMIC, and thus I am inclined to supporting deletion of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:47, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Charlton Wells[edit]

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

non-notable actor, only role is unreleased Deunanknute (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR and WP:NOT YET (actors). No significant, independent coverage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I put a prod up but looks like he deleted it. Not yet notable. Wgolf (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the actor nor the show (The Secret Life of Dave Morang) has reliable sources. The most related result I can found is one interview by (what appears to be) the eponymous YouTube channel of the show. Also possible WP:COI/autobiography issues (Bradwez199 ~ Brad Wells). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT YET. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:20, 23 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. Missvain (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rokovoli Ketewai[edit]

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

Far too little coverage to constitute notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would argue doesn't meet WP:RLN as it wasn't a full Fiji national side and the match is only recognised as a test by the ARL due to the Super League war. I can't find any more sources for this player, so he fails GNG anyway. Mattlore (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:41, 23 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. It appears that there is a rough consensus to keep that is supported by policy. There was also no outright for a delete from anyone besides the nom, so there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Baker (philosopher)[edit]

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

This subject does not seem to pass WP:PROF or the GNG; being a winner in a shogi competition is not enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is the second nomination. The first one is here. I agree about the shogi. About academics, I think that the publications may meet WP:NACADEMICS #C1, significant impact. Rather than the number it is the quality of the cites that impresses me. The first one in GS, in Mind, has been cited in top-level journals, listed with the the abstract, and it seems to have been significant attention. Likewise for the second one, here. From his CV, he authored the article "Simplicity" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So at least within his field he seems to be well known. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was, in fact, just now alerted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Baker (shogi), by Marchjuly; I didn't know because the article had been moved. I just looked at that AfD and I suppose a no consensus call was fair enough (thanks Crisco 1492), but I'm really not that convinced. Margin1522, your keep is really based on two articles and the fact that it's cited a few times, but citation (of an article, not a book) by itself doesn't always mean everything and it doesn't automatically prove an impact. Joe Decker, in the previous AfD, cited another article (http://www.jstor.org/stable/27653642) which argues explicitly against Baker. And then there's the Stanford article, but there also I don't see how much that makes for notability: it's a lot of articles. So I am not convinced, and I wonder what DGG and Randykitty think. I'll also ping Xxanthippe and David Eppstein since they voted in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think I actually did vote in the previous AfD, but thanks for the ping. I did point out that he has a Google scholar profile here which is helpful for getting an impression of how significant his philosophy work is; I think this may be a field with low-enough citations to make his numbers (h-index of 10, top citation count 127) meet the threshold for WP:PROF#C1, barely; I prefer Margin1522's argument from strength rather than numbers of citations, but that takes more subject-specific expertise than I have. I agree that there is no case for keeping on the basis of his shogi activity, so I think WP:PROF is the only possibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I basically agree with DavidE on all points. The 127 citations to an article in Mind, is sufficient in this area especially considering the great importance of that journal, as bolstered by the other citation levels. The shoji material is irrelevant. The article needs some expansion to show the importance. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I first posted about this on Drmies' talk page, but since I've been pinged I guess it's OK for me to comment here too. I am the editor who proposed this article for deletion the first time, but that was based solely on Baker's notability as shogi player and this version of the article. As stated above, the result of first Afd was "no consensus". The article was improved, renamed and the focus shifted to Baker's academic activities which, in my opinion, made it much better than the version I first saw. That is why I just accepted the "no consensus" keep for what it was and moved on to other things. Is Baker notable enough to satisfy any of the criterion in WP:NACADEMICS? I cannot say for sure, but since he needs to satisfy only one of the nine and No.1 seems to be his best chance, I think it depends on how broadly you wish to define "significant impact". No. 1 of WP:PROF#Specific criteria notes says "the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Being cited 127 times sounds highly cited to me, but WP:PROF#Citation metrics seems to imply that using Google Scholar, citation counts, h-index, etc. as determining factors may not always be as clear cut as it seems. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh 'The most compelling criterion to me is PROF C1, the test there is a bit subjective, the result here feels, to me, marginal (despite my previous enthusiasm). The only other point I would make is that negative coverage, such as the link I provided in the previous AfD, is coverage, and we have no reason to weight negative criticism differently than positive criticism in determining notability, per NPOV. Lamarck and Copernicus are notable in large part for their failed theories, perhaps this fellow is notable for his. In short, I am neutral. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as in first AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - He's an associate professor and acting chair of the philosophy dept. at Swarthmore. The 127 cites to his top paper are persuasive. Unfortunately, his article on Simplicity in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy only gets 8 citations in Google Scholar. Agree that he does not get his notability from shogi. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EdJohnston. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:38, 23 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. per SK1 & all that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TNL Onstage[edit]

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

Recreation by a WP:SPA of an article previously deleted as WP:ARTSPAM with the same problem. The subject might well be notable, I didn't even bother looking for sources, but this article is so completely and nakedly promotional that it's not fixable. The only cited source is, if possible, even more promotional. Recommend that we blow it up and start from scratch. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nom The article has been stubbed with several sources added. Suggest this AfD be closed per WP:SK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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.