Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 February	10 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 — we only just discussed (and deleted) this two weeks ago under a different name; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(target). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Nicole McCaffrey[edit]

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

BLP of local interest, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Books written are self-published. PROD removed with comment that the books made the "subject valid," but self-published books do not confer notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:GNG — Subject attracted significant coverage in 2005 over her changing identity, sparking a local political debate and receiving follow-on coverage in The Advocate. The lead sentence is not verified directly but suggests a lasting notability not unlike, say the Little Rock Nine.--Carwil (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything from The Advocate on a search, that would obviously very clearly change my mind on this. Can you share? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "significant coverage" is an overstatement. It looks like the 1-event was covered in a local NJ newspaper. Agricola44 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - I'm just not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. The only non-primary reliable sources I see are a couple in the Daily Record from around that time period. The Advocate story mentioned above would help, certainly. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not notable per se and most of the sources are not WP:RS. The Daily Record is OK, but that seems to be local and also seems only to have covered the 1-event described in the article. Agricola44 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is just WP:LOCALFAME, it seems. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Teacher who does not pass any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JodyB_talk 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Hollygrove[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Unable to find any reliable sources to confirm notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So articles in which he is apart of, also the fact that he is a RADIO DJ on a popular station KQBT isn't notability enough? Would an album or single release from iTunes and/or google play or amazon suffice? Htown4life talk 24:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Bomber[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:BK no independent refs given, could not find reviews by independent reviewers Deunanknute (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG since there appears to be no significant coverage from reliable sources about this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete for failure of WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hint of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RhodeCode Enterprise (software)[edit]

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

non-notable software, redirect unnecessary Deunanknute (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the main one that distugishes product from the company, it's more notable then other on that code review page that i cross linked it. Someone on that page already removed software that doesn't have links in wikipedia i find that this link is important to stay. We're shipping now 3 major products one of them is RhodeCode Enterprise and it's important to distinguish that from the company Marcinkuzminski (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The software itself is not notable separate from the company per WP:PRODUCT. Other, similar, articles do not impart notability, maybe they should be deleted, per WP:WHATABOUTX. Deunanknute (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Total lack of independent sourcing, does not meet general notability guideline or software notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sourcing provided. Article for parent company also appears to lack adequate sources. RomanSpa (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Aloha[edit]

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

Insufficient sources. Lightspeed2012 23:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High time we deleted all unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be suitable for an article after the election but a bit premature at the moment. JodyB_talk 00:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Demboski[edit]

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

non-notable mayoral candidate Deunanknute (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has been mentioned in every article referencing the Anchorage Mayor's race. She is also a sitting assembly member in Anchorage and is therefore a local luminary in the community. The original page was created to be short with references cited within it so that users could ad more over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VapidlyYours (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — VapidlyYours (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment please see WP:POLITICIAN, all coverage appears routine, and she is currently a candidate for mayor, not mayor. Deunanknute (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Looking at WP:POLITICIAN she is a notable person in the city of Anchorage. Her coverage for the Mayor's race is auxiliary to the article. Our politicians are notable. That is the first and most important guide-line. The coverage of her only goes to add credit to her being a notable figure in the community. She is currently part of an 11 person assembly that makes decisions for the citizens of Anchorage, that alone deserves an article. If you feel so strongly about the mayoral addition it can be removed - but that won't stop her from doing it. User:Vapidlyyours — Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what independent coverage does she have? Deunanknute (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Beyond what was listed on the original thread, here are some examples of her coverage:

http://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/Pages/MemberProfiles.aspx http://www.adn.com/article/20140826/eagle-river-chugiak-assemblywoman-announces-anchorage-mayoral-run http://amandacoyne.com/politics/demboski-throws-hat-in-the-ring-for-anchorage-mayor/ http://www.alaskastar.com/Alaska-Star/October-Issue-1-2014/Ms-Mayor-maybe/ http://apeonline.org/amy-demboski-lobs-firework-anchorage-mayoral-race/ http://anchoragepress.com/news/fresh-face http://ballotpedia.org/Amy_Demboski http://www.msrwc.com/amy_demboski_for_mayor_campaign_kick_off User:Vapidlyyours — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment those are all standard coverage for a candidate, and do not imply notability. Deunanknute (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Are you from Alaska? Show me one mayoral candidate with more coverage then that, in our state that's a lot of coverage. Regardless, you've been flagged by wikipedia for flagging articles too quickly before, how is this different? Like I wrote earlier, if you're qualm with this article is on the mayoral piece, it can be removed. The mayoral piece is auxillary to a representative of Anchorage in the Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VapidlyYours (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - being a rep is also not notable. per WP:POLITICIAN "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Local politicians are not inherently notable because of their position(s). You say she has notability outside of being a mayoral candidate, but the only reference that is not explicitly about her being a mayoral candidate is a short bio on the Anchorage municipal site. Deunanknute (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I disagree. Not only on the premise that Mrs. Demboski hasn't been covered in a significant way by multiple outlets:

http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/alcohol-tax-defeated/31083438 http://www.adn.com/article/20141117/assembly-member-wants-anchorage-opt-out-commercial-marijuana http://www.adn.com/article/20150127/ordinance-ban-public-marijuana-consumption-anchorage-passes-unanimously http://www.adn.com/article/20150123/state-alcohol-tax-eyed-alternative-anchorage-proposal http://www.alaskastar.com/Alaska-Star/November-Issue-4-2014/Demboski-proposes-muni-ban-on-marijuana-industry/ http://www.adn.com/article/20141119/demboski-pushes-anchorage-assembly-drop-registration-fees-old-vehicles http://www.alaskastar.com/Alaska-Star/April-Issue-1-2013/Demboski-wins-seat-on-Assembly/ http://www.ktoo.org/2014/12/02/anchorage-assembly-member-pushes-pot-ban-municipality/ http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2014/12/04/258578.htm I also disagree on your arbitrary & overly subjective view point on the issue. Mrs. Demboski has been covered. At this point, as somebody who's trying to add to the collective knowledge of the world - I'm questioning your intentions with continually citing this article. Once again, it can be shown that you have been cited by wikipedia multiple times before for attempting to delete pages too quickly. There's no need for such a high-horse. This is a notable figure, in a city that compromises half of Alaska's population. Other assembly members are represented on the site, and therefore, this page has precedence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VapidlyYours (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Only one of those articles is about Demboski [1], and even that one is routine coverage. As far as other assembly members having articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You have yet to show any coverage that meets notability guidelines. Deunanknute (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment -You're obviously biased. Your overly subjective view on this person, Mrs. Demboski, is coming across as you having an agenda. I will be flagging you with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VapidlyYours (talk • contribs) 03:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After observing the tone of the discussion thus far, I took the liberty to scan the contributions of these two users. VapidlyYours has made no edits outside of this topic, while Deunanknute has initiated scores, if not hundreds, of deletion actions in the past week alone (and it should be pointed out nominated this article for deletion thirteen minutes after it was created). Perhaps it's time for someone else to step in here. As it currently stands, Amy Demboski's primary claim to notability is in her current position on the Anchorage Assembly. Within Alaska, the assembly is a notable and politically important body. It has served as a springboard to higher office going all the way back to its inception in the 1970s and the likes of Tony Knowles and Arliss Sturgulewski. To the world at large, which is what many Wikipedians will claim is all that matters, she is a member of a city council of a marginally major American city. As for her mayoral candidacy, I don't buy the notion that only being a candidate for an office is an automatic indication of non-notability. Many tried that approach in the case of Theresa Obermeyer, herself a candidate for Anchorage mayor among other offices, yet that article survived a rather contentious AFD/DRV process. As we're currently lacking articles on both the Anchorage Assembly and the Anchorage mayoral election (which is just weeks away, incidentally), the existence of this article amounts to putting the cart before the horse, never mind that it also suggests a faint whiff of promotion for Demboski's candidacy. I haven't even addressed that Demboski generates strong opinions on "social media", suggesting that this article will be a BLP nightmare for years to come if kept, or the comparisons to Paul Bauer (politician), though that article clearly has BLP1E and COI issues that aren't as evident in this case. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep but article is way too short Bangor, Maine has Wikipedia articles on twelve members of its city council. This council member in Anchorage could qualify under the Bangor criteria. But there needs to be elaboration it seems to me about her running for mayor. I certainly can understand the importance of a council member in Anchorage, by far the largest city in the state. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My old buddy" Chris Birch served three terms on the Anchorage Assembly, having been term-limited out of office fairly recently. He also served two terms on the Fairbanks North Star Borough assembly, was general manager of Fairbanks International Airport, enjoyed a unique upbringing in rural Alaska, etc. While keeping in mind that consensus can change, past experience tells me that I would likely be wasting my time arguing for his notability. Then again, I feel the same way about long-ago assembly members such as Fred Chiei and Lidia Selkregg, even though notability is a lot clearer in those cases. Hell, Don Smith has had a political career in Anchorage spanning a half century, serving in/on the Alaska House of Representatives, the Greater Anchorage Area Borough Assembly, the Anchorage Assembly and the Anchorage School Board. He's been a politically controversial figure for longer than Amy Demboski has been alive. Sure enough, no article, in spite of inherent notability in this case. I only say all this because "do what you like" should describe Ginger Baker's contribution to Blind Faith, not the clueless cowboy approach to building encyclopedic content. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any state representative qualifies for Wikipedia. So you can add the person you have in mind without retribution or a claim of lack of "notabilitiy." Bangor, Maine, has twelve city council members with Wikipedia articles. This should set a precedent for all council members, but most council members will be deleted, whether they should or not. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and besides, all but one of those Bangor council members went on to higher offices (congress or governor). Using other AfDs to try to establish a precedent for the open AfDs on the various non-notable Louisiana ~~councilmen~~ mayor articles you have created won't help your cause.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment "The various non-notable Louisiana councilmen articles you have created"????? The only city council members that I recall having created, without one having other offices too, were three or four in New Orleans, and they were allowed to stand. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meant to say "mayors." Fixed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to fame is being candidate for mayor, which doesn't come close to WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a candidate for an office does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is one of nine candidates in the mayoral election; that hardly makes her notable. The claimed coverage is pretty much just mentioning that she is one of the nine candidates; nothing significantly about her. She currently serves on the Anchorage Assembly, which despite its important sounding name is actually the non-notable city council. Looking at the article List of mayors of Anchorage, Alaska, all previous mayors have an article here, so whoever wins the election will probably get an article too. The eight failed candidates will not. There is no election article to redirect to, so this article should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JodyB_talk 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buy the World[edit]

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

Song didn't place on a major chart, was scrapped from the artists album, no press since debut and was relegated to a mixtape. BlaccCrab (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I don't think I've ever closed 2 AFDs in a row on 1 subject!, Mr. Guye I suggest you pack it in - Like it or not this article's going to be around for a long time to come. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qingdao No.1 International School of Shandong Province[edit]

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

Non-notable Pre-K to 12th grade school that was created by a now blocked editor. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - It's pointless to nominate the article for deletion again, only five days after the last Afd was closed as Keep. -Zanhe (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per my comments less than a week ago in the previous AFD. If you have a problem with the close, go to WP:DRV. Besides which, it's a combined primary and secondary school but its still a secondary school and those are usually kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It exists, it's a secondary school, it's tradition. This is obviously kept. Jacona (talk) 11:15, 10 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Väderstads IK[edit]

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

Non-notable sporting club with no significant independent coverage and no indication of notability. The only sources are the club's website and a 2004 list of 102 Swedish football clubs.Mdtemp (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, the article is referenced, and the team having played in the top division of Swedish women's football (albeit at a time when it was a smaller phenomenon than today, 1980-81) should be sufficient to establish notability. Tomas e (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has no significant independent coverage--just its own website and somebody's list of Swedish football teams. Existing is not the same as notable.Mdtemp (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:FOOTYN, consensus is that teams that have competed in a national competition are notable. This team has competed at the highest level of competition in their country. Fenix down (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, has played at a sufficiently high enough level. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The women's soccer team has played in the Swedish top division. J 1982 (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how would team playing in top national league not be notable? Oh, because it's female? #fail Nfitz (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely needs work, but WP:FOOTYN appears to be met. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Boxing Council[edit]

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

Very minor boxing organization. Virtually all of its titles are vacant and the article shows no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly minor organization that lacks the coverage needed for GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:08, 11 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 and redirect to List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India). There are no reliable sources to confirm much of anything here. However, it may, at some future point, be such that it can stand alone. JodyB_talk 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mundhanai Mudichu (TV series)[edit]

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

Prod was declined and run-of-the mill TV show. No sources to assert notability. Chennai Gopika (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article has no sources asserting to its notability. It is a very long description of the plot and the cast It reads like a PR promo from the TV network.VanishingRainbow (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Though the serial has received coverage in multiple RSes ([2][3][4][5][6]), it is not significant enough to meet WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Do I hear the faint sound of quacking? It's hard to be sure. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Decker: Yep Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. I don't think Skr15081997, Chennai Gopika, and VanishingRainbow are independent. I think that there are some ulterior motivations here. Are they attempting to eradicate articles about Sun TV? --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye, I am not sure about the other editors but I am sure that I am separate from them.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Who is to judge whether a TV show is run-of-the-mill? It has reliable sources (per above), meets WP:TVSERIES, and has aired more than a thousand episodes in a span of years. I'm shocked that there are actually votes, not to mention 3, that call for its deletion and I still can't understand why. Timmyshin (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India) -Database entries, short/passing mentions are not Wikipedia is looking for establish notability. Well, per TVSERIES -it has to have "national" audience. It is regional/local tv program. Anyway, since there are some sources that prove the show airs on Sun TV, a redirect to List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India) seems to be more appropriate (per WP:ATD-R). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India) per Anupmehra's argument.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:25, 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) 21:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above unless RS can be found. Pax 05:49, 10 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. P. Ward (poet)[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of this person's notability. The name of the article's creator, Arcanus121, may imply a possible conflict of interest given that the name of one of the author's poems is "The Hymns of Arcanus". WP:N, WP:BIO. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have just declined to unblock an alleged sockpuppet of him, I am merely commenting here that all the books of his that I have checked at Amazon appear to be published through XLibris, and are therefore self-published. (Earlier versions of the article mention some being published by Edwin Mellen Press.) Peridon (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article is completely unsourced except for his own web page. In a search of Google and Google Scholar I found literally nothing about him except this article, social media, and his own writings. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence from independent, reliable sources to indicate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Alexander (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Fails to meet WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his fight record so he also fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No achievements to show he's a notable boxer and no coverage to show he meets GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:44, 11 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. Maybe be recreated without prejudice when verifiable sources are available. JodyB_talk 01:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat Trading Limited[edit]

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

It is possible that the firm is large enough to be notable, but I can not see the references, and the page numbers listed make it appear they are mere notices. Its website is inaccessible without registration, & I am not about to register at an investment firm's site that I do not know about. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being asked to register before seeing their home page http://toptrading.co.uk/about-us/ or the other company refs. No comment on whether the company itself is notable since I don't have access to the secondary sources, but there is very little about on Google. Meters (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Consider this correspondence to constitute a formal appeal against the deletion of article "Top Hat Trading Limited" for unfounded reasons.

I would like to challenge the decision to deletion of article "Top Hat Trading Limited" by DGG , which was notified to me yesterday but DGG keep want proceed with deletion of page without reasons to do that. This is because:

The company is large enough to be notable
The article have enough sources and meet the criteria CSD A7, DGG already try delete the article based on CSD A7 criteria what were unfair.
Website of company have 6 years of existence, was registered in 2009
I take some information of company website, and any client are unable to register to website, because the registration need be made in person on Top Hat Trading Offices, and website offer a Client Portal Login to clients follow their investment.
The reason appointed by DGG above don't make any sense in this case because only client with agreement with company can have access to client portal, what mean that company process with all legal requirements and a client don't have a problem to register at an investment firm's without know about them, because they simple can't register, first need go to Top Hat Trading offices and signed a agreement.

I look forward to a response where we can hopefully resolve the situation ASAP, avoiding the need for deletion of article.Johnf1982 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not qualifying for an A7 Speedy just means that the article appears to make a credible claim of notability. It does not mean that the subject of the article is actually notable. Despite passing A7 it may still be deleted for lack of notability, or on any other applicable grounds. Meters (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Meters you are right. But in this case, I don't see enough reasons to proceed with deletion of article. I think that article is notable enough to keep online, and the UK magazines articles talking about company is a strong source for Wikipedia.Johnf1982 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it's policy that we can use references that require registration--I am just saying why I have not looked at it. And it also is policy that we can not use external links that require registration, per WP:EL. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG seems that you don't are looking correctly to references. Any link require registration to see, Top Hat Trading official website are accessible without any type of registration, also like I said before is impossible register online. All other references links, open and information are accessible without any type of registration. Johnf1982 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Out of the first four cites, two are evidently written by the company (use of 'we'), one is a map, and the fourth is a government registration database page with bare numbers, name, and location. Still working on the last three of seven, but this article definitely fails to lead with its strong suit. — Neonorange (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All three of the financial magazines used as the last 3 refs are searchable, but I have not had any hits for Top Hat Trading or Nicholas Clark. Meters (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:All information on article has available on UK magazines, that was where I took almost all the information. So I think that articles on 3 UK Financial Magazines is a strong source to write the article. Johnf1982 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped the comment about the quality of the first four cites in the article might lead to some movement. As for the last three, at least two editors can not find the contents you cite in the three publications. If you can give us some help finding the articles, then perhaps we can move forward. I have tried to find other sources. — Neonorange (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious grammar errors in the titles of the supposed refs are rather suspicious. Meters (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar errors in the titles of the supposed refs? Where are you see grammar error on refs? I don't see any grammar error. Please be specific. Also the articles has been published in the UK magazines, paper version. Johnf1982 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let us just step back a bit. There is no rush to close this discussion. There is no need to push so hard. If the firm is notable in the Wikipedia sense (or at least the English Wikipedia sense), eventually there will be an article. It is, of course, not necessary that the articles be online, but it would sure be a help to see a quote or two from those articles.; not so much a matter of trust, at all, but merely being able to find something to follow-up. — Neonorange (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neonorange in my opinion article deserve be published on WP because follow the WP criteria and I don't see good reasons for article be deleted. The sources and information about company not is the best for a solid article, but I think that is enough. If community think that article need be deleted, no problem at all. About magazines, I can't uploud them on WP because copyrights... What I can do is take a picture of articles and send to you. Johnf1982 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "The Investments of Future?" or "Interview to Nicholas Clark" are titles that would be used by an English journalist. We're not asking you to send us copies of the articles, but since the searchable indices for the 3 refs are not showing hits for the titles (or Top Hat or Nicholas Clark) perhaps you could provide the search parameters required to find these articles, or some of the missing information (the names of the article authors, and the exact date of the August What Investment issue would be a good start). Note that as far as I can tell MoneyWeek published on 23 May, 2014 (not 22 May, 2014), Meters (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*MoneyWeek magazine was in 23 May yes, you are correct was my mistake written on references the date of article and I will update with correct information. About ""What Investment"" is a Monthly magazine so don't have a exact date, is only month and year like I describe in references. Titles of magazines is a normal titles for a financial and investment magazines, I don't understand why you "Meters" are always doubt about veracity of references.Johnf1982 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify the existence of the references in question even though the indices are searchable and I should be able to find them. That suggests that there may be a problem with the refs. The date of one is wrong, two titles have unlikely grammar errors (which are similar to quirks of your writing style), and you still have not been able to show us how to find these articles in the indices. I have not suggested deleting this article, yet, but I'm not going to wait much longer. Meters (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than their own website and related social media, and various business directories, they seem to have made no imprint whatsoever in the searchable Internet. I have also failed to corroborate article's print citations, which in any event would be too thin to demonstrate notability on their own, and they are very much on their own. I would also like to see better independent verification from reliable sources that they are what they claim to be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Smith, Jr.[edit]

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

Not notable as an actor or martial artist. There are no independent sources--they're either from his website or from NBC who was airing the shows he appeared on. His MMA record isn't close to showing notability and his Guinness record is for "delivering the strongest measured kick to another person's groin" (a niche and minor record).Mdtemp (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any notability standards for martial artists, MMA fighters, kickboxers, or actors. No coverage listed that meets GNG standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no independent sources and he doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Silva[edit]

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

Non-notable fighter. There's no evidence he meets any of the notability criteria for kickboxers or MMA fighters. The only reference is a link to his MMA record.Mdtemp (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage doesn't meet GNG and has no achievements to show he meets any other notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:43, 11 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bonehill[edit]

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

Non-notable actor and stuntman. Nothing to support notability as an actor and all references are obituaries (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). I don't believe that winning an over 60 fencing championship is sufficient to claim notability as an athlete.Mdtemp (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituaries in The Independent,[7] The Hollywood Reporter,[8] and Variety,[9] among others, indicate the Force was strong in this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While perhaps not bestowing notability seperately, the confluence of stunt work esp swordmastery; star wars character roles; and a world fencing title makes this guy notable. I find your lack of faith disturbing.-Kiwipat (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that there is no coverage that predates his death makes this look like a memorial to me. All of the previously given sources are based on a press release from his fencing club--not independent or sufficient to show notability (no matter how many sources use info from the one release). Being in Star Wars does not guarantee notability and he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE since a senior (over 60) title can not be considered as competing at the highest level.Mdtemp (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. His obituary has been published internationally; that's just unheard of for a minor actor. Huffington Post UK, Entertainment Weekly, even IGN Africa, the list just goes on and on. Apparently being in two Star Wars movies does establish notability in the press's eyes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. No coverage before his death makes this look like a memorial and that he's notable because he died. This is not a Star Wars fan site. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winning over 60 fencing championship is notable. Redsky89 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That could be anything from local club competitions on up. Did he compete at the highest level?Peter Rehse (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was Veterans Sabre World Champion in 2010, he was also a fencing coach, and he did stunt work in films. that seems notable enough the page just needs more work. Dman41689 (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its worth adding that at the 2010 world vets championship, he was presented with a commemorative diploma from the Fédération Internationale d'Escrime, the world governing body of fencing, to mark his 'extraordinary achievement' of representing Great Britain at 10 consecutive World Championships. source-Kiwipat (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSPORT states that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). To me, world championships of an Olympic sport are competition of the highest level. While one can dispute my position I think someone competing 10 consecutive times shows that for a career that person competed at the highest level and thus meets the guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Wrestling League[edit]

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

Proposed league with nothing to support a claim of notability. The only sources are from the league's creators and it's not clear if or when the league will actually exist. The article says it was supposed to start in 2012, then 2013, then 2014, and now it's 2015. Seems likely to be promotional and may even be a candidate for a speedy deletion.Mdtemp (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Constant 'next year in ....' article.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage that meets GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -It apparently fails WP:CRYSTAL. However, there are quite a few sources on subject, here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually all of the sources are announcements from the sponsoring organization that the league will be starting soon. These announcements are mainly promotional and have been coming out for years. No significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Media Research Center#NewsBusters. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sheffield[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger. Prod removed last year without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the conceivable notability is the connection with Mythbusters. But hat organizations own page says only "(From 2005 through 2013, Matt Sheffield provided leading editorial and technical services for NewsBusters." [10]. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newsbusters. Subject has been mention in some reliable sources, but none that appear to give in-depth or significant coverage to the individual who is the subject of the article in question of this AfD. Most mentions have been the individuals connection to Newsbusters:

Eric Deggans (30 October 2012). Race-Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation. St. Martin's Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-230-34182-1.

Antoinette Pole (12 February 2010). Blogging the Political: Politics and Participation in a Networked Society. Routledge. p. 120. ISBN 978-1-135-23725-7.

This reliable source gives in-depth coverage to one of Sheffield's works regarding the Dan Rather Killian documents controversy. But it is more about one thing the subject had worked on and not the subject in question. It is also given passing mention here:

Kerric Harvey (20 December 2013). Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics. SAGE Publications. pp. 45–. ISBN 978-1-4522-9026-3.

Therefore, I am presently of the opinion that the article should be redirected to a notable work by him at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see sufficient evidence of notability in the article or web searches. Not sure it's even worth a redirect to Newsbusters, which is itself a redirect to a brief paragraph in another article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wood[edit]

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

Non-notable professor, weasel words: "the impressive monograph" and unsourced "leading expert" EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A h-index of 18 seems just enough for WP:PROF, given that he is not in a highly-cited field. There are 311 citations of his book. -- 120.23.76.162 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 120.23.76.162 has already said what I would like to say about his citations being high enough in a low-citation subject. And most of the nomination complaints amount to bad writing (and inappropriate copying of a turn of phrase from one of the sources), not a reason for deletion. But the festschrift in the external links also goes a long way to convincing me that he is indeed a significant player in his research area. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A festschrift published by a notable organization from a conference in his honor is a statement of his notability by his respected peers. Who are we to argue? MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To add, WoS shows around 500 cumulative citations, which is significant in areas of pure mathematics. Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Lifts[edit]

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

Delete: Not notable and appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: no indication of importance, promotional. ubiquity (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. In a search I found only press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logitravel[edit]

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

Delete: Not notable and appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not intended to be promotional. The creator of that article (Denis Arnaud, me) is not, in any way, employed by, or affiliated to, Logitravel. I searched on the Web for primary sources, but could not find any better ones than the Web site or social network profiles. -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: no indication of importance. ubiquity (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the article's creator couldn't find anything other than the company's website and social media for sources, it is clearly not notable. YSSYguy (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry talk 01:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Strong Clarke[edit]

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

Claim to fame is owning a sugar plantation; that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source: "Clarke, Lewis Strong". Louisiana Historical Association, A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography (lahistory.com) automatically makes him notable. This publication doesn't just add biographies of people "who own a sugar plantation". Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources also indicate that he was a prominent Republican Party leader which is particularly notable in the Deep South of the late 19th century. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:45, 11 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 Qatar Museums Authority. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Museums[edit]

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

It is the same thing with Qatar Museums Authority, should redirect and merge to the latter. 淺藍雪^❉ 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, merge and delete. Longbyte1 (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A redirect is clearly needed, both articles lead off with the "Qatar Museums" name, apparently the common name. It looks like this one was a copy of the other? At size 43,500 or so, back in May 2014. --do ncr am 06:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Careers 360 (Magazine)[edit]

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

~~non-notable per WP:BK, no independent sources~~ Deunanknute (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw - borderline, but I think it's enough Deunanknute (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject may meet GNG criteria. Sources, -[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I believe there should be many more on the magazine that I'm unable to find at this time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak under G11 (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biotech Express[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:BK, only mentions found are sales Deunanknute (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: promotional. ubiquity (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as highly promotional. APerson (talk!) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just an advertisement for a non-notable magazine. ChemNerd (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -G11 & A7. Creator has already been blocked for WP:PROMOTION, why is the spam article still up in our mainspace? Tagging it for G11. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perunding PPS[edit]

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

non-notable, only hits via Google are business / address listings Deunanknute (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: article is purely promotional. ubiquity (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article about a non-notable engineering firm. The article has only two references, one from the company itself, the other a government document that does not seem to mention them. Google search found nothing significant. --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted - A7 by RHaworth –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multilocus ANTIgenic Simulator[edit]

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

non-notable, only ref is behind paywall, unable to find any mentions elsewhere Deunanknute (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: exact copy of this page. ubiquity (talk) 18:21, 9 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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Oliveira[edit]

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

Promotion for a non-notable professional. damiens.rf 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to document his notability or build an article. Does not meet WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. JBH (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, has been unsourced and/or promotional since its inception in April 2008, seven years ago. s-e-v-e-n-y-e-a-r-s. Now it's just a mere descriptive sentence. To make things worse, it was created by a potential WP:SPA, WP:COI account. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VDJ Rahat[edit]

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

Reason: No significant works. No significant coverage except trivial mentions in the included sources. fails WP:GNG Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current title is a result of an accidental page move that should be reverted if the article is to be kept; it's "DJ Rahat", not "VDJ Rahat". Huon (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes. I am agree with Huon. The article can be considered to be keep. The person seems to be a real musician in his country and for changing the name someone can't find the exact thing in any mentioned source. So I think we can keep this article for further improvement with the old original name "DJ Rahat". Shaharia.azam (talk) 20:42, 9 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete name issue aside, the coverage is pretty weak otherwise, at least in English language sources. More sourcing and/or chart positions would be helpful to establish notability, otherwise I would lean toward delete weakly, as there is some coverage, I'm just not sure it rises to meet the standards. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I moved the page to DJ Rahat. DJ Rahat is a popular artist with several major albums. Despite this, he is not covered much in (English) traditional media; but there are some in Bengali. – nafSadh did say 20:25, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:33, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aversan inc.[edit]

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

This article is not supported by sufficient reliable sources to show that the subject company is notable per WP:CORP. The references are either to press releases, or to articles that only mention this company in passing. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks NPOV & very close to G11. Bazj (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was revised and the PR reference taken out. It no longer contains language that is promotional of nature and therefore G11 no longer applies. Article is sourced by news articles from Wing Magzine, Canadian Business Aviation Association and others. osap21 12:53, 9 February 2015 (EST)
Also see deleted versions at Aversan Inc.; there's nothing usable there that isn't already here, though. Delete unless sources that aren't mere reprints of press releases are provided. Since osap21 was enthusiastic enough to create this article at least four times so far, I'm going to assume he already knows where to find them if they exist. —Cryptic 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aversan Inc. is that this article is intended to be. Only ones created. The lower-case "i" in inc. was a type and this Aversan inc. article is supposed to be the Aversan Inc. one. I understand Cryptic's thought. However, not re-creating just because it was deleted. If approved was going to move the Aversan inc. to be the Aversan Inc.. Also, sources are completely seperate articles and are not reprints of press releases provided earlier. osap21 13:26, 9 February 2015 (EST)
- Current ref 1 is the closest to being usable, and it contains zero complete sentences about Aversan. Ref 2 contains only the company name in a list with 203 others. Ref 3 is just an address. Ref 4's only mention of Aversan is indistinguishable from a press release, and ref 5's is indistinguishable from machine translation of a press release. —Cryptic 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: It seems as if the only notable thing about this company is that a trade journal listed it in a top-10 list (ref 4). The first 3 references are just directory listings. I cannot speak to reference 5, as it is in Chinese. Personally, I would not call this significant coverage, but the bar here is very low. For example, the article on the cited trade journal, Wings (Canadian magazine), has no references at all. ubiquity (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The given references fall short of approaching the required depth for encyclopaedic notability and searches are turning up just routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 18:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Erakat[edit]

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

Sounds not notable enough with no significant coverage as well. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previously found sources [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Passes WP:ENT & WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Thanks, but what is the benefit while there is no even one of them in the article? ●Mehran ^Debate● 08:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you or someone else can add them in :) –Davey2010^Talk 10:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But notability must be shown in the article content, not the AfD. This is your job (I mean whoever wants to keep the article) to improve the article, although some of the above sources are blogs and I am still not sure if the article be notable unless I can see the content within it. You devoted your time to find the sources, so make it complete and add a couple of sentences you think make the article notable please! ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the job of "whoever wants to keep the article". It's the job of whoever thinks that the article is currently inadequate to improve it on the basis of identified sources rather than demand deletion unless someone else does so. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry had completely forgot to check here!, IP's correct and I couldn't of put it any better, Also I would have no idea where to begin putting them so instead of "creating more harm than good" I'd rather leave it too someone who is far more experienced with adding sources like these, –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per Davey2010's findings of WP:MUST. The subject is clearly notable and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:15, 10 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 List of heads of state of Albania. postdlf (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the Republic of Albania[edit]

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

I redirected this article to List of heads of state of Albania as I believe that as it stands it is a duplicate of that article. Everything is there already. Is there enough of a rationale to have this article as well? Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: per OP; article appears to be redundant. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 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 17:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Krapenhoeffer. Does this even need an AfD, though? I would say just be bold and do it. Keresaspa (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Agree with Krapenhoeffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's Next Top Model (cycle 10)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a future season of a television program. Insufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. - Mr X 14:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 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 17:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it's unsourced, then find some sources. It's not unsourced at present, anyway. Seeing that it's now on air on ProSieben, the argument about it being a "future season" is invalid and for any other arguments, you'd have to make some big issues out of the related articles: Germany's Next Topmodel (cycle 1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It's logical to have an article for cycle 10, even before it has started to air, so long that it has been confirmed. And as far as I'm aware, this season was confirmed some time last year when they began filming... Jared Preston (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The season started airing. So keep. Let's close this debate asap. Zuckerberg (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Bobherry talk 01:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobherry: Perhaps you'd like to give specific rationale for your opinion. AFD is not a vote. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mix of what the others said; Its a future season but you can find sources. Bobherry talk 04:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Valor (Civil Air Patrol)[edit]

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

Unable to find sources discussing this topic that are not published by the Civil Air Patrol itself, hence should be deleted per WP:NOTABLE. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ redirect -- this one is always going to be really hard to source outside of the Civil Air Patrol docs. I would think the most dramatic thing we do is suggest that we redirect and merge back to Awards_and_decorations_of_the_Civil_Air_Patrol... but, I lean more towards just keeping it as it is and hope that an expert in this area comes along someday. —Noah 17:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider myself a subject-matter expert as a CAP member with over 5 years in. Let's just say that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that has been added by CAP cadets that, shall we say, doesn't exactly correspond to reality. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol. Subject has received passing mention in multiple reliable sources, but have only found one source which can be considered meeting WP:INDEPTH: CIVIL AIR PATROL UNIFORM INSIGNIA SINCE 1941. Preston Perrenot. pp. 1–. GGKEY:5TNBJ7SS75G.. However, one sources does not make a subject notable. Therefore a redirect to the article which the subject is within the scope of makes sense. If more non-primary reliable sources can be found that give in-depth coverage of the subject, the article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - non-notable music. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trac-Man. The Hit Album 84[edit]

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

Non-notable albums. Fail WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and no sources. JBH (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:14, 9 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 Draftify. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bunny Girl, without prejudice to other locations. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Girl[edit]

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

No evidence of significant, reliable, secondary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, neither in article nor in web searches. Lots of blogs, deviantart, and anime wikis though. Possible original synthesis of the Playboy Bunny costume. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC) --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Userfy/Move to Draftspace, as bunny girl already exists and redirects to Playboy Bunny. The bit about Japanese culture has already been covered at Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, so there is nothing to merge. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Changed to userfy as per below. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Franbunnyffxii (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Neither page discusses the unique history behind the bunnygirl trope itself though. I've yet to finish the page. The origin and history of the bunnygirl trope is very different from the Moe trope, and the history goes beyond anything stated within the Playboy Bunny page as the trope is not confined to either the japanese moe or american waitress appearance.[reply]
The only way we can be sure this trope is notable and not based on your own opinion, original research, or fancruft is if you supply and reference reliable sources that discuss the trope. To claim the subject is worth an article, you must offer proof that reliable sources, have covered the topic, which is required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franbunnyffxii: If you want, we can WP:USERFY the article for you, so you can continue to work on it in your userspace and it can be moved back when the article is ready. However, as Animalparty says, reliable sources would still be needed to prove notability of the topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is worthy of an article or not. I had an interest in creating the page for the sake of sharing the unique history behind the trope as it differentiates from other tropes of a similar background but if said topic is going to be left up to the opinion of another's as to whether the article is worthy of publication, then it defeats the point of working on said article in the first place. The references that I had previously posted would refer back to the history of the trope, but if these can't be used or referenced then the information supporting the trope is unfairly rejected. Rather a large set of references from other pages would have to be used. EG the usage of the trope in the a 2003 game, and other media usage of the trope. Are these not viable references? If not then much of wikipedia is unverifiable. The trope supersedes its origins, and to prove this as a verifiable source this history would have to be posted else where first as a reference? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catgirl Is a page with the same intent and value with less references that are possible and usable for information. Simply viewing the historical origin and then the modern version of the Bunny Girl trope automatically provides enough evidence that the trope is different from others. By reference if provided that the history of the trope as it occurs first in american culture (playboy bunny) to be picked up by Japanese culture to be used in the game Final Fantasy Advanced tactics: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Viera "They first appeared in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance." and eventually reitterated again in Final Fantasy XII as an entrance to mainstream video game publication, and then again reitterated through out japanese "kawaii culture" as an associated kenomomimi. Following the history of the trope also included the instance of Riven in the game League of Legends with her "Battle Bunny" skin(theme appereance) http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/File:Riven_BattleBunnySkin.jpg and then again in the game WildStar with the Aurin http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin Elaborate as to how to cite these references? As their occurence is important in following the history of the trope as it does not adhere to the assumed "moe anthro" association. The trope is not directly associated with japanese culture but rather was reitterated by it, as provided by the fact that the playboy bunny was originated from american culture.

This provided far more references and prove historical origin beyond what the Catgirl page provides. So why does the catgirl page receive its own when it has little validity outside of being a subset of a the larger Moe anthro and Kenomimi culture which it belongs, but Bunny girl does not when it's not directly associated and does not specifically belong to moe anthro and kenomimi? Franbunnyffxii (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Franbunnyffxii: It is not at all a matter of opinion. It is a matter of of Notablity, which requires evidence: e.g. you or anyone else providing a couple reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth, such as a book (not a comic book), news feature, article by a renowned artist or pop-culture scholar, or something that wasn't posted by an anonymous user on a website that profits from promoting anime fandom. Wikias like you mentioned are user-generated sources, and are not considered reliable. Your article currently includes one source that is not even about the anime trope but the Playboy Bunny, and a list of characters that look sort of like bunnies.

It is true that Wikipedia has articles on things it shouldn't have. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Catgirl may also warrant deletion, and I agree it is not well sourced, but it appears to at least meet the barest minimum claim to notability in that Fred Patten devoted an article to the subject. Articles of that caliber and better are the types we would need to cite to demonstrate a subject is notable in the real world. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked other references but those were considered unworthy apparently. The Viera article references are not valid then?

↑ 1.0 1.1 Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania Page 88. ISBN 4-7575-1696-7

↑ Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Radio Edition, Vol. 3 (Chapter 10)

Furthering the question of validity of Wikia

What about the reference to Riven's Battle Bunny outfit from League of Legends?

What about the reference to Aurin from WildStar? http://wildstar.gamepedia.com/Aurin

Whether or not these exist is not debatable, they do exist and are definite examples of said trope. These are able to be viewed and placed outside of the wikia reference. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would I reference these things above as to which to provide said evidence for the trope itself? Point be made that the trope exists beyond the bounds of the expectation, and there are book references, as well as other pop culture references. There is no question that this trope does infact exist outside of both the playboy bunny origin, and Japanese kawaii culture. One does not need to be world renowned or an expert to prove that something exists.

Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that we're trying to prevent an article about bunny girls from existing on Wikipedia. I, for one, am all for having such an page. However, reliable sources (if you haven't read the linked page before, then I highly recommend you read it) must be present in every Wikipedia article in order to prove that it is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. If you believe such sources exist; that's great, like I said we can userfy the article for you so that you can work on it in your own time. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I admit that this article needs some work, I'm opposed to deleting it outright. This is a topic that I feel deserves coverage. Bensci54 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT, WP:Existence ≠ Notability, and WP:Subjective importance. There is as yet no evidence that sources with a reputation for fact-checking or critical analysis feel it deserves coverage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Animalparty, it's WP:VALUABLE, not WP:ILIKEIT. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Franbunnyffxii, what the article needs is more sources like this one: The Anime Machine, a book on anime. When I searched it for "bunny", there were 5 references. You could look for game reviews or descriptions of famous characters (in books and magazines, not fan sites). Ideally one that discusses bunny ears in some depth, or at least as part of the moe + animal trope. If you can find 3 or 4 more references like the book, that should be enough evidence for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sourcing or commentary to demonstrate that this is a sufficiently notable topic to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate; Turning it into a draft seems the best solution here. Franbunnyffxii is convinced that the topic is notable, so let's let them work on it for a while. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to keep the article and continue to work on it, the discussion here about having such a page has completely warded me off from having any motivation or interest in completing said article for the time being. It's certainly a notable topic in existence, but the fact that it's being debated by such of those whom don't possess similar knowledge to the subject simply feels like fighting a fight that I can't win. I can't find any motivation or interest in finishing the article anymore because of this. And I feel at this point next to no one really cares about the subject enough to really give it any thought other than myself. Let the article sit dormant or hidden, ect. Until I can return to the topic, or whatever can be done. I have no interest in completing this article at this time. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no objection to userfying, and would encourage Franbunnyffxii to do some real research on the topic. Cite a textbook on Anime history, not a video game manual, and hold back all of your opinions until they are verified by reliable sources. The question is not of existence, but notability. If after months of incubation, all that can be produced is a list of fictional characters that have bunny ears, but no secondary sources that address the question of "what does it mean?", "who cares?", or "why bunnies?", then we'll be back to this same discussion. Again, see Existence ≠ Notability and Existence does not prove notability. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per others. We can wait until notability is demonstrated on the draft. APerson (talk!) 19:19, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Sunuwar Nepal[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon. While a "national beauty pageant of Nepal" would certainly be notable in theory - this event was only created in 2015. WAY too soon. The event needs to prove itself over a period of sufficient time and generate enough interest in third-party reliable sources to show that it is notable. For now, delete, and let's look again in a few years' time if it's still going. Mabalu (talk) 14:44, 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 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks evidence of notability from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Underdogs (Manic Street Preachers song)[edit]

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

This does not appear to be notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've found two in-depth sources on the song through a Google search, one by Drowned in Sound and one by Contactmusic. I think these are enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Kokoro20 has found. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources establishing notability have been found. APerson (talk!) 19:20, 9 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 D-War#Sequel. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D-War: Mysteries of the Dragon[edit]

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

DePRODed without addressing the issue. Concern was: Too soon and unsourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to primary topic at D-War#Sequel for a few months. We have sources telling that filming will not begin until May 2015,[29] and since it is receiving coverage, it can be spoken of at the target until filming begins and WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:29, 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 17:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Can't believe they're making a sequel to this turd, it's going to be sweeet 05:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 18:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roses in the Hospital[edit]

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

The UK charting appears to be the only thing qualifying this as notable, and I don't believe that this is enough. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONG - "1.Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". If the nom doesn't think this is enough to pass notability, then they should raise a RFC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:35, 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 17:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming the source is reliable, it exists and appears to have charted. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^speak up! 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Live[edit]

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

I have been unable to establish this as being Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: I just added 3 cite books, it took me about 3 minutes. Comment: WP:BEFORE is pretty clear about what is expected before sending an article to AfD. Litra D espacially: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search". That has obviously not been done by nominator here. This nomination is one of seventeen (17!) filed within 48 hours by nom, only hours after the community indefinitely prohibited the user from adding notability tags (broadly construed) to articles.(discussion on ANI) -- Sam ^Sing! 14:21, 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 17:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that have been found to etablish notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:01, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the 20th Century[edit]

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

I have been unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just added two cite books, took me about 2 minute. -- Sam ^Sing! 13:13, 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 17:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found that meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:01, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 Solid Gold Hits[edit]

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

Non notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources that significantly discuss the album. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Wave 82[edit]

(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)

Non notable albums. Fail WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources that significantly discuss the albums. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ognjen Todorović[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 on the grounds that he has played in the Israeli Premier League. This is factually incorrect. During the season he played for Maccabi Petah Tikva, the club played in the second tier of Israeli football, which is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 9 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) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 17:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive stack[edit]

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

Well over a year ago, this was nominated for deletion and somehow kept even though there are basically no sources to build an article from. Nothing has changed, Occupy is even less relevant today than it was in 2013, and there's no lasting interest in this particular topic that has provided information or sources for expansion. Should be deleted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources thought it was important enough to explain to their readers. The relevance and interest are not the issues. There are many good WP articles on less relevant and interesting topics. Borock (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced and notable. FWIW, many meeting chairs have long used devices of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and sourced, and written well enough to inform Wikipedia's readers. No need to return a solid consensus-to-keep yet again to AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all: where are the sources about the topic in which to build an encyclopedia article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies WP:GNG. Additional sources provided below --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- academic sources (from behind paywall, sorry)
  - Maharawal, M. M. (2013), Occupy Wall Street and a Radical Politics of Inclusion. The Sociological Quarterly, 54: 177–181. doi: 10.1111/tsq.12021
    - deals with it in some depth per the title of the article. the other academic articles deal with it in more than a mention but not to the extent this one does
  - Borck, C., Goldstein, J., McFarland, S., & Spurgas, A. (2013). #occupyoureducation. Radical Teacher, (96), 39-47,70.
  - Starecheski, A. (2014), Squatting History: The Power of Oral History as a History-Making Practice. Oral History Review (Summer/Fall 2014) 41 (2): 187-216. doi: 10.1093/ohr/ohu030
  - Leach, D. K. (2013), Culture and the Structure of Tyrannylessness. The Sociological Quarterly, 54: 181–191. doi: 10.1111/tsq.12014
- non-academic sources :
  - Sue Gardner's blog, The Nation, Wired, McGill Daily, Rabble.ca, Reason.com, Fox Nation (disclaimer: I don't know Fox Nation, which looks dubious, but included because it's part of Fox News) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sue Gardner's blog is not a reliable source. The Nation article does not mention the stack. The Reason article gives it (charitably) one paragraph. Fox Nation is not a reliable source. I can't see the stuff behind a paywall, so I don't know how much coverage those are giving it, but if the standard is the non-academic links, an examination of the available sources is not helping the claim that it satisfies the GNG, as there are not multiple reliable sources about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I assume you didn't get past the first page of the Nation article? I don't think it's fair to write off the academic sources based on an application of your mean assessment of the others. These are all coverage about the subject. I didn't include brief mentions. They range from a paragraph to several paragraphs and took me all of 10 minutes to find and compile. As is clear at WP:N, the subject of an article doesn't have to be the primary subject of an article for sufficient coverage to exist. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You're correct, I didn't get to the second page. That makes for five whole sentences about the stack. Trivial mention at best. You're not at all demonstrating at this point that the coverage is nontrivial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable sources as others have pointed out. With regard to the statement that "Occupy is even less relevant today than it was in 2013" etc, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Well sourced but not quite enough to constitute a whole article. If anything I'd see it as a violation of WP:WINAD--73.36.63.244 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There four paragraphs of text and it's unambiguously explained as a concept ("a technique") rather than a word, which is what WP:WINAD addresses. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Giving that a re-read I was wrong in my initial assumption. On the grounds provided this article most certainly contains WP:Reliable sources and its relevance in modern times shouldn't influence a deletion request since it was at one time relevant. Changing my stance to keep.73.36.63.244 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for rechecking. The best way to change it is to bold your revised vote and strike the original (strike as in <s>~~strikethrough~~</s>) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources in the article and those provided by Rhododendrites. Gamaliel (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the sources, it's been the subject of significant academic debate and considerable study. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Trivial mentions in a few insular areas is not "significant" or "considerable." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That you disagree with my opinion of what those words mean is interesting, but of no consequence to my !vote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you're using them in the Wikipedia sense, then I'd hope an explanation could be gathered. It's part of getting to some sort of consensus. Why do you believe that there has been "significant academic debate" and/or "considerable study? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's strange that you're inviting links to academic sources. When I posted a few above your opinion of them was, more or less, "I don't have access to them but they probably stink". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        My opinion of them was that the presentation suggested they had similar coverage to the non-academic sources. If I'm wrong, I would love to be proven as such. What you've characterized them as is, at best, "several paragraphs" within larger looks at a separate topic. That sounds trivial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Four separate academic sources on the same issue is four more academic sources on a single issue than I daresay the majority of this encyclopedia's articles have. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The four academic sources listed above do not appear to be about the topic, but about the broader Occupy movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem strangely desperate to discredit these sources and those editors who believe these sources support the existence of an article on the concept. I'll let the closer of this discussion make the call. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no need to personalize this disagreement. Hopefully, the closer of the discussion discounts the lack of evidence presented here to support the claims being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering the length of this article and the kind of sources that have been utilised, it may very well be more appropriate to me to make 'Progressive Stack' a section on another relevant page. The Occupy page or something on progressive politics. However, I do recognise that there might be some interest on the topic and, in the future, there could be plenty more to add to this article. I should also disclose that I am politically horrified by racial, ethnic and gender partition (I might go as far to call it segregation), in which I believe this policy is calling for. The reason I disclose this is, is that I imagine many would feel the same and the deletion discussion could be motivated by this fact. Johnwayne93 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper De Mulder Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Originally nominated a while back, although no improvements have been made and no sources about the subject have turned up. Page continues to mostly be an attack page due to a governmental inquiry that received no apparent coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per my still valid comments on the first nomination. Dalliance (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And when challenged on them, you did not reply. Where are the neutral, third-party sources that confer notability? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I replied in the first nomination and I'm content to stand by it. Dalliance (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - When questioned about those sources, you went silent. If you stand by it, please, to help build consensus, explain why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company with important public role. However, the amount of negative detail is excessive, and the article does need to be rewritten. It reads too much as the negative equivalent of promotion. The nom. has made some definite editing improvements to the article, that have not been reverted, & should make further ones. In cases of articles like this or promotional articles, I accept deletion as necessary if NPOV cannot be maintained, for example, if there was a long history of reverted improvements, but there is no evidence of that. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC) -[reply]
Keep the company and its subsidiaries have attracted substantial RS coverage and therefore are notable. The article has some pretty severe neutrality issues, but not so much that it needs deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a preliminary stab at cleaning up the neutrality by fixing section titles and removing excessive details and commentary. More is needed, including ideally the addition of more non-negative material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 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 Cheshire Senior Cup. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Cheshire Senior Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable as per [30] Kivo (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not a notable national competition and fails WP:GNG. QED237 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence this particular season is individually notable. Giant Snowman 18:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. APerson (talk!) 19:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment below was erroneously put on the talk page of this AfD, I copy it here for completeness' sake without any endorsement (or otherwise) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the first Cup competitions in Association Football and features clubs from the Football League down to level 10 (step 6). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iucrmh (talk • contribs)
Delete – How old something is doesn't make it notable. Kingjeff (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I feel that notable is a little subjective, this isn't a particularly notable season granted, but if you want to fill in the entire history of this competition, then you have to start somewhere. If the competition itself is only considered to be of marginal interest then I understand that a page for each season isn't required. You will need to also consider removal of the 2013-14 Cheshire Senior Cup page. A shame that the work will may have gone to waste, but that's democracy I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.70.242.39 (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheshire Senior Cup. Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable JMHamo (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:NawlinWiki per CSD A7, "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McCluckles38[edit]

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

A youtube account with ~500 views per video is not significant enough to have a wiki page. Aaekia (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: someone slapped a speedy delete tag on this after the AfD was put on. —Noah 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Jamie[edit]

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

Biography of a reporter with only a couple of closely connected and trivial references. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources that cover the subject in detail. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 04:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation - article doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SM Town Week Girls' Generation - Märchen Fantasy[edit]

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

This is a solo concert. The article has nothing more than a couple of announcements and a set list. It fails WP:NTOUR. TerryAlex (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTOUR, as it's not even a tour but a non-notable stand-alone concert. Aside from notability issues, I can't see what could possibly be added to this article to make it a real article. It's just a set list and SM Entertainment's PR releases. This could all be covered in one sentence in the Girls' Generation article. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins, we never get enough participation for K-pop AfDs, but these articles clearly do not have any notability. Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 19:51, 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 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no reliable sources and it clearly fails WP:NTOUR. --Random86 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 15:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas A. Kellner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Originally nominated a while back, this BLP article fails WP:BIO, as there are no available sources about the subject. Plenty about the Bawdy House lawsuits, but not about him. As a BLP, the standards need to be higher. Prior discussion had only one person give any input and was a non-admin closure. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable on two accounts. The co-chair for NYC Bd of Elections is notable in such large city, and ditto for the legal work. There should be abundant references for both of them, as I recall that they were significant political events. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is considerable RS coverage of the subject's activities (under multiple permutations of his name: "Doug Kellner", "Douglas Kellner", "Douglas A. Kellner"). That should be sufficient to establish notability. There are also a couple bios listed in the article, which while not 100% independent of the subject, are independent enough to use as sources to flesh it into a full-fledged biography. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keeep per the quite convincing arguments of DGG and ThaddeusB and the nominator's not performing proper WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 15:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Free Press[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Originally nominated around 9 months ago, this continues to be an article about a nonnotable alternative press that lacks the reliable sources necessary to sustain inclusion. While it has some attention in other non-noteworthy alternative underground publications, it has received scant attention in the mainstream or historically, and the sources listed at the prior discussion were, for the exception of coverage from the local NPR affiliate, all unreliable or minor. Still doesn't meet our standards for inclusion with no apparent hope of improvement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Well, during the 1970's this publication was certainly a notable communications resource in the Columbus, Ohio area, for a number of substantial reasons. I will try to find some credible sources to back this up -- am hoping that I will have a few weeks to do so. Thank you. Designquest10

Keep - agree with first AfD. It may not be as well know today, but WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was it notable? Where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the solid keep and discussion of just last April. Nothing has changed except a renomination by the same editor who was unable to delete it last time. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources about the topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Health[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept in a discussion almost a year ago, this is a longtime advocacy group that continues to fail the test for multiple, non-trivial sources about the subject. One Bloomberg article, currently in the article, exists that talks about Citizens for Health in some form of substance, but the article itself is more about lobbying than the group, and the Washington Examiner piece barely discusses Citizens for Health at all. A close examination clearly shows that this does not meet our inclusion standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as earlier. Has a sufficient public role that the information is of encyclopedic importance. Adequate referencing. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ORG. Article has adequate sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources that show it meets WP:ORG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Bloomberg, Breitbart, New York Times, Food Business Nwes... and they've been sought for quotes or their activities have been picked up by (i.e. less substantial coverage): Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, Nonprofit Quarterly, LA Times, USA Today.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are about the topic being discussed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a strange strategy to take here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - How so? There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of the topic in any of those articles you posted, or in the references in the current article. Nothing about them at all, coverage is pretty trivial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:ORG, appears to be a notable advocacy group that is widely quoted and remarked upon by external reliable sources. Its petitions to the FDA on various issues have been covered substantially. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this substantial coverage of the topic we're discussing? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

View from nowhere[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept close to a year ago, the discussion centered around the term's alleged usage. This is, instead, a neologism with limited use co-opted from a 1989 book and used sparingly in the 2000s and generally forgotten. The most usage is by one professor who coined it for use in journalism and is the bulk of the usage moving forward. Shows no lasting use, and lacks any real sourcing about the term to build an article from. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no shortage of coverage out there - see Objectivity and Inter-Cultural Experience, for example. There's obviously overlap with pages like objectivity, in its various senses, but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. The phrase should clearly not be a red link. Andrew D. (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the coverage? Your book link, for example, is roughly 3 sentences. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rewrite as an article on the book, which probably has enough reviews to meet NBOOK. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:N and WP:NRVE. The article does need to have its list of references] used as citations, but needing it done is a reason to do it, not delete it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources about the topic that show it meets those guidelines? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but agree it's probably better reframed as being about the book. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpEdNews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept nine months ago in the wake of some pretty significant contributions from the editor of the site. The article shows a lot of references, but still lacks multiple substantive reliable sources to establish notability or even really much of an article sourced to third parties at all. In the 9 months since the keep, it has not received any obvious new coverage, and the existing coverage is almost entirely limited to a local news piece from near the editor's hometown. This article clearly doesn't meet our inclusion standards and should be deleted just as we would nay other self-published site that only received local coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse, since I was heavily involved in the many previous discussions about this. I'm only here to provide links to the three deletion reviews, which were on 6th July 2013 and on 13th April and 19th May last year. This makes a grand total of seven deletion discussions in the last eighteen months or so. Thargor Orlando was the nominator in the four AfDs and two of the DRVs, and I personally was the nominator in the one remaining discussion. Based on his past behaviour I very confidently predict that Thargor Orlando will continue to nominate this article for deletion every three months until he gets what he wants.—S Marshall T/C 21:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (3rd nomination) participants who have not commented: User:Arxiloxos, User:MichaelQSchmidt, User:Cirt, User:Agyle, and User:DGG. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 13#OpEdNews (which I have reproduced below):
- Vacate closure and permit recreation.
  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (2nd nomination) was correctly decided in August 2013 because at the time of deletion, no reliable sources were cited in the article and none were mentioned in the AfD debate.
  Vacate closure because I have found two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of OpEdNews:
  1. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/1173106EF98EC1A8/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – titled "Bucks Web site grabs piece of the online news market: The highly traveled opednews.com joins the ranks of a growing Web news base", this The Intelligencer (Doylestown, Pennsylvania) article provides in-depth substantial coverage of OpEdNews.
    Author Theresa Katalinas discussed how OpEdNews was launched on February 28, 2003. She wrote that in 2007, OpEdNews had 500,000 visitors a month, a total of 7 million hits, "a bare-bones operation" operated in a "small college student apartment turned office in Newtown Township", 4,500 registered members, 25 volunteer editors, and 500 regular writers.
    Katalinas further noted that OpEdNews in 2007 had an "arsenal of tongue-in-cheek blog entries, editorials, political articles and countless anti-Bush opinion pieces".
  2. http://www.financialexpress.com/story-print/457709^WebCite – titled "What the world is reading", Asavari Singh's May 2009 The Financial Express (India) article provides a paragraph of coverage about OpEdNews:
    Opednews.com
    
    An award-winning political blog that refers to itself as the “the drudge report for progressives”, Opednews has a lengthy section devoted to the swine flu pandemic. The dozens of features range from the latest news to well-considered analyses of the subject (such as “The Real Swine Flu Conspiracy” by neuroscientist John R Moffett) to surreal meanderings like the “Quoth the Pig” series, which uses multimedia and text to ‘express’ the poetic anguish of the much-maligned creature. However, for those who want to hear it straight from the hog’s mouth, satirist Allan Goldstein’s “Swine Flu Hate Speech” is a must-read. He puts himself in the trotters of an indignant pig who proselytises against the “racially” insulting “S word” but with a stoic acceptance of his value in the food chain. “We are being blamed for a virus that has yet to be detected in a single one of our members. Pigs by the million have been slaughtered to no purpose. Good bacon is going to waste.”
    Singh referred to OpEdNews as "[a]n award-winning political blog" that calls itself "the drudge report for progressives".
    He noted that OpEdNews provided in-depth coverage of the swine flu epidemic through "dozens of features". Those features take the form of the "latest news" and "well-considered analyses" and "surreal meanderings". Singh discussed a particular piece by satirist Allan Goldstein whose "Swine Flu Hate Speech" is called a "must-read".
  Analysis of the two articles
  Katalinas' article provides roughly 700 words of coverage of OpEdNews. This is substantial coverage.
  Singh's piece consists of 165 words about OpEdNews and its coverage of the swine flu epidemic in 2009. It also provides significant coverage of OpEdNews.
  These two articles allow OpEdNews to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
  Mentions of OpEdNews in other reliable sources
  OpEdNews is also mentioned in other reliable sources. I list them here for completeness for improving the article, but I explicitly note that I am not using them to argue that OpEdNews passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
  1. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/0F9FF58EA8711C82/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – this article by Ed Weiner of Philadelphia Daily News says: "Homegrown (Newtown, Pa.) OpEdNews runs news stories and sharply smart anti-war/anti-Bush opinion pieces; someone's called it the Drudge Report for people who think."
  2. http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11131915^WebCite – Oakland Tribune article: "Stillwater's pieces appear on her blog and on the Web site OpEdNews, which according to an e-mail from editor Rob Kall has 700,000 unique visitors in 200 countries each month."
  3. http://newsitem.com/opinion/former-editor-sues-philadelphia-1.1208520^WebCite – The News-Item article: "A former managing editor for the online newspaper, OpEdNews, has filed suit against the city of Philadelphia and eight of its police officers, accusing them of violating her constitutional rights."
  4. http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-07/news/30253631_1_police-officer-videotape-violent-arrests^WebCite – Philadelphia Media Network article: "In another case Cheryl Biren-Wright, a former managing editor for OpEdNews, was arrested while photographing a protest two years ago outside the Franklin Mills Mall."
  5. http://www.stltoday.com/business/planting-cyber-seeds-monsanto-s-blog-started-last-month-is/article_00373658-1082-59e4-a4bc-e1088e587792.html^WebCite – St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: "Just last week, Monsanto made a splash at OpEdNews.com. The company cross-posted three of its blog posts on the liberal website. Also last week, the site's editor and publisher, Robb Kall, posted a poll for readers asking them if the company should be allowed to cross-post its blog entries."
  6. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/117CE0758494F940/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – this Bucks County Courier Times piece discusses OpEdNews founder Rob Kall.
  User:MichaelQSchmidt
  Experienced editor MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) wrote in an edit summary at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/OEN: "OEN. When improved enough, will request a return and hist merge". I have contacted Michael, asking him to work on the article with Robkall (talk · contribs). The userspace draft User:Robkall/OpEdNews requires significant work to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and verifiability policy, time which I am unable to provide at the moment. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) has done outstanding work on the article, which now looks much better than the deleted version.
Cunard (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is borderline unreadable in the wikitext, so I'll try to put this into context. The top link, 700 words, is a local news site from where the editor lives. You have one small paragraph in an opinion piece, and single sentences elsewhere. This is not multiple, nontrivial coverage as required, it is a smattering at best. If you have sources that help the article reach our notability inclusion standards, you've had months to add them. Where are they? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A mis-quote or mis-interpretation of his clear words do not help. Easily readable and well-explained by Cunard. Notability standards are met. Sources need not be substantive as long as they are more-than-trivial in nature and give the policy mandated verifiability. I urge you to read WP:DEADLINE and WP:IMPERFECT and understand their meaning and intent. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per community consensus that even a WP:SELFPUB can merit an article through it being something widely quoted by others world-wide and, as illustrated above by Cunard, this article DOES indeed include sourcing to non-local multiple RS. See WP:NRVE. A concern I have is that WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED does not build a neutral balanced Wikipedia where all political views are encouraged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So once again I must ask, where are the sources? The sources aren't there, you've had nearly a year to improve on them and nothing new has arisen. At what point do we cut bait and accept that this is a nonnotable website with no substantive coverage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are above. And Thargor, I will not engage in back-and-forth with you. There is no demand in policy nor guideline that this article must be continually improved to your satisfaction... specially after being repeatedly determined through your many, many , many AFDs and DRVs as a notable enough topic to be spoken of within these pages. I tried before and you continually ignore the consensus to keep. Beating that horse yet again will make this another WP:TLDR discussion. Such Wikidrama does not serve the project. Once the article is kept yet again, we'll see you back in another six to nine months. Please inform me at that time, even though you inexplicably decided this time to not inform those who edited the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you'll avoid actually addressing the elephant in the room, but the sources above do not confer notability through our sources. As I posted a notice at the page, that's all that's required and all that will happen, but hopefully it will actually get deleted this time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources meet inclusion criteria, as was explained over and over at your other AFDs and DRVs and ignored by you over and over, since you obviously do not agree. As others can click links themselves, I need not cut and paste all those arguments here. What I do wish to avoid is another tenditious and decidedly unhelpful dialog with you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's being ignored are my questions. You claim the sources meet the inclusion criteria, but do not provide evidence as to how. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions have been answered and answered again for over two years at multiple AFDs and DRVs. When evidence shows your refusal to accept previous consensus in this mater, it is best to ignore WP:POINTY behavior rather than reward it by further Wikidrama. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're still stonewalling. Hopefully other people coming here will notice this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not stonewalling to become tired of having to repeat oneself over and over and over again. What "other people will notice" is 4 AFD's and two DRV's that went against you. What "other people will notice" when looking at the histories is your questions being answered and answered again for over two years at the multiple AFDs and DRVs. What "other people will notice" is your continuing to ignore the repeated consensus toward keep... REPEATED CONSENSUS WHICH DISAGREES WITH YOU. I think you owe the entire project an apology for your continued disruptive and tenditious behavior. WP:DTS Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And none of this comment still answers the question. The consensus of Wikipedia is that we don't have articles on nonnotable organizations, and that scant local coverage is not enough to establish notability. You'd like to see us go against sitewide consensus, so it is reasonable to expect an answer as to why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to ignore in your desire to continue a WP:BATTLE mentality is that EVERY guideline is headed by a hat-note (set by site-wide consensus) encouraging common sense and allowing occasional exceptions. Guidelines are NOT mandatory absolutes, and what you have sadly and repeatedly and most purposely ignored over multiple discussions of this topic is that when there are disagreements in application, a subject-specific consensus for any particular topic may be reached though discussion at AFD to allow it to be such an exceptions. WP:IAR. With that, and a repeating yet again that proper sources have been repeatedly shared with and stubbornly denigrated by you, I will go have dinner. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there should be an exception for this page, you need to present an argument as to why. Repeating the same argument over and over and wikistalking me is not an argument. Present actual sources and demonstrate how they show notability, and then add them to the article, and maybe this won't continually be nominated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Thardo, but sources have been repeatedly offered and explained in the many many earlier discussions. And plenty of sources cite the article. When multiple experienced and respected content-building editors and admins determine current sourcing is fine for OpEdNews as a topic to share with our readers, and repeatedly explain how they are, your one voice repeating over and over and over and over and over that they are not and DEMANDING more, makes it obvious that you will never be satisfied. Your continual disagreement with a consensus that runs contrary to your wishes convinces me that you would never take it off your hit list. You have shown yourself to be a fervent believer in WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED and you've wasted other editor's time and disrupted Wikipedia in your repeated (and lost) re-nominations of this article. You really need to accept the consensus for this topic and stop your WP:DISRUPTION. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of PPOV in this case is apparently ironic, and your essay spam is noted, but it's really weird that you continue to repeat yourself as opposed to offer up articles that would actually show its notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISRUPTION is not an essay, it is a behavior guideline. And as articles HAVE already been repeatedly shared for and explained to you and subsequently dismissed by only you, and when consensus (a policy) has ruled against your wishes time after time, I am not going to repeat ad-nauseum what has already been done at the many previous AFDs and the two DRVs. You refused to accept consensus then and you will refuse now. See you at AFD#6. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus of the site is that articles without enough reliable sources should be deleted. Why should this be an exception? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When a WP:CONSENSUS of editors at an AFD or DRV discussion agree that a specific topic does have enough proper sources, it is disruptive to repetitively insist the contrary over two years at multiple discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I saidtin afd3. I note that in the only AfD leading to a delete, the absurd reasons were given "No articles about it in the NYT, which makes me suspect it fails notability. [delete[ without prejudice should it actually achieve any fame" -- the NYT is not the soled acceptable source for notability, and only notability, not fame is required. The sources are sufficient. The article is objective. As this is a publication that will used as a source, or attempted to be used as a source, in WP articles, the purposes of providing an informative encyclopedia will be helped by having an article about it. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, while this is not about its use as a source outright, OpEdNews is not a reliable source given the lack of real editorial oversight. The utter lack of attention it has received from reliable sources (why you believe them to be sufficient you have not explained) is part and parcel. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying it was. If it is not, it will be helpful to have the explanation of what it is already in Wikipedia. Our coverage of potential sources should not be limited to those that are themselves RSs. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And too, we do have WP:RSOPINION as a consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure what's changed but there's clearly significant secondary source commentary about the topic from multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: if there is significant secondary source commentary, where is it? No one has located it, added it to the article, or presented it in any of the discussions yet. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have been provided to you many times and exhaustively discussed at the previous AfDs. The issue is not that there are no sources: it's that you don't think any of the sources are good enough. You strongly feel that there's insufficient basis for an OpEdNews article. You also feel is an unreliable, biased site and I see that you have a special tool on your userpage for finding and removing links to OpEdNews from Wikipedia. You can have that position in good faith, but what you ought to be able to see from all these discussions is that the consensus is against you. I do wish you'd stop nominating it for deletion every few months because we do have other things to do apart from telling you things you've already been told.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have been discussed, yes. People see that there are not sufficient sources, but say there are anyway, so I ask for more sources. Consensus of the site is that insufficient sources mean no article, so consensus is not against me unless you're able to change the deletion guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Thargor. When a (policy) WP:CONSENSUS of experienced and knowledgeable editors at an AFD or DRV discussion agree that a particular topic DOES have enough proper sources to serve our readers, to repetitively deny them and insist the contrary for over two years and at multiple discussions is WP:DISRUPTIVE under WP:POINT and WP:CIV. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how is one local source about the topic and one line about swine flu coverage enough? You're arguing there's enough, but you're not explaining why. "It's good enough for me" isn't an argument for inclusion, it's, to use your essay habit, WP:ILIKEIT. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sad fact is that your narrow interpretation on the multiple sources in the article and those offered over many discussions is flawed. Every other knowledgeable and experienced editor in these discussion has repeatedly tried to explain, but you appear unable to listen it and continually violate policy by such inability and your repeated nominations. As all above have spoken their piece, and I find interaction with you to be making WIiipedia a very unpleasant place, I at least can walk away and accept that an experienced and knowledgeable admin will close against your wishes yet again. By AFD number 6 or 7 or 8, a topic ban for a "polite" but well-meant and repeatedly disruptive editor could be a result. Sometimes walking away serves the project better than haranguing everyone who disagrees with you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have said answers the questions raised. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "questions" have indeed been repeatedly answered by some of Wikipedia's most respected editors and admins... and your not liking, misquoting, or ignoring the answers does not make them go away or make them somehow wrong. You have chosen to bludgeon the process and continue to WP:BATTLE against the consensus established for this specific topic. Be well, and have a nice evening. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then spell it out for me, as opposed to essay spam. How does one short local news piece and a mention about swine flu meet our notability guidelines? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are enough to show that OpEdNews has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Cunard (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so where is the significant coverage? We have one local news piece about them, and one line mentions in other sources that offer no useful information. The article is built almost entirely around primary sourcing as is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brownvale Agricultural Museum[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 00:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional tidbit for a non-notable local museum. Carrite (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV and non-notable historical site. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mercy[edit]

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

Fails WG:GNG. Non-notable 10-episode reality show, possibly already over though the article is written in future tense, sponsored by one of the smaller kpop agencies. The only source is allkpop. It's just a list of the show's contestants and their "missions." This would possibly be better suited to an article much later on, IF the group it creates achieves notability. Note: A variant on this article, one on the trainees specifically, was already deleted recently (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. MERCY (trainee)).Shinyang-i (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON as of this point. As per my previous argument when I AfD'ed the previous article of No. Mercy. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Tibbydibby. There is no reliably sourced prose that indicates notability. --Random86 (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AntiAutism Vaccine[edit]

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

I am virtually certain this is a hoax due to the lack of any relevant sources to be found, reliable or not; however, I am not certain enough to nominate for speedy deletion. ⁓ Hello 71 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: blatant WP:HOAX. Contains the sentence "Is not real." Creator has now placed a speedy G7 on the article. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 13:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tang[edit]

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

Article about composer which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. May meet WP:COMPOSER but I am unable to verify these claims. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This music composer is very notable internationally and has many reliable sources from government websites to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichu9x (talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person is this article meets the notability criteria of English Wikipedia. Samsobot (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do more the say they meet policies, you need to prove it, With policy based arguments and reliable sources.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to this source listed in the article's reference list, the personality in question is a subject of several newspaper articles, notably The Straits Times (see ref 5,6 and 12 in the abovementioned source) Thus, it seems to have met the criterion for notable and significant coverage, just that this is not well reflected in the article. Cheers--Lionratz (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, only (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources noted by Lionratz; also as winner of awards including the Cultural Medallion, "Singapore's highest arts prize" [31][32][33][34] he passes WP:ANYBIO. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: W. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked (comics)[edit]

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

Entirely in-universe fan fluff of a minor character. Wikipedia is not for summary-only descriptions of works. No evidence of WP:GNG and not even sourcing of fictional biography (which is insufficient for notability purposes anyway, as a comic issue or creator interview is certainly not independent of the subject). Condensinsing and redirect to List of X-Men members or similar list would be a sufficient alternative. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: W. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that can be reliably sourced (if anything can be) to List of Marvel Comics characters: W, I can find no indication whatsoever of sources which would show independent notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 9 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 Raja Ravi Varma. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugandha Bai[edit]

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

While many fictional biographies of painter Ravi Varma (Makaramanju, Rang Rasiya, Ranjit Desai's Raja Ravi Varma - 1984) call his muse, from scholarly books on the painter, I could find only one significant muse - Anjanibai Malpekar and no mention of Sugandha. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raja Ravi Varma -I too do not see any such historical writings on Sugandha Bai, all I find is a fictional character portrayed in multiple biopic movies of Raja Ravi Varma. However I think we can still write few sentences on subject in "Raja Ravi Varma" article, making present a redirect. The fictional character has received some kind of coverage in reliable sources (four films?). I also noticed that the article under deletion is already proposed to be merged within Raja Ravi Varma article since around a week. So we may now do a bold merge or discuss it on article's talk page? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No reliable source for the person. Coderzombie (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 9 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 #1.

Molly Moon's Incredible Book of Hypnotism[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a children's book consisting almost entirely of a lengthy plot summary and list of characters. I found one source that merely mentions the book, and one source that claims that a film adaptation of the book is being filmed. The article mentions that the book is a best seller, but I am can't find any independent evidence of that claim. - Mr X 13:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn.- Mr X 15:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or potentially merge. Like with ...Stops the World, this was reviewed by Kirkus, and seems likely to meet standards for inclusion. That may not be the case for the later books in the series; it's possible that these are better covered in an article for the series (in the spirit of WP:BRANCH, although for a different genre of topic). But regardless, I don't think blanket deletion is the right way to address this material. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had no trouble finding reviews for this book. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Moon Stops the World[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a children's book. I found two newspaper articles that mention the book, but are not about the book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 13:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now sourced with two reviews (Kirkus and PW), and noteworthy within its small field of Children's Literature. [35] in 2005 was number 8 in best-selling children's literature series on the New York Times list.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree as stated above. These reviews are significant enough for the genre. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book has received a sufficient number of reviews. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Redirects are discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vineethamayi Apekshikkunnu[edit]

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

The page was intended to be an upcoming Indian film. But there is no film named Vineethamayi Apekshikunnu as it was only rumours about the name. Later the production team officially announced the film name and i had made a redirect to it. Now this name had became a scam. VagaboundWind (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya Jain[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an online magazine editor, referenced entirely to primary sources (her own LinkedIn, etc.) with no evidence of any reliable source coverage to indicate that she actually passes any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules. Also possible WP:COI, as the creator has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia on any other topic. She might certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article that can be properly written and properly sourced, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if that can be done — but as currently written and sourced, this is barely more than a résumé. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Here are the all sources having less or more coverage of subject, if anyone is wondering about claims made in article, -[36], [37], [38]. Subject at this time is ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia for not meeting required standard, such as -WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding sources which rise to WP:BASIC --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tan Huan Chun[edit]

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

Non Notable person, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All references in article are listings or social media type listings, not reliable. Cannot find any further sources which meet WP:RS. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person works in the music education industry and thus has sources primarily from educational institutions. Although this person may not be extremely notable, he is notable enough to have his own article.Pichu9x (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Educational institutions are generally, in most cases, not reliable sources. If you can find more reliable sources that show this person is notable for his own article, then the article can stay, but until then, I support deletion. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Yap[edit]

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

Article about a person who does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All sources are listings or primary sources, I can find no WP:RS to establish notability. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a well-known saxophonist in Singapore and is the principal saxophone of Windstars Ensemble, Singapore's top concert band. He is also a lecturer at Singapore Raffles Music College and has founded many pop, jazz and community societies for musicians. Jackchee (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mcmatter This person meets the notability criteria of English Wikipedia Samsobot (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do more the say they meet policies, you need to prove it, with policy based arguments and reliable sources.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mcmatter I have gone through the reference list of the article. The sources are reliable and the person meets the notability criteria Samsobot (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one of the existing, non-independent sources (not sure about the last one as it is in Chinese?) is even about him. Fails GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Community Saxophone Ensemble[edit]

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

Article about a group which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no different from any other saxophone place in the world. Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 05:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 9 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 // 12:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Newton (illustrator)[edit]

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

The article is for an illustrator at the US Department of Agriculture. Seems to fail WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. Sources do not appear to give more than passing mentions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that this artist fit under point (4) of the WP:ARTIST guideline because her work is part of a special collection formed by the U.S. government. Her work is not available for wide circulation to other museums and collections, but it is part of a group of works that have been singled out as notable by the curators who formed the collection and have been discussed in various papers and books on agricultural history. This article can certainly be improved, but I feel it is premature to delete it. (N.B. I am new to AfD and just realized I need to indicate that I am the article's creator.) Valli Nagy 15:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValliNagy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is her work is part of a special collection formed by the U.S. government, it was exhibited at both the Tennessee Centennial Exposition and the Louisiana Purchase Exposition. Her work and that of other women botanical artists appears to be discussed in Made from this Earth: American Women and Nature (University of North Carolina Press). Unfortunately, only a snippet view is available. It would be helpful if someone can later get hold of the book and add information in it to the article. However, in the meantime, it would be extremely premature to delete this and a net detriment to the encyclopedia. We're talking about someone who lived the first 40 years of her life in the 19th century. Much material from that period is not digitised. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Thurston[edit]

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

Musician who primarily writes for advertisements, and hasn't really made much of an impact. This article is probably an autobiography. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Artists and song titles never appear on UK adverts so he's pretty much unknown, Anyway per nom no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 05:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing sources which rise to WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Noun (band). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noun (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, notability not established for almost 3 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noun (band), agree that this EP is not notable, but the band is. Everymorning talk 18:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Everymorning.— kikichugirl ^speak up! 05:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vertic[edit]

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

Nonnotable software company. The only claim of notablitity is some obscure award from some magazine which is now dead and was not even from this industry, i.e., cannot be authority. -M.Altenmann >t 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCORP. Company is not a software company as nom suggests, but a digital advertising company. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not meet WP:CORP. Press releases are not counted towards "significant independent coverage". -M.Altenmann >t 10:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- an advertising company (not a software company as stated in nom) which has significant coverage in independent reliable sources such as multiple articles in Berlingske Tidende] [39], [40], [41]. Press releases and promotional should be removed. (This is a typical problem with these marketing firms because they tend to market themselves a lot.) But this company does appear to meet WP:NCORP. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 9 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. Notability not found. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lewis (London, Ontario)[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced biography of a person whose notability is exclusively local to a single city, and boils down to having had a local history archive named after him and having once cut Guy Lombardo's hair. As written, the article relies on one news article in a reliable source (and even that one's not about him, but merely namechecks his existence) and one forum post in an unreliable one. It's not impossible for people of exclusively local notability to get into Wikipedia, but that takes a lot more sourcing than this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I know that this article is lacking references, but rather than delete I'd prefer tagging it for lack of references for a while. Clearly the creator has sources of information that are not listed on the article. I'm unable to access the reference listed (404), but I did find one other resource [42] which is unfortunately far from stellar. It may turn out that the article is based on original research, but I think we should delay a delete decision until we have more information. LaMona (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in a situation where actual reliable source coverage is this difficult to locate, the available evidence strongly suggests that the creator's "sources of information" lean significantly toward private conversations with people who knew Lewis personally, rather than properly published references that we can consult to verify any of it. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the text, it seems that his claim to notability amounts to him being a well liked local figure in the London, Ontario community. I doubt delay will solve the issues with the article or that sufficient sources exist.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Adam[edit]

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

While I admire what this fellow does, it seems to me he doesn't remotely approach the notability criteria spelled out at WP:ARTIST. The sources just aren't there to back up a claim of encyclopedic merit: a puff piece in a no-name paper, and another puff piece penned by "Andrian Adam, intern at Timpul" - not coincidentally, the author of the article now up for deletion is one Andrian Adam. And the subject of said article is Vasile Adam. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 9 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. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Compound[edit]

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

This article can be described as informative and interesting. But its also completely non-notable, and doesn't even contain a single reputable reliable source. In fact, reputable sources or not, there's not even any sources listed period. Filopiq (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are a few starter sources about this large abandoned neighborhood: [43][44][45] So far I'm not seeing a strong case for a separate article, but sources like these could be used to improve the existing mention of this at Palm Bay, Florida. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:52, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dairese Gary[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:NHOOPS John from Idegon (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plaing in a development league rarely makes one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Butin[edit]

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

Significant coverage not available with Google search. Rony 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Olympic competitors are notable per WP:ATHLETE. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympic athletes automatically meet WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:13, 11 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) Bobherry talk 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ciano[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political strategist with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. Wikipedia does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to presidents of political parties' internal organizational structures at the provincial/state level, so his ability to qualify for an article on Wikipedia rests entirely on being able to source the article over WP:GNG — but after all the deadlinked and primary sources were stripped here, there was only one reliable source left, and one source doesn't even begin to cut it as a GNG pass. Furthermore, the article was created by User:Rciano himself, at a time when he had even less of a notability claim than this — meaning that this was also a WP:COI violation, which really should have been an instant WP:CSD if it had been caught at the time. No prejudice against recreation in the future if solid sources supporting a substantive claim of notability can be provided, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if other sources can be found. A number of Canadian readers may have an interest in Mr. Ciano. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done the research necessary to determine that there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources that's substantively about him to salvage this with. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC. Additional reliable sources with significant coverage include [46], [47] and [48]. Also, please don't remove deadlinks to newspaper sources per WP:KDL. The Globe and Mail one you deleted was resolved to the Star article I've linked above via the Wayback machine. [49] 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those constitute substantive coverage in which Ciano is the subject; all of them merely namecheck his existence while not being about him in any meaningful or non-trivial way. That is not the kind of coverage it takes to satisfy WP:BASIC — we require coverage in which Ciano himself is covered in depth as a topic in his own right, not coverage of other topics which merely happens to glancingly namecheck Ciano's existence. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treet.Tv[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable company, fails GNG Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Shi-ah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This appears to be a backdoor attempt to recreate a deleted article for non-notable kpop group, Chi Chi, by instead creating it for one of its former members. Half the article is about Chi Chi, and the other half is about the member's minor drama role, music video role, and larger role in a drama that began airing two days ago. The TV shows she's mentioned being on (as a member of Chi Chi) are all non-notable. This is WP:TOO SOON. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Person is not yet notable, and most acting roles were minor. --Random86 (talk) 05:25, 10 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Plenderleith[edit]

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

Non notable sailor. CSD declined as he had sailed for Australia, which is not true. According to the reference provided he merely sailed in the Australian National championships, big difference (Any weekend sailor can enter). Don't believe he meets GNG and there is no indication of his skill level - no mention of placings, ranking etc Gbawden (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and nothing shows he's done anything to meet WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor sailor with no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see anything that would indicate he meets WP:BIO. The article probably technically qualifies as CSD A7 at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Corinthians F.C.[edit]

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

WP:SPA creator has the same name as the writer of the main source for the article, Rob Cavallini. I'm only not prodding this because it does sound like an interesting story, but I don't think WP:Notability (sports), WP:ORG or WP:GNG are met. No good redirect or merge target available. Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like there is a reasonable amount out there aside from the book reviewed here by WSC. I can also find:

This london newspaper article,
This Reading newspaper article (subscription required),
This newspaper report from Singapore
This press release about an exhibition organised by the National Football Museum and the Qatar Olympic Museum which features exhibits from their world tour.

Their tour was back in the 1930s, so it is not surprising that there is a lack of online material but, the fact that there is a book published that is dedicated to them aside, the links above show that the team attracted newspaper coverage outside of the UK at the time of the tour at a national level and also continue to receive a degree of coverage today. Additionally the possession of articles relating to the tour by the national football museum also adds weight to the idea that this is an odd but nonetheless notable team. Fenix down (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, based on Fenix down's research appears to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mr. down. 15:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn' Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tokyogirl79 now seems satisfied that this is indeed an NHRP property, and I assume that Jimfbleak would be,too, if he had come back to this AfD. Thanks to Generic1139 for the referencing and other work on the article. Deor (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James S. Thompson House[edit]

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

I came across this page as a speedy deletion as hoax, but a search does bring up evidence that the house exists. The article does make claims that the house has been the focus of coverage, but I can't find anything to really back this up and I can't really see where this house is on any historic registry. I'm bringing this to AfD since it doesn't really fall under any of the speedy criteria and because I also want to see if anyone else can find anything to show that the house might pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that does kind of give off hoax vibes is that the GPS coordinates on the image does not show this house. Other than that, I can't really prove that this is anything other than your typical old, non-notable house. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My home is already listed in this article, and is on the national register of historic places. I just wrote this article since my home was already here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Mercer_County,_Illinois

I did all the research for this, and it's almost impossible to cite resources as NONE of them are electronic. The photo is also mine and I updated the above article with the picture.

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josys36 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I accept that it not a hoax, but it appears to be WP:OR, and totally lacking in any sources. I would have thought that a link to the national register of historic places was minimum requirement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So then if I post this,

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0

Will that work as a link to the historical register?

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josys36 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josys36: Do you have the registry number? That could help with finding the house on the registry since the second link did not work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links work for me just fine. The number is 02000846

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josys36 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak:, @Josys36: I'm looking at the registry listing but it does have some issues, notably the lack of a picture. It also has a different address as the one at National Register of Historic Places listings in Mercer County, Illinois, as the address on that page comes up with 804 North St. and the Registry has the address as 408 E. Jefferson St.. A Google street view also comes up with a different house for the listing that's on the registry. This is a step in the right direction, but we still have conflicting information here that would need to be resolved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All,

The house was placed on the national register in 2002 when the address was 804 Street. The address is now 807 north street New Boston IL due to address number changes. I agree that the historic register has that as a problem, but I don't see anything related to 408 E. Jefferson Street. Jefferson street is a street in New Boston IL, but has nothing to do with my property. The link that I posted above does not have a picture no, but that's not my fault per say. They also list the house as being built in 1867 which I later proved false. I proved that false by spending 13 months going through newspaper microfilm at the Mercer County Historical society. Even google maps does not exactly put you in the right place. My home is slightly further south then it will put you. That is due to the address change.

Josys36 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Jason[reply]

The issue though is that the only house listed as "James S. Thompson House" on the historical registry comes up with a different address. If it was on the same street or had your picture on the site then there might have been some wiggle room, but this is another address entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this must be frustrating, but you have to see it from our viewpoint: we have a house that isn't really discussed anywhere but a forum and the only source that is available with the same name has a completely different address than the one you're given. We can't really go forward with that since it's so drastically different. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an issue with the registry then it's something that likely only you can fix with them since odds are you were the one who called them to get the house on the registry. (You'd also likely have the proof that they'd need to prove the house is legit and all that legal wonderfulness.) In other words, it is possible that this is a case of the registry making an error with the updated address and because of that, it's something that you will have to fix since you're the legal home owner. What I'm willing to do, if you're open to this and another admin is willing to close this (@Yunshui:, @Graeme Bartlett: - I'm pinging some admins that would be likely to be OK with this if you're OK with this suggestion), I'm willing to move this to my userspace and when/if the registry listing is fixed to give the right address, we can move the article back into the mainspace and fix whatever issues are left. The registry listing would make the building notable per Wikipedia and the rest is all pretty much trying to make it fit the writing style guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I just don't see a difference of 804 and 807 NORTH street being such a difference to warrant the article being deleted.

Josys36 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this link,

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=02000846&natregadvancedsearch=Search

I've had problems bringing this site up before for some reason. From here there is a link to the record for the house, and then you can see there that they had the address listed in 804 NORTH street. As I stated the current address is 807 which is 3 address records different. If I go to google maps and search for 807 North Street New Boston IL you can clearly see my house a few feet south of where google maps places you. Google maps is by NO means accurate all the time! If you do a street view you can see my home, and also the amount of trees I cut down that summer! Plus Zillow has the house listed at 807 North street. LOL. I'm just not sure what else to do at this point as getting the historic registry listing changed is going to take months. I don't see why that should hold back this article since I don't reference that anywhere on this page, and I also only did this article since it was listed in the Mercer County list of historic places. How in the world did you verify that article? Did you check it as well as this one since the link I posted above is in that article?

Josys36 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Now this is weird. When I looked at it at work the address came up as completely different, but now with the link you gave me it shows up with the correct address. I'm willing to accept this as proof and have someone close the AfD, but I would really recommend getting the National Registry to look at the page since it came up as a different address. That has to be the strangest thing I've ever seen. Sorry about that- this is quite possibly the strangest AfD I've had in a while. I'll see if I can find the page again and if I do, I'll save a screencap for you so you can send it to the National Registry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm going to contact them myself. I just can't figure out what I did on my work computer that brought up that different address. You have my sincere apology for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that we have a page, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues, that collects many database errors and ambiguities of this sort. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arxiloxos! I'm definitely going to report this because if the page had worked right the first time, this poor homeowner wouldnt have had to go through this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel to bad. The same thing would happen to me, but for me it would not produce the results. I would not see a different entry, just that there was no entry. I was having the time of my life trying to figure out what you were seeing.

Josys36 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Here is the actual National Register of Historic Places registration form, with a photo and a 804 North street address. It appears to match the photo supplied by the owner. I'll rework the article using this info as a reference with the usual NRHP project cites and such, then you can take another look. And the GPS coordinates from the database are not always house-accurate, sometimes they come from paper maps in UTM, then get translated to an old lat/lon standard. If you look with google, you don't always get the right house. Tweaking of the coordinates in the article is usually done when the nris data is off, with suitable checking to make sure the right house is pictured. Generic1139 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think the article now meets the standards for notability based on its being listed on the National Register of Historic Place, and now has proper citations. Generic1139 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I made several changes to the article and am no longer a disinterested third party, I'll just recommend keep for the reasons above - it is now referenced and marked as are most other NRHP articles - rather than close this myself. Generic1139 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Australian ministries. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian government ministers[edit]

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

Redundant to Cabinet of Australia and Abbott Ministry. Refer also to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Australian Commonwealth ministry which resulted in a redirect. Ianblair23 (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Australian ministries given that this is a generic term which isn't specific to any particular ministry. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nick-D; wholly inappropriate title for current content, but a useful redirect. Frickeg (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Australian ministries per User:Nick-D above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect, of course. Neutrality^talk 06:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Philippines[edit]

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

A channel has nothing happened with no actual information as of the current date. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The decently sourced History section tells of the channel's past broadcasting in other names (redirected Talk TV and still articles Solar News Channel and 9TV). The expected rebranding has also caught well coverage [50] [51] [52]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (It's soon going to be) a channel airing nationwide on free TV. Said channels are usually notable. Plus, even "rival" news networks have commented on the upcoming rebranding. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems that this new channel is widely covered by online, television and newspaper sources. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they indeed will be launched within this month, possibly by next week, then Merge Solar News Channel and 9TV in to the main article. --Supergabbyshoe ^(talk) 15:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they may not announce the official launch yet, but I believe that 9TV Philippines is still preparing for the big switch as I noticed the Channel 9 format which is totally has a similar animation of the news scroll and introduction to its news programs to the official CNN Network.

-- Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 05:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Ortte[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The officeholder is not inherently notable (see WP:POLITICIAN), and the individual has no claim of notability beyond being an officeholder and having bought a prop from a Transformers movie. Ortte is one of 16 local magistrates in Virginia's District 31 [53], and there are at least 30 other districts. Even if he were Chief Magistrate of the district (he's not; that's Lawrie Falck Moncure), that would be an insufficient basis for notability. The magistrates "perform[] limited judicial duties and personnel providing supervision, training and support." Basically, just a local judge lite. Delete. TJRC (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local judges are not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what it is worth, the article also makes impossible assertions. Mrs. Ortte (wife of subject) could not have been granted assylum by Reagan in 1993 because Reagan's term ended in 1989.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Watson[edit]

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

Tentative delete: Article is about a court judgement. Pardon me if I nominated this incorrectly. Please review. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) First I will address a possible source of confusion: The citation of this case given in our article appears to be incorrect. 445 US 573, 100 S Ct 1371,63 L Ed 2d 639 (1980) appears to be Payton v New York, which concerned warrantless arrests in the home (whereas this article is about warrantless arrests in public), not US v Watson. 423 US 573 also seems to refer to a different case. I think this article is really about United States v Watson 423 US 411, 96 S Ct 820, 46 L Ed 2d 598 (1976), because the facts match up exactly, the citation is close enough, and the quote at the end of the article is what was said about US v Watson in the judgment given in Payton v New York. (2) The nominator has advanced no valid rationale for deletion. In fact, I am not sure if the nominator is advancing any rationale for deletion (unless he is suggesting that we exclude all court cases from the encyclopedia). Results in GBooks and elsewhere confirm that United States v Watson (unsurprisingly) satisfies WP:GNG easily and by a wide margin. Moreover, as a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States [54], it satisfies both criteria of WP:CASES and is, therefore, notable three times over. I suggest the nominator carefully read WP:BEFORE, if he has not done so already. James500 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Concur with James500. In any case, we already have an article on Payton v. New York but not one on United States v. Watson, and as a Supreme Court case it is inherently notable. Probably the author wrote this article using a snippet mentioned in Payton, as that is where the quote in our article comes from. Altamel (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I just fixed the mis-numbering and added a bunch of the basic stub and template structure. Clearly still needs a lot of work, but I'm sure some law student will roll along and help out. —Noah 01:11, 10 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 deleted per A7. Materialscientist (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Vadocz[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:49, 9 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. Nominator withdrawn and no votes for deletion. Cavarrone 09:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25Live[edit]

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

Searched and haven't been able to establish as Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... by adding Morrissey's name in front of the title, just as it is on the DVD cover, I found quite a few reviews like the ones in Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian 8-24-13, The Guardian 8-22-13, The Telegraph, DVD Verdict, Digital Spy, Empire, New Noise Magazine and a few others,[55][56]... all in the first page of my expanded search. WP:NF is easily met per WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. Let's fix it up, not delete it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I have moved the article (leaving redirects) to its sourcable title of Morrissey: 25 Live. Such will aid others in improvements, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Schmidt's discoveries. I'll add these to the ELs. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:08, 10 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Hansen (politician)[edit]

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

Fails notability for politician. No viable secondary sources identified. Gaff (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 63,000 votes isn't that small in Luxembourg (24% of the national vote), not much less than the candidates elected. There are also plenty of press coverage from .lu sites. --Soman (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only elected office of this politician is a seat on a town council of a village of 120 people. That dog don't hunt with our special high bar, WP:POLITICIAN. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 6th score country wide and more votes than an elected member — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIWinseler (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — SIWinseler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. If elected in the future, we may consider an article here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:18, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a council member in a municipality of less than 2,000 is not enough to make someone notable. The number of votes recieved when loosing elections is not enough either. Many candidates for US house who lost recieved significantly more than that # of votes, but we have decided that they are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment for example John Pappageorge recieved over 119,000 votes in one election her ran in (back in 1992), but is only notable because he was later elected to the Michigan State House and Michigan State Senate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Super Junior-K.R.Y.. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Junior K.R.Y. Special Winter Concert[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. No references to reliable secondary sources. Article is just a setlist and list of tour dates. Random86 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some contents with references were added after "Nomination for deletion" was marked. Please determine whether the page meet the criteria for content of the encyclopedia or not. - 830701like (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTOUR. There is no real discussion of the tour as a tour. Claims of ticket sales and ticket applications come from kpopstarz, a blog, who in turns "thanks" the artist's own agencies for the information. Therefore, nothing in this article comes from sources independent of the artist and it is basically a press release. There is nothing to make a claim of notability.

Redirect and merge to Super Junior-K.R.Y. The problem with these tour articles is that they are based on advance information for fans. That is, they are PR. The list of venues and dates is for fans who want to buy tickets. After the tour is over, who cares about the dates or venues? This article did have one review of a concert, and I think that's OK as a source. It should be handled in the main article, in the section "Tours and concerts". That could have a short description of the attendance, some of the venues, and some of the songs. The tour itself is just not notable enough (WP:NTOUR) to have a separate article. The same goes for Super Junior K.R.Y. The 1st Concert. Both tours should have 1 paragraph each in the "Tours and concerts" section of the main article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article and Super Junior K.R.Y. The 1st Concert to Super Junior-K.R.Y. as BOTH tours can easily be explained in just one short paragraph (separately, of course) in the Super Junior-K.R.Y. article. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:39, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amrutha Anand[edit]

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

I came across this via a request at WP:REFUND where the article's author (Cvjayanthy) was arguing for its inclusion, as it was tagged with a speedy A7. There was an assertion of notability so I'm taking this to AfD. The argument for notability is essentially that while Miss Anand is registered as holding a record in the Limca Book of Records, I have no real way of telling whether or not this is a world record, national record, or so on. I'm also unfamiliar with the LBoR, so I don't really know how thorough or official they are, although they do seem to be India's equivalent to the Guiness Book of World Records. The other record outlets don't entirely appear to be the sort that Wikipedia would consider to be usable as far as notability purposes go and I don't really see This Yoga as being a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines either. Now there is a link to a video here and while the video looks like it's a potential copyright violation, it does show that there was some media coverage of her, albeit not in English. I'm bringing this to AfD in case there are foreign language sources out there and in case someone can verify whether or not this record would make Anand notable enough to warrant an article. I'm going to also alert WP:INDIA to this so they can look for sources and also give some valuable input on whether or not the LBoR is something that can give notability. Now if the LBoR is usable as a RS, we also need to decide whether or not the record is notable enough to be kept on that basis alone. I know that occasionally we will keep articles for people who hold specific world records, but those always seem to be records in areas that have an extremely large amount of other secondary coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A world record for back-bendingina particular fashion is not notability. WP is not GUINNESS,which includes al record for anything imaginable. We've never accepted the mere fact of a listing there or in similar books as reason to keep an article. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only apparent claim to notability is something that we do not accept as being indicative of notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A world record is neither a reason for inclusion or exclusion. Notability is defined by having significant reliable source coverage. A search doesn't appear to produce anything, so the subject appears to be non-notable. However, it is not a judgement on the merits of the record as DGG implies, but rather a judgement on the lack of coverage of said record (or more accurate coverage of the person who achieved it). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I'm not sure of any Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, subject would be able to satisfy at this time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Joire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person which makes a potentially valid claim of notability, but fails to adequately source it — as written, this relies entirely on primary sources, with not even one remotely reliable source cited in the entire article. And even a Google News search is turning up lots of coverage in blogs, and virtually none in the kind of sources it takes to get a person past our inclusion rules. First discussion was a no-consensus close, for the record — but that lack of consensus hinged on disagreement about whether the claim of notability was substantive at all, and failed to address the more significant issue (i.e. the lack of quality sourcing to support her notability). No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but the sourcing on display here is nowhere near the level it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable writer/ senior mobile editor/whatever at engadget[57] (also did a podcast there). Wonder if OP looked up "tnkgrl" which the subject is better known by: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. They appeared on TWiT [68] as well as various other podcasts here and there [69]. Google News has plenty of coverage for "myriam" and "tnkgrl" [70] (tnkgrl). Used to be a dev at dolby. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that list of sources, I'm still not seeing a wealth of publications that count as appropriately reliable sources that can confer notability on a WP:BLP. Wired is about the only acceptable source in the entire bunch, actually — and even it's a blurb which is nowhere near long or detailed enough to carry a person's notability all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: TechCrunch, Ars Technica, Hackaday and GigaOm are reliable sources. As for notability, Joire was Senior Editor for mobile at engadget (AOL) where they wrote hundreds of articles for years. Their hardware hacking activities have been covered by numerous sources and their position with Pebble has gained even more coverage and notoriety.[71] Google News provides plenty of sources as well and is linked at the top of every AfD. But, I guess PC Magazine, The Inquirer, Barron's, Fast Company, NPR, The Daily Telegraph, EE Times (where Joire is seemingly notable enough to directly question Qualcomm Senior VP about her assertions[72]) are all just fly-by-night operations as well. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:47, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satesh Singh[edit]

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

Promotional article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nomination. The subject of the article does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria for notability. Also there are claims in the article which are promotional and not supported by the 2 references that have been included- one is a listing site and the other seems to where he receives a mention by virtue of a couple of comments on a patient special interest group website. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for reasons above. BakerStMD T|C 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blp article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources; per Drchriswilliams, current sourcing is not significant coverage, and a search turned up no significant RS coverage of this individual.Dialectric (talk) 15:40, 11 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shon Pace[edit]

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

Deprodded article that seems to be based primarily on subject's own website, Twitter feeds, and Youtube clips as sources. The lack of sources out there seems to indicate a subject that does not meet WP:BIO let alone WP:MUSBIO. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an article on subjects recording is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator (Album). -- Sam ^Sing! 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Based on the references, It comes from mostly personal social media websites like Facebook, Twitter and his own website, which are not references or 3rd party sources. I would say Delete, unless you can find independent sources. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: Not understood. Which sources raise this article from Delete to Weak Delete? -- Sam ^Sing! 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of notability, as per the nomination. Squinge (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Michigan Bucks season[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an excessive listings of statistics and fails WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kingjeff (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS, consensus is that only teams in fully professional leagues are sufficiently notable to justify their own season articles. Also a WP:NOTSTATS failure as containing no significant sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reasons as others, though I appreciate the effort made with sourcing. Mosmof (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, zero indication of any importance and obvious self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roloway purp[edit]

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

This article squeaks past being speediable, but it's nevertheless obvious self-promotion of an extremely non-notable hip-hop group. Claims to fame include a handful of tweets and a soundcloud upload with around 300 plays and no coverage to speak of. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this hadn't been nominated here, I would have speedied as spam and nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Lollie[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 [73] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation of the user's ban.[74] Legacypac (talk) 14:57, 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 22:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 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 because significant edits were made to it by other editors, then he has no rationale....William 15:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did link to rationale in previous nomination, that the subject does not meed requirements of wp:NMODEL. I kinda agree they could have explicitly stated that here, too, but they did link and it saved space; they did provide a reasoning different than wp:DENY (which also has merit). --do ncr am 21:29, 3 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 ) 16:09, 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 This article has a couple of references to third party reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG WordSeventeen (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After thinking about this, this article is about one event. In 50 years we will still probably say she is a law student with such goals, and have no way to know what she actually did. She is not in the public eye enough to keep the article up-to-date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may quote WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Johnpacklambert (and noting User:Dravecky's response). I agree, there's no indication this person is in the news for anything more than one event. It doesn't suffice that her winning the Florida state-wide crown was reported in several Florida papers (e.g. [this one, not cited in the article, among several that can be seen in Google News search link above). It won't change if there's local coverage of her appearing at local events, as part of the one-year "reign" as Miss Florida or 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. --do ncr am 21:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has been covered in depth by (at least) 2 reliable sources and is therefore notable. BLP1E does not apply. That guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not prevent bios of people "known only for one thing" (which is the vast majority of notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple citations in reliable, third-party sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WCTZ-LD[edit]

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

station does not yet exist, article is mostly un-sourced speculation and original research - see WP:BALL Deunanknute (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree; usually I'm all about finessing the info, but for now, everything down to the callsign meaning is complete speculation. It needs to actually come to the air before we can call this notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy – According to the criteria in WP:BROADCAST we can't tell if a station is notable until we know the programming. But the author has created many good articles on TV stations and will no doubt do a good job with this one too, once it comes on air. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if it's relevant for others, but I've noticed that the FCC issued the station's license on January 23rd. Mlaffs (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Since the station is currently under construction, and there's a lot of unknowns regarding the station, it'd be better if the article was userfied. I'm not 100% sure if it fails WP:BALL --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:52, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and/or Redirect to DTV America, which I just created. I could also say to redirect to network it carries, but not even the article's editors seem to know if the station is on the air, let alone what programming it carries. This isn't separately notable and probably won't be. License issued 2015-01-23 (BLDTL-20150112ACO), but no coverage at all on Google News, and I haven't even found any mention on Google other than mere station lists, Wikipedia mirrors, and references to other stations with no relation (e.g. now-WKLV-FM or West Shore High School's internal TV station): "WCTZ" -"WCTZ-FM" -WLEX -"an upcoming low-powered" -"first ever Spanish-language television station" -"News Now" -"West Shore" -1550 -Manhasset -"Port Chester" -"New York". And there is no evidence that it will ever become separately notable: DTV America's stations seem to be purely pass-through transmitters for minor networks, and this station is an LPTV that's not even a Class A television service, so it's not even required to produce local content. What research I've been able to dig up points to most DTV America stations being translator stations in practice, even if not officially by license. Unlike stations that are major network affiliates or originate their own programs, there isn't much chance of this subject receiving news coverage besides some rehash of launch-related press releases, if that. --Closeapple (talk) 10:04, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E (excluding teen events), sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [75] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. She teaches preschool now so unlikely to be doing other things to warrant a WP article Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2012 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.
Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are (1) a broken link, (2-4) primary and promotional pageant websites, and (5) a blog post. A Highbeam search for "Ana Rodriguez" + Texas turns up zero relevant hits. This is an obvious GNG failure, and I'd be very happy to hear from Dravecky as to what significant coverage to reliable, third-party, independent sources he claims exists. Ravenswing 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'd intended to rewrite this article with the articles from multiple reliable third-party sources I found that focus on this person but they include September 2010, September 2010, October 2010, June 2011, June 2011, June 2011, July 2011, and so on. - Dravecky (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is we have never decided if winning beauty pagents is a one-time event, or if because a crowned beauty pageant winner is expected to actually do things as such, it is holding a position over an entire year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miss Texas USA. Notability is possible, but the current sourcing fails to prove it. That doesn't mean Rodriguez can't be covered in a broader topic though. About one paragraph of coverage would be appropriate at the Miss Texas page, and that is about what we have in the article (despite being broken into 4 sections). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to keep per article improvements by Dravecky. Notability is now proven. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article subject meets WP:GNG as far as the verifiability and notability. I agree with Dravecky regarding " Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources." WordSeventeen (talk) 18:22, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Miss Texas USA 2011. Fails GNG with a big thud. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have extensively expanded and improved the Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA) article with a significant number of in-depth references from reliable third-party sources (along with other sources that serve verifiability rather than notability). I respectfully request that any editor review the article in its current form and consider revising their !vote. - Dravecky (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete she is still a preschool teacher, and helping to construct the world's biggest P&J sandwich as a career highlight just proves that she is not notable enough for an article here. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not temporary and this article is now better sourced than 90% of the biographies in the entire encyclopedia. Please put your personal feelings aside and evaluate the article on policy grounds. - Dravecky (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alaska USA. Numerically, there's only a weak consensus for deletion, but the analysis of the sources speaks for the delete camp being more on-policy, so a clear delete consensus emerges from that. But, redirects are cheap, there's an obvious target, and no reason to hide the history, so that seems like the way to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Agron[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 [76] 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. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 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 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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]
Redirect I'm not sure how big of a deal these pageants are in other states, but I don't think they are a big deal here in Alaska. I searched Anchorage Dispatch News (formerly Anchorage Daily News, basically th epaper of record for all major events in Alaska) and found no mention of this young lady, or even of the 2015 paegent itself. A redirect to Miss Alaska USA therefore seems like the right level of coverage for WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I nominated roughtly the first 10 alphabetically by state. If 10 out of 50 is too much, what is the right number? Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 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 This article passes WP:GNG and has notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the only ref currently in use at the article is a link to the pageant's own website and the only external link is a youtube video I am puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion. If you are aware of, say, just one actual reliable source that discusses this young lady please share it with the rest of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Beeblebrox In response to your question, I have updated the article with five more references for a total of six. The references can be viewed in the article. There are two television news stories plus several more pageant covering sites. Agron also was Miss Alaska teen in a previous year and that info ha been included with two references. Agron more than meets the notability requirements in Wikipedia:Notability (people). I would ask that those who voted previously to re-read the updated article and re-consider your votes. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alaska 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) 21:43, 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) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two references that are not primary do not have significant coverage of this subject. The TV "interview", all 2'34 of it, consists of things like "the pageant was totally awesome". I don't recommend it, I took one for the team. Vrac (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them as well and I fully agree. One of them basically says "this happened" and the other is morning talk show fluff. Fine for WP:V but noit compelling as far as notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs like this are not RS, nor significant coverage (just part of a long list). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Legacypac The diff you have listed above saying it it only a blog and "not RS" this is in FACT a company website of Pageant Rocks "Pageant Rocks is a full-service pageant consulting & mentoring firm" [77] I guess maybe you were confused because the name of the firm happened to use the word "pageant"? I always try to act wiith AGF, so you just made a mistake in your misrepresentation of that source. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does being a "pageant consulting & mentoring firm" make it a reliable source? From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This source does not meet that criteria. Indiscriminately adding corporate websites that mention the subject does not assist in establishing notability. Vrac (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WordSeventeen not only is this blog not a RS it is clearly just backed by one guy that likes pageants and fancies himself to be an expert. 07:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

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) 03:19, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Delemar[edit]

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

this person is non-notable. just a resume. use LinkedIn instead. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per simply being TOO SOON for this young filmmaker. Let him make more films and get some actual press and this can be WP:REFUNDED. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with the too soon sentiment. The references on Mr Delemar's article establish that he played some football and has created a press release for a short film released last year. The clothing line and film by the same name do not yet exist and there appears to be no press coverage. —Noah 04:06, 9 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) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator (Album)[edit]

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

Musical recording by Shon Pace. Nothing indicates that neither artist nor his recording are notable, and I can't find reliable sources. Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of notability, as per the nomination. Squinge (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broen (singer)[edit]

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

I could not establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, and I can only find a few local press articles about her online, with no substantial coverage from WP:RS. Best of luck to her! She might well be famous one day. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh ebrahimpour[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N. Creator of one film, which won recognition at one festival. I find no substantial coverage of the director himself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning a student film prize does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Airfox[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No special coverage; article depends on primary sources and forums, which are not held to be reliable sources. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything good. Ethically^Yours! 09:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning.—Noah 04:11, 9 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. WP:SNOW. Editors should of course feel free to create a different list of [notable] creationists, complementary to Category:Creationists and its subcats. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy[edit]

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

The article violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE by offering a false balance between evolution and creationism. We are treated to a long list of creationists and creationist organizations, with a relatively shorter list on the pro-evolution side.

Several items in the list don't have a corresponding article.

The What links here page reveals a self-walled-garden, with all but two links being redirects back to the list itself. Such redirects give a veneer of notability where there is none.

At least one item (there may be others), Answers In Creation, is a redirect to another list embedded in another article.

Some items appear to promote fringe content, for instance a creationist who made a "prediction about comet composition, discovered by the Deep Impact Mission on 4 July 2005."

The article has carried the NPOV tag since September, with no resolution in sight. Fixing particular issues such as those above would not solve the inherent false balance the article itself suggests. There is little expectation that conforming to NPOV is possible in this circumstance.

We already have categories that address the bookkeeping aspect of this article, for instance Category:Creationists, Category:Creationist organisations, Category:Critics of creationism, and Category:Science advocacy organizations.

Manul ~ talk 01:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can see having a list of creationists; maybe we already do. I'm not seeing having a list of anti-creationists. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By your own words the nominator for deletion has POV problems. "I can see having a list of creationists ... not seeing a list of anti-creationists."--Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your not willing to see the list of "anti-creationists" or you didn't read the article?--Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manul AfD this post without reading the article, and has nominated it for "not seeing a list of anti-creationists" Clearly he has POV issues. He is either to lazy or unwilling to edit the article and would rather waste hundreds of hours of study. SMH WP:AFD WP:EQ WP:NPOV And I'm the new guy, this guys has been doing this for 9 years. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, uh I'm sorry ill give up now --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I entirely agree with the nomination statement. This type of list has an inherent undue-weight problem: almost every vocal creationist is a "participant in the controversy", and almost every non-creationist avoids the topic like ~~the plague~~ the ten plagues, leaving the putative "opponents" section underpopulated relative to the actual predominance of that view. It's pretty obvious POV to title the sections "proponents" and "opponents" of creationism in any case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the concise wisdom of an IP user on the talk page: "There is no 'Creation-Evolution Controversy'."—Noah 04:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above, and more. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of new religious movement and cult researchers has much the same issues, as probably do lists of UFO and Bigfoot controversy participants. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expand, useful for vetting and cross referencing. 50+ cross references in support of Evolution, 200+ Edits, ~50 Editors, 9 Years of work.--Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaptinavenger appears to be on a canvassing spree, notifying editors who have touched the article back to 2008 and perhaps further. I want to assume good faith, but some editors suspiciously didn't get notified, such as Dougweller, who, based upon talk page comments, would seem likely to vote for deletion. Regardless, any set of editors that are invested in the article is not a representative sample of editors anyway. Kaptinavenger, please stop and read WP:CANVASS. Manul ~ talk 08:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on Manul talk page, the originator of the Delete, and AndyTheGrump and Stephan Schulz who if you would read the articles talk page you would see does not share my personal opinion on the matter but is willing to edit rather than trash. I'm not sure about previous deletion attempts, bear with me I am new, and I have skipped a few editors as It looks like they are using bots to edit, and flipping back and forth canvassing, for a topic I enjoy, is not easy. Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. read WP:CANVASS WP:BITE and WP:AFD "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted".--Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaptinavenger, you skipped Dougweller because you thought he was editing through a bot? Why did you think that? Independent of whatever that is about, there is still the second point I made in my previous comment: do you understand why I said "any set of editors that are invested in the article is not a representative sample of editors"? Even if you notified every single person appearing in the article history, without leaving any one out, that would still be a problem. You are continuing to canvass; please stop. Manul ~ talk 09:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manul read WP:GF WP:AFD WP:BITE WP:NPOV Also try reading what you say before you post. Your poker face is weak. You are impatient, rude and your POV is showing. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resorting to personal attacks when asked to explain what appears on the face of it to be a violation of WP:CANVAS isn't generally the most productive approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manul repeating the same WP:CAN complaint without reading my responses is Like when he AfD'd this article without reading it. His complaints to my legitimate canvassing (Andy you got letter and voted to delete) is a sign to his not wanting me to canvas for this article. He wants the thing dead because it contradicts his PPOV that people with more education than him might believe in Creation. If he does not like the lop sidedness of the article he should have tried editing. Not trashing. WP:AFD "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you asserting that User:Manul hasn't read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Manul's voting comment he is "not seeing a list of anti-creationists", by anti-creationists I take to mean section 2 of this list. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Manul didn't write that - it was User:Mangoe. [78] AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, uh I'm sorry ill give up now --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my response for clarity. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone call themselves "anti-creationists"? Your POV is still hanging out. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between say Richard Dawkins, a professional Opponent of Creation, and Steve from Vermont is self evident. The attack on the article clearly stems from complete lack of NPOV and a total miss understanding of the topic at hand. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An inherently NPOV-violating list, as amply noted above, with no redeeming features. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons very ably given in the nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article serves only to make it appear that there is a controversy.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but is inherently unmaintainable. Guettarda (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list criteria seems to be inherently ill-defined, and it gives the impression of an inherently non-NPOV false balance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think I misread some of the !votes above, thinking we already had an article List of creationists. I would support the inclusion of such a list. So if there is content here that is useful to that end, I would support the inclusion of such a refocused (and appropriately retitled) list. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title itself does not seem neutral. Controversy should be debate, and evolution is the creationists term for those who oppose their viewpoint. The article has had a NPOV tag for months, yet the most recent changes have made it even less neutral, proponents and opponents when there are two (or more) sides being debated is not neutral. I would suggest a Move to List of creationists or similar, and cut out the opponents/scientific section, but I believe it is WP:SNOWing here. Martin451 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune Many of the entries on this list do have their own pages, so I don't see why you wouldn't want to gather them together into a list like this. On the other hand, entries without their own pages should be ruthlessly pruned, so as to avoid running afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. By this I mean that the subject of every retained entry must be a link to an independent article, and thus can be assumed to pass WP:N.

Answering points in the nom:

WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL do not seem applicable, if the page is limited as I proposed. Entries that have their own pages are already on WP. We are not giving them undue weight but putting them into a list like this.
Criticisms about not enough evolutionists, POV commentary, self-references, and the like can be resolved by editing the article, not deleting it. Is there any mechanism for the article to be placed on probation, with deletion reconsidered if the needed fixes are not implemented?
The point regarding the article's What links here page seems to be fallacious. It may show that this article is not well-cited by other independent articles, but it does not show that the links in this article are primarily self-references.
Having a category does not eliminate the need for a list. I, for one, dislike categories and never use them.

--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the penultimate point in the original post: "Fixing particular issues such as those above would not solve the inherent false balance the article itself suggests." We have List of astrologers, but we don't have List of participants in the astrology-astronomy controversy. A completely different article, such as a no-commentary List of creationism advocates (resembling List of astrologers) may be suitable. The purpose of the original points (it wasn't claimed that "links in this article are primarily self-references"; that is a straw man) was to emphasize that the current article as written, and most anything resembling it, is certainly not suitable. I would say that the best way to write a completely different article is to create a completely different article. If a week passes before that happens, an admin can still userfy the old article for reference. Manul ~ talk 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed because the discussion of Astrology vs Astronomy is not happening, your being a bully, your POV is showing. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaptinavenger: No, Manul made some points worth discussing. Please beware of WP:KETTLE and you might consider WP:DOGGY.

@Manul: The problem with your astronomy-astrology analogy is that there is actually an article on the creation–evolution controversy. So, again, having a list of people who have engaged in that debate does not seem out of place.

If you did not mean to complain that "links in this article are primarily self-references," can you explain what you did man by the comment about What Links Here? Do you mean that people judge the notability of an article by how many other WP articles link to it?

Finally, I'll say again that my !vote is conditioned on removing the extensive commentary, which is contrary to WP:LIST. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Comment Fixing the NPOV issue would involve a rather large expansion of the Science side. For starters the organizations section would need to add the ones from this list:
- Albanian Academy of Sciences
- National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
- Australian Academy of Science
- Austrian Academy of Sciences
- Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
- The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
- Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Brazilian Academy of Sciences
- Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
- RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
- Academia Chilena de Ciencias
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
- Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
- Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Cuban Academy of Sciences
- Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
- Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
- Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
- Académie des Sciences, France
- Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
- The Academy of Athens, Greece
- Hungarian Academy of Sciences
- Indian National Science Academy
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Royal Irish Academy
- Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
- Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
- Science Council of Japan
- Kenya National Academy of Sciences
- National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
- Latvian Academy of Sciences
- Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
- Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
- Mongolian Academy of Sciences
- Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
- The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Nigerian Academy of Sciences
- Pakistan Academy of Sciences
- Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
- National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
- Polish Academy of Sciences
- Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Singapore National Academy of Sciences
- Slovak Academy of Sciences
- Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
- National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
- Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
- The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Turkish Academy of Sciences
- The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
- ~~The Royal Society, UK~~ already in the article
- ~~US National Academy of Sciences~~ already in the article
- Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
- Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
- Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
- African Academy of Sciences
- The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
- The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

1359 names would need to be added to the individuals section, from this list. Note: that list only includes PhDs named Steve who have participated in the controversy on the science side. The list of individuals on the science side might become somewhat long if we start adding people who aren't named Steve. Alsee (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should only add those named Steve if they have articles themselves. It would be interesting to see how many Steve articles there are. Stephen T. Asma, 34th on the list is the third I have found with an article. Martin451 18:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every creation believing scientist, nor every person who does not believe. Does the Steve list somehow prove the scientists who believe and study creation wrong? --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who say's it is not meant to be comprehensive? There are no inclusion criteria other than participants in the debate. If 1359 people have signed up to Project Steve, then they could be included. These people don't prove or disprove creation myths, they are simply a representative sample of the scientific community. Martin451 20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to concede to listing steve, as long as he has a wiki page, so long as the creationists can get the same break. And Keep Editing. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for the list is "participants," not just people who have an opinion. If signing on to Project Steve is the only form of participation that a certain person has engaged in, then they should not be separately included in this list even if they pass WP:N. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page reads like the Secular Troll Church Hymnal. Psalms about how bad religion is and about the proven trueness of their ideology. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - speak for yourself; I'm too devout a Christian to believe that my Lord and Savior would expect me to believe in the nonsense of the creationists at this late stage in history. I'd say that was the behavior of a trickster god; but that's an insult to trickster gods. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of supporters of creationism, because sometimes is good to have an overview of where the kooks are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - long-standing NPOV-violating list of minor figures, many of them non-notable; filled with circular references; and apparently devoted to making this fringe topic appear to be worthy of serious discussion, rather than being classed with the flat-Earthers and the alchemists. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the Newtonians! Antediluvian fools. Srnec (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page seems to me to lack some neutrality, and if we really want to keep some of this page's more relevant content, surely it can be added to the Creation-evolution controversy page to live on. wia (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin451 keep or delete? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What does it take to be a "participant" in the "controversy"? Do we include anybody who has ever written or spoken about evolution or creationism? Every comic who's been documented telling a joke at creationism's expense? Every preacher who has quoted Genesis? Every notable academic who cites Darwin? Every notable church? It's untenable and an inappropriate topic for an encyclopedic list. The article title and subject is such that I furthermore cannot foresee any reasonably specific inclusion criteria that would make the list more appropriate while also avoiding NPOV issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Rhododendrites, there really is no clear line for who counts as a "participant". If there were an organised series of debates (etc etc) there might be, but there isn't. Also the whole title is unbalanced, because only advocates of "creationism" believe there is a controversy. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryka Aoki[edit]

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

no reliable evidence for notability, Her first book is in only 12 libraries; her later one, is in only one, and is self published. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see request by author on my talk p., [79] DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 9 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) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risto Mitrevski[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:NSPORT and WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been recreated because the player in question has joined FK Donji Srem in the Serbian SuperLiga - a fully professional association football competition, as can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues PeppermintSA (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly states that it only applies to footballers who have played in actual matches in fully professional leagues. Merely being signed to a club in such a league without playing is insufficient for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He is not notable until he actually plays. Giant Snowman 18:30, 9 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. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 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) 02:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elkhan Temirbaev[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) 00:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom.Simione001 (talk) 08:04, 10 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) 16:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish studies in Greifswald[edit]

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

Asmall section of one department, not separately notable DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a promotional brochure for a non-notable department of a school. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too promotional; fails notability guidelines. APerson (talk!) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are additional sources in the German language version. However, as far as I can tell from review of their titles / author(s), these are probably not independent of the topic. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete overly promotional and only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - No credible claim of importance §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moxkito aka MoxFlex[edit]

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

Unotable sound engineer. Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Wrestling Alliance[edit]

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

No secondary source. Wikipedia is not a directory. However, I found this : http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/eastern-wrestling-alliance-taking-hold-of-local-fan-base/article/66124. I propose this article on :fr. --Sismarinho (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tiny local promotion with no non-primary coverage beyond press releases; it's a damning thing that the local metropolitan daily (the Springfield Republican) has zero hits for the subject. [80] The Washington Examiner article cited above is about a different promotion of the same name. Ravenswing 07:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Washington Examiner article seems to be about a different promotion with the same name, so this one unequivocally fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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