Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 January 21 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOLDfest[edit]

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

don't see that this meets WP:NEVENT, as well as WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Earflaps (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shawn in Montreal. The article is fairly well-sourced and is clearly notable, even though I will admit that it does need to be better integrated into the encyclopedia (which the maintenance tags already mention). BenLinus1214talk 22:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Disclaimer: I have a bias here, as I assisted at the editathon where this article was created) This is borderline in terms of notability, but just on the right side of the border, IMO. We have significant coverage, albeit local. The Interior (Talk) 23:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Sang[edit]

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

Nothing to show notability. He's not a notable martial artist because he meets none of the criteria and notability is not gained from your teacher (WP:NOTINHERITED. His service with the Hong Kong police doesn't make him notable, not even for being corrupt since the article points out that's common.Mdtemp (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively keep until the nominator explains the problem with the sources in the article. Since notability has nothing to do with fame or importance, if enough reliable sources have been cited, the article will meet WP:BASIC (WP:GNG) and be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.81.255.40 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG, notability is not inherited, and the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgetting the corruption would Head of the Hong Kong CID be a cause for notability?Peter Rehse (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strong sources. Famous as a photographer, well known as a martial artist, and organizations he taught. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the strong sources and the proof that he's a famous photographer? Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant independent coverage. The first four sources are passing mentions as one of Yip Man's students and the fifth is a one line mention in a book about the Chinese tongs. He can't inherit notability simply by being a student of Yip Man and there's no indication he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists. As for being head of Hong Kong's CID, I don't see any guideline that shows that's notable. I do remember an article on a Honolulu police chief being deleted even though I believe he'd also been a temporary appointee to the city council. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only coverage consists of passing mentions and notability can't be inherited from his instructor.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we've ever deleted the article on a chief of police of a major city, it's because nobody did the necessary work. If there were evidence of being chief of police, I would say keep, but not chief of detectives. The photography material if sourced might show notability , but I don;t see any sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That Jeff Curro has not (yet) been deleted is no reason to keep this article. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Shaw, Jr.[edit]

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

Not really WP:NN. According to the citations, man is probably a "schizophrenic off his meds." He is mentally ill. Being mentally ill in itself should not be noteworthy. He was on the Howard Stern show. The latter classified him as someone who is funny, but doesn't understand why. i.e. a sick person whom they allow to say things that don't make sense for laughs. He is (at least) the second "Bigfoot." The first one died. The mentally ill do not always have a long lifespan. Delete because he is sick, not "notable." Student7 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There currently exists an article for Wack Packer Jeff Curro, also known as Jeff the Drunk, whose only claim to fame is alcoholism. If this article is a candidate for deletion, then that article should be deleted as well. Shaw's schizophrenia should not be a reason for his article's deletion. Shaw is very popular on the Stern Show, and has a large fan base. Many consider him to be the most popular wack packer next to Beetlejuice. Shaw has also released albums and appeared in a feature film. It is not Shaw himself who is regarded as someone who is "classified ... as someone who is funny, but doesn't understand why". That is a general, intentionally amusing, description given to everyone in the Wack Pack. In response to the above paragraph, Shaw is not off his medication. His mental ailments are under constant check. Many of his ailments are caused by years of drug abuse and a very poor education, not mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Loucks (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemic Standard Economy[edit]

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

I briefly had this marked for speedy as patent nonsense, because large sections of it literally make no sense. However, someone has obviously put a lot of work into it. That said, checking the references and reading what parts of the article are not incomprehensible gibberish, the whole thing is original research at best. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The content in the article does not match the content in the sources cited. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of existing published content. This article contains new ideas which are not from the sources cited. I have no criticism about the quality of this content except that it does not meet Wikipedia standards for citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – OR essay, apparently by someone who wants to start a new cryptocurrency. See the CureCoin link in the article. Can't find any sources except other essays, probably by the same person, in places like reddit: [1]. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Certainly it is hard to figure out what exactly the topic is since the article lacks organization, but even with rosy-colored glasses I don't see the sourcing for this topic. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those three words strung together thus did not exist as a term prior to October 2014, and as far as I can tell the only usage so far externally has been as marketing gobbledegook to sell CureCoin. At best, it's not notable; at worst it's spam. Pax 06:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm copying this from the article's talk page; it's a message from the author. I suppose it counts as a keep !vote.

This is my first wikipedia article and English is not my first language, so I'll use those points as a crutch :-) --Ituma (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • as far as neologism, nothing like this has ever existed until 2014. I have had no complaints in the talk section from any of the listed cryptocurrencies disputing the newly coined term "Epistemic Standard Economy". In fact, I've had nothing but positive feedback from the cryptocurrency world since the article came out.
    • The article has had over 2000 views
  • I can try to clean up the article and take out some of the "fluff" to make it less essay-like, however everything mentioned exists.
  • The links were accurate at the time or writing, but the source publications may have moved them since.
  • The reason you may not be able to get to some of the linked pages is because cryptocurrency networks use higher levels of security (ssl) which don't always load successfully on the first try (or the second). I have the same problem myself. Perhaps i could just reference articles from within Wikipedia to alleviate the connectivity issues.
  • The "patent nonsense" is critical to the article ... I can reference an article from inside wikipedia to make it cleaner.
    • The reason the three listed cryptocurrencies exist is because the Bayh-Dole act forces Universities to monetize crowd-sourced research without any requirement to reward the volunteers.

Please let me know more specifics on which features need to be changed. This article is absolutely essential to distinguish science backed cryptocurrencies from their bitcoin-clone counterparts.

Also, I thought I over-refernced the article, yet in the deletion notes, it was mentioned I did not use enough citations. Is it possible your browser cache was flaky after attempting to access some of the SSL secure web content?

Anyway, let me know - I put a lot of heart and soul into this article making it as accurate (based on references) as possible. It serves as a good point of reference for people deciding which science backed cryptocurrency to support.--Ituma (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ituma"+"CureCoin" into Google brings up this; is that yours? ...even if not, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. This article is just not going to fly. Pax 16:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is clearly OR. The refs don't talk about the topic. To the author: I understand you put a lot of effort into this but Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of work. Try publishing in a journal or conference on cloud computing, Internet economy, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR PianoDan (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long do I get to adjust the article to be less promotional, and more wiki-like. You have to understand this took a long time to collect all the linked content, and it might take me a couple weeks to find the time to make a serious adjustment. What's interesting is that although YES I am affiliated with Curecoin, I list three other cryptocurrencies doing very similar work with Distributed Computing Networks. It seems everyone is fixated on the Curecoin promotional aspects when this article is attempting to define a monetary system based on multiple coins falling under the same category - what if I removed ALL coin references (curecoin, gridcoin, foldingcoin and primecoin)? Would that help - or will the article still require outside references to establish the existence of an "Epistemic Standard Economy" before it can be defined in a wiki? That's fine if thats the case - I'll have to delete the article under the rules of violating neologism. Ituma (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"will the article still require outside references to establish the existence of an "Epistemic Standard Economy" before it can be defined in a wiki?" Yes, the article requires outside references to establish the existence of the thing it's talking about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an acedemic journal. I appreciate that you've done a lot of work, but you aren't describing something that others have described before, you're trying to create a new thing. As for how long until this discussion closes, they are supposed to last a week, so probably tomorrow. I suggest you copy your work and save it locally on your computer so you can publish it elsewhere later. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict so some of this may overlap with what ONUnicorn said: I think you should save your work somewhere (you can paste the wikicode into a file in Word or some other word processor on your computer) and then step back and spend some time reviewing some basic information about Wikipedia because from your comments it seems to me that you still fundamentally don't understand the requirements for an article. Here are some good overview articles: wp:42 wp:five pillars. The coin references (although an issue) are completely irrelevant to whether you need good wp:references If you don't have good references you don't have an article its that simple.It doesn't matter if your article is about string theory or Beyonce, all articles require that every significant claim is backed up by a good wp:reference. You also seem to have a major wp:conflict of interest in that you are affiliated with a company trying to monetize this idea. It doesn't matter if you remove refs to your particular company, the fact that your company will directly benefit from spreading this idea still means you have a COI and even if this wasn't OR you would have severe restrictions on how much you could participate in writing an article on this topic. Again, my advise is to turn it into an article for a journal, conference, trade magazine, or if you just want to put it out there self publish it as a blog. I'm sorry to be blunt but I don't want you to waste your time -- or frankly our time we are all volunteers and have other things to do. You are about as far away from having a viable article as its possible to be. wp:Conflict of interest, wp:original research, lack of wp:notability, and lack of good wp:references Any ONE of those can disqualify an article and you IMO have all of them. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - thanks for everyone's time, and input ... lets get it deleted. Good learning experience. Regardless, I encourage everyone commenting here to participate in at least one of the coins mentioned. All of them have potentially transcendental implications for the world: "What IF every financial transaction you made from now on benefited humanity?" So much to cover in a short article :-) Thanks all. Ituma (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Nielsen[edit]

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

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) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is and is not a fullt professional league has been a silly debate for too long here on Wikipedia. The top league in Norway is considered "professional" according to the article and I tend to give it a little leeway. He has played i the Danish first division as well. What's the problem? More sources would't hurt but they appear to be there if someone would rather put 5 minutes in bettering the article than deleting it.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The notability threshold of WP:NFOOTY is a very generous one as it is - more generous by far than some other sports' criteria - and the player still doesn't pass it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Game of Thrones (season 5)#Promotion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones: A Day in the Life[edit]

Game of Thrones: A Day in the Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unaired promotional video for Game of Thrones (season 5). Not notable independently from that season of the TV series. A redirect there, where the same content already exists, has been reverted. Also problematic because of possible WP:COI – the article was created by ADayInTheLifeGoT (talk · contribs) – and because the content is an unattributed copy of content removed as duplicative from the season article.  Sandstein  20:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 20:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kick to AFC (or userfy, or whatever we do these days that used to be called incubation). This appears to be an HBO "making of" documentary, which I'm not sure is precisely the same thing as a "promotional video"; I certainly wouldn't call it part of one of the show's seasons. There's been some attention given it: the Entertainment Weekly source already used as a reference, and this CNET article are both at least vaguely sources. On the other hand, it's not scheduled to air until 8 February, and so WP:CRYSTAL applies. On the gripping hand, I'd be shocked if more sources didn't happen given the popularity of the series, so outright deletion < 3 weeks in advance seems bureaucratic. Moving it out of mainspace until then seems a reasonable compromise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Game of Thrones (season 5)#Promotion. The thing about "making of" specials is that it's fairly rare that they're actually noteworthy in their own right. It's entirely possible that this one will gain enough coverage to warrant an article, but at this point in time it's just a wee bit too early to really warrant an entry. There are notifications that it will air, but no actual reviews at this point in time of the material and the coverage so far is a little too light, as it's all "look at this trailer" and "this will air" short type of articles. There's no actual meat as of yet. I do anticipate this gaining some coverage, but I can't guarantee that it will, so for now this should just redirect. I'm not opposed to userfication or AfC, although I would like ADayInTheLifeGoT (talk · contribs) to change their username first to reflect on them as an individual and not be so COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. As it airs, there may be passing mentions in RS, but even then doubtful it'll be independently notable. Pax 06:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreata Global[edit]

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

No real evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. WP:Reliable sources have published or posted stories about this firm, which supports its WP:Notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I said in the previous Afd: "A quick news search reveals sufficient coverage from top caliber sources such as Times of India, Reuters, and the Economic Times to establish notability." --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Whatever sources are out there, are "announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" -and if excluded per WP:CORPDEPTH -there's no evidence of notability. I think, we are not going to count Times of India, Reuters or Economic times -if they too have coverage on mergers and/or sales related to the subject. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "routine announcement of mergers/sales" line is not intended to exclude coverage about such business deals (which, together with earnings together, are the heart of business news), but rather brief coverage. Many business publications have long lists of transactions with just a couple lines on each - that is what the guideline aims to exclude. Full length articles on mergers (which include background material) are just as valid as full length articles on any other aspect of the business. Think about it this way: if an article has 4 paragraphs about a merger and 3 paragraphs of background material, how could that possibly be less relevant than an article with just the same 3 paragraphs (which would be consider in depth coverage)? The sources here are the latter kind - extensive coverage motivated by a specific event, not brief coverage of the event only. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a second look at sources and your argument above, I would say that to this point, I am fairly convinced. Thank you! Making my !vote below,
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Shahnawaz[edit]

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

Actor best known for a relatively minor role. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. This gentleman is featured in The Hindu and The Times of India, both eminently WP:Reliable sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GeorgeLouis. Sufficient coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Note this is for his modeling work. DGG is correct insofar that he is non-notable as an actor. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject has received high quality RS coverage for his modeling work. For example, The Hindu and other sources already in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Keep -Subject appears to be meeting WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard, for their "significant" coverage in multiple independent reliable source, such as, -[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided in the article show that the subject has received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't followed here.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Teenage Murderer[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Doesn't appear to meet the Notability requirements for books. Article on author was Speedy deleted. Searches come back with nothing, not even an ISBN. It does appear to have a digital-download-only page on Amazon, but very little else anywhere. CrowCaw 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NBOOK is not met. -- Sam Sing! 00:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence was given, nor any can be found, that ″shows that this book is notable enough for its own article. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 02:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete In my opinion, this meets CSD A7. This article does not even show why the subject is significant, let alone notable. It is a book by an author whose page was speedily deleted, and an internet search brings up nothing related to the book. BenLinus1214talk 22:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn.--218.81.14.78 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Stolz[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 20:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick tcs 20:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ArsenalFan700, did you look at any of the background before nominating this? That's part of WP:BEFORE too. The move-to-create was as a result of WP:DRV. You're welcome to nominate it anyway, but it doesn't seem particularly sensible. St★lwart111 05:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen article delation debates for players who have won a Hermann Trophy before and honestly I did not know that was enough to get a page created and also, ever since I got on here back in 2010, the majority of DRV's I see which relate to football turn out to still be deletable, just in this case, this player is notable. My mistake it seems. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, but the win and his subsequent signing have resulted in significant coverage, so the "fails GNG" part is a stretch too. Doesn't matter, though, you can always withdraw this. St★lwart111 05:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Bloom[edit]

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

Article that was deleted by consensus after this AFD. She doesn't seem to have gotten any more notable in the meantime but the first AFD was so long ago I'm submitting it again. Vrac (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that renomination rather than G4 was probably the right step, but she hasn't become notable since the last time this was deleted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XiVO[edit]

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

Software which does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. The only references are primary sources - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find any other websites even referencing this software besides the non-notable award nominations. –  Alyx  talk  17:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSOFT. As mentioned above, the article's only references are primary sources. BenLinus1214talk 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John David Anderson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I don't believe this meets WP:AUTHOR. Lacks WP:RS - blogspot, goodreads and the authors website/books are not reliable sources Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 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) 06:20, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of performances at The Little Theatre on the Square[edit]

List of performances at The Little Theatre on the Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a list of what was staged at a small theatre in a small city (pop. 4K), failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 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) 06:16, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Berry[edit]

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

Cyclist appears to fail WP:NCYC. Vrac (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 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) 06:14, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 deleted by User:Jimfbleak, 09:14, 24 January 2015 (Non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalberg Global Development Advisors[edit]

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

Pure promotionalism by a paid editor -- see the first AfD. Note the use of unsourced statements of their contributions, from the lede on downwards., and the reliance upon the significance of the problem they were consulted on, not the importance of their own work. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:58, 6 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) 06:13, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Spam. Article history page is a writhing snake-nest of SPA IPs and likely sock/meats. Pax 07:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 deleted by User:Jimfbleak, 17:13, 24 January 2015. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'Clair guitar[edit]

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

This was originally a promotional page, but I have removed the majority of promotional material from the page which has left very little. It should be reviewed for deletion due to lack of notability. The Haz talk 06:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Blatant ad copy. Pax 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of the Way (Sami Yusuf album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This coi editor has been creating multiple versions of another album too, under slightly different names, but I've speedied all those I've found Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 6 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 deckertalk 00:34, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dodd (footballer)[edit]

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

Added header which was missing. Natg 19 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This man only ever played one first team game in the fourth level of English football which makes him just another footballer. Louder2014a (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. The subject being "just another footballer" really is not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mattythewhite. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Como sobrevivir a la primera edad[edit]

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

Unremarkable book. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Previously deleted via PROD. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the worst English I've ever seen in an article, this article is a recreation of a previously PROD'd article and should thus be deleted, and half the article is a biography of the author in the first place. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreation from prod is okay (it's basically contesting the proposed deletion). However, that's not the real problem here: this is a self-published book (published by Amazon's print-on-demand subsidiary CreateSpace), with absolutely zero coverage in third-party reliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus here - other than the fact that the article isn't the best-written, but that is something that could be dealt with by editing rather than deletion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolengo[edit]

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

There are several problems with this article:

  1. it doesn't give the slightest hint at the notability of the subject; sourcing is poor: one primary source and one secondary source (the latter apparently being a short article about a vast subject, i.e. coverage seems rather trivial here)
  2. it is messy and contains obvious mistakes ("the English sounds ough and ph"? And why mention that an Anglo-Spanish language avoids French nasals and Dutch gutturals? Etc.) and weasel words ("Critics find...")

To turn this article into something useful, more and better sources are needed, and the whole article should be redone from start. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 15:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @IJzeren Jan: It sounds like you're criticizing the present sourcing of the article. When I removed the PROD I had found a few that weren't cited without much effort (but foolishly closed the window so will abstain from issuing a !vote for now). As nominating something for AfD requires searching for sources and basing notability on the non-existence of sources rather than the present lack of sources in the article, I just wanted to check to make sure by this nomination you mean that the other sources are insufficient in addition to those currently cited. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Sources are not only needed to prove that an article deserves a place in an encyclopedia, they should also provide enough information to serve as a base for it. That's what I am missing here. But notability isn't the only issue, the main issue is the article itself. Like I wrote, it's messy, and virtually every sentence makes me raise my eyebrows in astonishment. It starts with telling who created the language and what for, and that vocabulary is based on English and Spanish. So far so good. But then we are informed that it concentrates on the Latin component of English rather than its Anglo-Saxon aspect, i.e. essentially on vocabulary shared by Spanish and English. So what exactly is the influence of English then? No answer. Subsequently we are told that the alphabet does not contain C, but that it does contain Ch; however, what sound it represents we don't find out. And we are told that is doesn't have the English sounds (sic!) "th," "ough," "ph;" the Spanish Ll; the French nasals; and the Dutch guttural "g" and "sch." Why not mention that it lacks Gothic Ƕ, the Danish stød, the Slavic sequence šč and Vietnames tones as well? I mean, what's the point in mentioning all kinds of features that the language does NOT have and given its input languages isn't even supposed to have, while saying practically nothing about the features that it DOES have? All we learn about grammar is that adjectives precede their nouns and that adverbs are formed by means of a suffix. And for the rest, all we found out is that Eurolengo aims to eliminate certain ambiguous or difficult traits many natural languages have (which traits? how?), that it allows silent E's (how? why? what's meant by "allows"), that the numbers 11 and 12 are formed differently than 13-19 (how? why?), and that critics (which critics?) find something. I mean, it's quite possible that all these things are written somewhere, but this is obviously not the way of working with sources. Essential questions remain unanswered. Even if notability can be demonstrated, we still have to solve the problem that this article in its current state is completely useless. If you can add sources AND improve the article, I will of course happily withdraw this nomination. Regards, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article cites two academics books that easily constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. In addition, being messy and full of mistakes is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Piboy51 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem? The first source is a primary source, the second one is an article of ca. five pages containing a few sentences about the subject. That's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We don't have to be overly hard on constructed languages, but this is really not enough. Besides, I very much disagree with your second sentence. It's better not to have an article about a subject at all than to have an article that gives wrong info. If the subject is really notable, then sooner or later somebody else will write a decent article about it anyway. If you can do that, then be my guest and improve it; I'll happily withdraw this nomination. But for now, all I see is that this nomination is eleven days old now, and nobody has made any improvement at all. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree about the notability of the topic, a quick Google Scholar search shows a number of useful sources. However, on the topic of quality, we can take some steps to improve it: we can ask for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Constructed languages, we could reach out to the creator the page, we can add a cleanup tag, you or I could even edit it ourselves -- in my opinion, this article is calling for cleanup, not deletion. Piboy51 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have already mentioned it on the Wikiproject mentioned above, but I'm afraid that wikiproject is pretty much me. As for Google Scholar, do you really think I haven't checked that possibility as well? All it turns up is the original book, the article already mentioned, and Eurolengo as part of a much greater list of artificial languages. For the rest, one source mentions that it met with very little support, another source that nobody speaks it. Not a single book or article that discusses Eurolengo in some detail. This doesn't really point in the direction of notability, if you ask me. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the book written by the inventor of the language is hardly "independent". I would like to see those claiming that there are extra sources sufficient to rescue the article to either give them here, or add them to the article with suitable text and tell us here that they've done it. Without these I would go for "delete" as an interesting idea that never attracted significant attention. For interest, here's a sample: Durant le past venti fyf ans, mor persons dan semper visitan le bord de le mar in le monds de vakasion de juni, juli, august and september.[14]: Noyster (talk), 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely no evidence of notability, insufficient coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 19:39, 19 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some general clean up, formatting, organization, and basically prettied up the article some. I was able to find one source that discussed how the language handles gender, but it's hardly a significant, non-trivial mention. I've found a couple other sources that mention it in terms of listing artificial languages, but mere inclusion in a list doesn't establish notability. I've also found a few sources that might have more extensive discussion, but they aren't in English (a few look like German? I'm not sure). I'll post a list of those on the article talk page. I'm not yet comfortable voting keep or delete; I think this is boarderline. However, I'd like to remind the nominator that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and problems like weasel words and false information call for cleanup, not deletion. Also, regarding the "Critics find a...." statement, it is sourced with a pinpoint cite to a page number. From WP:Weasel

    Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.

    ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, found a few more brief mentions and added them to the article. It's starting to look borderline notable; it was apparently used some during the Yugoslavia wars in the 1990s; but again, most of the mentions of it in sources are in the context of discussing constructed languages generally and why they don't catch on. Again; quite a few sources in German, French and Spanish. I don't know if anything in those is more substantial. I'm leaning towards weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ONUnicorn, I admire the effort you've put into this, honestly. I've taken a good look at the sources you have added to the article and mentioned on the talk page:
  • Burckhardt mentions Eurolengo as an example of the mixture of European languages, followed by a text sample and a translation of the latter.
  • Cruse: merely mentions Eurolengo as an example of a constructed language with a self-explaining name.
  • Harris. This is a book about something completely different, but indeed, we find the following cryptic text: "Neither English nor German was understood so Eurolengo was brought into use: the odd". That's where it ends. What we don't know is on what scale it was put to use, by whom, to what effect, and for that matter, whether it's the same project at all.
  • Künzli: (translation) "Whereas 246 projects where published in the years 1901-1925 and 143 projects in the years 1951-1973, in the remaining period until 1983 only 10 new projects were published, and perceived as ephemeral."
  • Large. I don't have access to this article, but what I can see is that it is a short (8 pages) article about "artificial languages and international communication". The abstract shown on the first page doesn't even mention Eurolengo. This doesn't really point at anything non-trivial.
  • Laycock: "Support from organisations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations for international languages has been very cautious over the years, even more local proposals such as those for a common European language (Eurolengo, Jones 1973) meeting with very little support."
  • Muchnik: "Similarly, in Eurolengo, created by Jone [sic!], nouns have no gender, except for specific feminine words, such as kusin ('male cousin') versus kusina ('female cousin')."
  • Santaemilia. I don't know Spanish, but from what I understand he writes that "Eurolengo [is] an artificial language that was invented in Brussels for internal use by the European Union", and that it doesn't form feminine forms by diminutives like Esperanto does, but still derives them from the masculine form (example: kusin/kusina)
  • Scheidhauer: mentions it twice: 1. "Nobody speaks Eurolengo". 2. "Several initiatives have been proposed for adopting one unique European language. In general these are so-called artificial languages. In 1972, for example, Leslie Jones invents 'Eurolengo', 'a language for Europe'. 'Similarities with English and the Romance languages are obvious' and make it very easy to learn."
  • I've found a Russian source myself, in К истории развития модельной лингвистики: "евроленго (Л.Джонс, 1972), упрощенный английский с легким налетом романских языков, закончивший свое существование сразу же после первого издания книги." (translation: "Eurolengo (L. Jones, 1972), simplified English with a slight touch of the Romance languages, ceased to exist immediately after the first edition of the book.")
So what can we make of this? That Eurolengo, like many other constructed languages, has a self-explaining name. Furthermore, that it is ephemeral, that nobody speaks it, that there has been very little support, and that apparently somebody tried using it during the Yugoslav war. And that it was invented in Brussels for internal use by the European Union — which seems to be at odds with the purpose mentioned in the article, namely that it is "intended as a practical tool for business and tourism". And, at last, that it derives feminine forms by adding -a.
There are plenty of sources that mention Eurolengo as part of list of other constructed languages, which is not surprising, because every constructed language ever created before, say, 1990 is mentioned in lists like that. Most of the remaining sources dedicate only one sentence to it. What we lack, though, is a single secondary or tertiary source dealing with Eurolengo in particular, or even discussing it in some detail. Mind you, I am not against using primary sources at all; in the case of constructed languages, all you usually have is a basic framework provided by secondary sources, all the details being filled in with the help of primary sources. But in this case, secondary sources give us practically nothing we can use, and in addition, none of these secondary sources gives even the slightest hint at notability (most of them actually do quite the opposite). Which means that any decent article about this subject will have to be based for at least 90% on a single primary source. Now, I agree with you that an article being messy is in itself not an argument for deletion, but it is quite obvious that the original author of the article has been gathering his info from this primary source rather haphazardly, without really understanding much of it ("Start stub based on quick skim of conlang's foundational textbook"). [ADDITION] Providing sources is nice, but the information given should also be reliable, and that is clearly not the case here. Best, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; I agree notability is weak at best. I'm tempted to order the Harris book; Amazon has used copies for a penny (plus shipping of course), and the book looks interesting for other reasons. But it wouldn't get here until after the AFD is up if I did order it. I do wish we had some context surrounding that excerpt though. Also worth noting for purposes of this AFD; the article's creator is indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Perhaps instead of deletion this warrants a redirect to Constructed languages; or a merge to List of constructed languages (except that list specifically says it's a list of notable constructed languages, and all of them are blue-linked; meaning a red-link that was deleted for being non-notable would be somewhat out of place). EDIT CONFLICT What's not reliable about the information I added?~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I used the word "not reliable", I was referring to the way information from the original book was used. The information you added is quite reliable, at least as far as the sources you used are reliable. :) Well, with one little exception perhaps: the sentence "Eurolengo was used during the Yugoslav Wars to aid in communication by people speaking a diverse group of languages" is kind of overstating a bit what little the Harris book gives us at the moment. I'd surely be interested to find out more about this, so if you decide to buy the book, please let me know what it writes about Eurolengo!
For the rest, I agree that a redirect to "Constructed language#19th and 20th century: auxiliary languages" would probably be the best solution for now. The additional advantage of that would be that the page history and the talk page are preserved, and, once better sources turn up, it can always be undone. Best, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:57, 3 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)  - The Herald (here I am) 13:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitabu[edit]

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

Shady-looking software with no sources at all. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Shii (tock) 13:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epubtools (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 13 sources in the article, in a list labelled "References". From before the AFD, from before the earlier PROD. For example this ebook readers comparison is one, with some material on Kitabu as one legitimate alternative to consider. "Shady-looking"??? is not a valid deletion reason. --doncram 02:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't consider "makeuseof.com" a reliable source, nor any of the other websites listed. Shii (tock) 11:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its also listed as a suggested reader in Darthmouth College [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epubtools (talk • — Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 9 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:58, 13 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, Sam Sing! (please WP:PING when replying) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hack out the original research. Software has enough RS (here's one) establishing notability. Pax 07:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow keep. . The delete votes seem to be SPAs with a COI issue. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Medicine[edit]

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

Subjective and critical content Q.leroy (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Q.leroy's WP activity and possible bad faith WP:Disruptive request that this article be deleted seems odd. Perhaps Q.leroy's own WP page Lendico is a better candidate for deletion as it seems just an advertorial. As requested by others Q.leroy needs to expand upon her/his reasons for doing so. RevTim0 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: per significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Subject of the article meets WP:GNG. 79616gr (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 79616gr, the article has significant coverage, so meets general notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets notability guidelines. However the tone seems over-critical to someone who knows nothing about the organistion (not really sure why there is a "criticism" section as the whole article seems pretty critical to me). There seems to have been a lot of toing and froing on the TP with a lot of heated POV discussion between supporters and detractors of the organisation. A much more neutral approach to this subject is needed IMO. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs major improvements no denying that but I'm not really seeing anything worth deleting so I'll have to say Keep. –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article has had significant oversight from WP senior editors and admins from the start, so this is as balanced as the subject can get using RS. The topic has significant coverage in the media, most of it unflattering, so meets general notability. There is an amount of pressure from subjects of the group who want to include WP:Fringe material or have article deleted. This makes the article more relevant and notable to keep. RevTim0 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given that there are no reliable sources beyond newspaper articles that themselves contain rumour I consider that deletion of the article should definitely be considered. Add to that the fact that certain editors are hell bent on vandalism in keeping a particular reference in that is off topic and does not mention the subject and can only be wanted to remain in order to seek to paint the subject in a certain light there is a real issue of bias in this article. It has also been impossible to have anything other than negative viewpoints included in the article even when there other material that could be cited. This article will always have controversy.Choose12 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-Choose12 above has previously declared her/himself as having a conflict of interest as a Universal Medicine member. RevTim0 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts at adding balanced quotes from reliable sources, sometimes from the same sources already cited on the article - but these have been taken down or deemed not part of consenus and therefore not allowed to go up. There has been, what seems like, a continuous question, within many areas, running on the TP - why can't this be added? One editor says yes, another says no - but always the negative content survives any balance to this POV is subverted or taken down. The article will never have a balanced presentation whilst this continues. Notability is about what an organisation has done and is known for - nothing is discussed as to what this organisation has contributed in a positive light at all - it is only deemed notable for that fact that newspapers (a lot of them tabloid) have written negative articles about it. To keep this site up perpetuates a negative attack on a living person and his organisation.Tribscent08 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are two core tenets of Wikipedia that are at play against each other in this article and these are the principles of neutrality and verifiability. One of the key principles of neutrality is to present facts, not opinion, and that the facts are verifiable. The aspect of verifiability is being misused in this article to be able to support the claim of neutrality. The quoted aspects of many (most?) of the citations is someone's opinion, and they are presented in such a way as to appear as referenced facts. However much of what is presented is referenced opinion rather than referenced fact. It is a key WP principle to Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Even though there are many supportive opinions of Universal Medicine (see https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/writing-student-body ) they are deemed original research and cannot be cited. The opinions exist and it is fact that these opinions are there, but they are not presented because they have not been reported by a third party. The overall effect of this is to give the impression that there are no positive opinions, which improperly represents the prominence of opposing views. My opinion is that the overall tenor of this article is detrimental to the neutrality principle of wikipedia and principle of verifiability is being misused to support the negative bias to this article.Paniteri (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paniteri above has been a member of WP for 3 days and has made 2 edits. Paniteri are you a follower or supporter of Universal Medicine? RevTim0 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Also Paniteri is purposely misleading by calling facts "opinion". The facts are journalist fact-checked facts from RS that are from reliable newspaper articles. Enough fibbing please. RevTim0 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a supporter of UM and WP. Please read carefully what I have said. Lets look at this statement: Benhayon "controlled every aspect of our lives". This is someone's observation of what is happening. Surely no one has that power — I doubt anyone would really accept that as fact. But it is someone's opinion, which they are totally entitled to hold. I have no issue with you or anyone having their view on the world. What I am concerned about is that this entry is able to present opinions such as this and because they have been reported in a newspaper article this somehow then elevates them to facts. This results in a biased article and is contrary to the principle of giving appropriate prominence to opposing views. The keeping of the article as it stands would be detrimental the reputation of WP as a reliable source. Paniteri (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paniteri, thank you for confirming you have a problem with a few sentences in the article and lobbying for its deletion. Considering this it seems WP:Disruption is very much in play and thus I also move for WP:SK on this article. RevTim0 (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article was started a month ago and is under construction WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Meets WP:ORG notability and WP:RS reliable sources. There are significant verified and notable facts within the article, including contentious therapeutic claims; singular inclusion in parliamentary report; regulatory action against charity; suppression of government documents; cult consultancy reporting ex followers employing its counselling services; Google search removals; patient complaints; book burning etc. The neutrality principle shouldn't be misused to suppress negative facts, including that such organizations as Universal Medicine are by their nature polarizing, and also actively suppressing criticism and unfavourable information. Positive bias is readily available within UM's copious internet propaganda. XRii (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns this deletion listing is a bad faith nomination and potential vandalism. The nominator has listed "subjective and critical content" as grounds for deletion, which are not WP's accepted criteria. XRii (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As pointed as page is it is totally reflective of all RS's. The critics of this page are adherents to the WP:fringe group who have adendas to block all reference to factual RS's on the net about UM. 2013Ca55 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. The content accurately reflects the numerous reliable independent sources. Being negative in overall tone is a reflection of the fact that the sources are also overwhelmingly critical, and that in turn is a reflection of the generally poor reputation of cults. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with reservations. The number of single-purpose accounts operating on this article (on both sides) is concerning (by my count, at least five of the above participants have edited no other mainspace article), and there are a few issues with WP:NPOV, but it does appear to meet GNG. Whatever happens it needs close watching. Frickeg (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NPOV doesn't mean that we delete any article that is not flattering to the subject. I too am somewhat concerned at the single purpose accounts buzzing around this article like mosquitoes around a lightbulb, but that is not in itself a reason to delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I share XRii concerns that this is a bad faith nomination for delete and ask the editor who initiated this process to expand upon their reasons for doing so. 79616gr (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and, per RevTim0's suggestion near the top, Nominate and Delete Lendico. Pax 08:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Q.leroy has chosen not to expand upon the reasons for nominating this article for deletion I move for WP:SK. The delete nomination is in bad faith and disruptive/vandalism. No uninvolved editor or admin has moved in favor of deleting it, and the consensus is the article should stay but needs work. 79616gr (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I nominated this article for its obvious criticism and conflict of interest. The conflict of interest is not positive in that case, as the authors clearly have a strong negative opinion on the entity discussed here: Universal Medicine. I respect opinions and the liberty of expression, nevertheless Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be a place to record opinion and especially of critical nature. Here are the main reasons that pushed me to submit this article for deletion: 1st: The use of tabloid articles in order to present false "facts" => "The religious aspect of the belief system attached to Universal Medicine and its number of dedicated followers has resulted in Universal Medicine being characterised as a cult" => Serge Benhayon have not been charged, arrested, or convicted of any dishonesty offence by any Australia court. Therefore this type of accusation, even when coming from a tabloid, is defamatory and illegal (see Phoenix Global own legal claim to Google: the publishers are liable for civil damage under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)). I believe the appropriate word for Universal Medicine practices would be "theosophy" as rightfully used by UK government UK Government during their court decision. 2nd: Half of the references used to build this articles are from three main authors: Jane Hansen, Heath Aston and Kaye Byron. The Universal Medicine WP article has also be written by three main authors: 79616gr, XRii and RevTim0, which are also the main contributors of this deletion discussion. Personally, I do not believe in coincidence. 3nd: The reliability of most sources is doubtful. Can we call tabloid such as the "Australian Daily Telegraph", "Sydney Morning Herald", "The Northern Star Lismore", "Northern Rivers Echo Lismore" or "News.com.au" reliable sources? Moreover, all of these sources are coming from the same location: New South Wales, Australia. Would that be another coincidence? Or would it just be our main tabloid writers (Jane Hansen, Heath Aston and Kaye Byron) using their journalistic influence on their close network? 4th: The overall tone of the article is clearly critical and does not reflect the neutrality needed into an encyclopedia. In comparison, the article written on Adolf Hitler IS truly neutral.

I would normally advocate the modification of this article in order to make it neutral, but the circumstances make it difficult in that case: the overall content need to be revised and we can observe an obvious lobbying being practiced by 79616gr, XRii and RevTim0 making it very difficult to objectively participate in the modification of this article. Finally, I deplore the need for 79616gr to speed up the process of deletion, showing again its high (conflict of) interest in the topic. Q.leroy (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2015 (CET+1)

Q.leroy. Your paranoid conspiracy theory comments about me are incorrect. You have no understanding of Australia media in your "tabloid" comments as you are from Europe (CET+1). You do not understand where the primary activities of UM are located. You have been provided with paranoid delusional information in your endeavour to have WP UM page removed. None of your arguments for removal are inline with WP policy and you are purposely acting disruptive. Your comments also reflect a vengance aspect to your actions. RevTim0 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RevTim0, I apologize if I offended you in any way. The facts and opinions I expressed concerning UM article are the results of personal research and not the results of "paranoid delusional information". And I can assure you that being European does not affect my ability to recognize a tabloid. According to WP own policy WP:IRS, using questionable sources that have "a poor reputation for checking the facts [...] and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." must be avoided. Now if we look at the definition of tabloid journalism, we can observe that it is considered to be "a style of journalism that tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities". After a quick check of the references used in UM article, I quickly realized that a large part of them should not be considered as reliable sources. The The Daily Telegraph (Australia) for example is clearly defined as being a tabloid in WP and I believe that "Doubtful News" can also be referenced as a questionable source. Finally, I would like to remind you that stating a POV in WP is generally not accepted while the tone used in the UM article is clearly subjective and expressing a critical POV. For more information on the topic, please refer to Wikipedia:Point of view. Q.leroy (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)

I want to be really clear here on what you are implying in your comments Q.leroy as my impression of the point you are making is that the 3 editors you named, of which I am one, correspond to the 3 journalists you also list? Regardless of who I am, the attempted disclosure of another editors personal details is a really serious thing on Wikipedia, see WP:PRIVACY. Could you please clarify? 79616gr (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you bring that up 79616gr. I would not allow myself to post personal information about WP users but I can understand your misunderstanding. I stated facts and observations concerning the way the article have been written; and raised questions about the correlation between "apparently" unrelated events. After this, I believe WP users can make up their own POV. But the way you react towards those observations is simply proving my point and I thank you for this. Q.leroy (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)

Thanks for clarifying your position Q.leroy on the abuse of WP:PRIVACY as your insinuation is now clear, and of what it's worth very far from the truth. I hope your previous comments will be taken in to account by the admins who review this page as part of this deletion discussion as I view them as very inapproriate. I have no desire to engage in any form of dialogue with you that is unrelated to the facts of the content of the article in question and it's further evolution. 79616gr (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again 79616gr, I am sorry if you feel exposed in any way as this this not my intention. You actions talk for themselves. Q.leroy (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit] After more researches on Wikipedia, I found out that JzG, also known in this deletion conversation as Guy, is an administrator and heavy participant of the Universal Medicine article (creator of the article). We could therefore assume that he also took part in the decision responsible for the control imposed on the modification of the article: "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages". Guy is also responsible for erasing parts of an article I participated in a few month back for uncertain reason: "Lendico". In the mean time, the profile pages of 79616gr, XRii and RevTim0 disapeared and are no longer available. Finally, those three accounts were created within a week: 79616gr on the 26th of December, XRii on the 29th of December and RevTim0 on the 23rd of December 2014. Are those actions all coincidences? Or is someone using Wikipedia with wrongful intention...? Q.leroy (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2015 (CET+1)

It is also perhaps worth noting re JzG that he has aligned to the writer of certain negative blogs about Universal Medicine and has in twitter conversations encouraged her to provide him more information. This connection seems to bring into question JzG's neutrality as an editor on this articleChoose12 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

uh-oh! Looks like UM insider Choose12 has been cyber-stalking WP editor JzG. Typical of UM. RevTim0 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RevTim0, please refrain yourself from discrediting people by using personal attack (see WP:PA). This type of observation is not constructive and does not bring anything to this debate. Q.leroy (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite I find the comparison to the neutral language in the lead to the Hitler page instructive. By comparison, this looks like someone's pet page that is pushing a POV. That there has been "senior" wikipedia editor involvement is all the more troubling. Needs to be rewritten to be instructive and not push a POV. BakerStMD T|C 17:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to edit the article, if you can find reliable independent sources that describe UM other than as an exploitative cult. You may find them in short supply, since UM is, according to a large number of reliable sources, an exploitative cult. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Guy, for sharing your POV with us. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is ethical to use your position of administrator in order to push forward your own POV on WP. You can do so in newspapers and tabloids, but WP is an encyclopedia and as such, should remain free of POV. Q.leroy (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)
It's not a POV, it's a statement of fact. The sources are in the article. If Bakerstmd can find any sources contradicting those we use, they can be included too. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that an article could be entirely rewritten on WP. This seems to be the most reasonable solution given the situation. Could a different administrator supervise the process? Thank you BakerStMD for you input. Q.leroy (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)
No administrators "supervise" the process. People write and edit articles, edits which violate policy will be removed. Admins only get involved in an admin capacity when there are conduct issues, such as the numerous single-purpose advocacy accounts who have been trying to skew the contents of this article. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly involved in the redaction of this article: from its creation to the constant editing. And I thank you to lead me to the single-purpose advocacy accounts section of WP. By looking at the log of the UM article main writers, we can clearly see that their account where created with the only goal to write this article (and in some cases, disrupt WP participants). For more information or to get an overview of the fraud please check the following links: RevTim0 log, 2013Ca55 log, 79616gr log and XRii log. Q.leroy (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q.leroy. Please stop your involvement in this article immediately due to your "paid POV" conflict of interest as referred to elsewhere. Thank you. 2013Ca55 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deplore your attempt to discredited me by implying that I am in any way related to UM. The accusation you made on my talk page are only representative of your distress and lack of arguments concerning the facts I broad up. Please concentrate on the discussion concerning the article rather that trying to discredit me and other users. Q.leroy (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to offer an alternative explanation as to why somebody whose only other history on Wikipedia is a spam article on his employer, would take any interest in this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The subject is unquestionably notable. The sourcing is solid. Unfortunately in real life sometimes there just aren't two equal sides to a controversial subject. If the article seems to have a critical tone, it's because pretty much all of the information coming from RS sources paints this group as a fringe cult. That said, some of the people who have been editing the article do appear to have their own WP:AGENDA that is decidedly hostile to the subject. But again, the sources say what they say. And that's what we go with. Lastly there is no doubt at all that this AfD is a frivolous nomination by adherents of UM who have an established track record of trying to suppress any negative coverage or discussion of the organization. I regard this AfD as a fairly naked attempt at censorship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G11 by FreeRangeFrog. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayantilal Gada[edit]

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

promotional language Kges1901 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G11 speedy by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: copyright violation). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Ellul[edit]

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

promotional, creator username Kges1901 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:A7, the hotel has no significance about it, nor does it have an significant coverage outside of typical hotel reviews. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G11 - Since there's tags & what not on the page I don't really wanna go "all guns blazing" by CSD'ing it so I won't, Anyway seeing as the creator is named "Casa Ellul" it's obvious this is an SPA who only wants to promote his hotel so clear Delete in my eyes. –Davey2010Talk 15:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Abbett[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.

Note: My PROD was reverted with an edit summery of "rm PROD having false reason; real reason is to remove an infobox; topic seems notable.". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the article is poorly referenced, Lord Abbett has significant coverage. [16], [17], [18] are just a quick few. This is a well-known, oft-discussed firm. Jacona (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found these refs. [19], [20], [21] and [22], I would say that sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. While the page does need work, page content doesn't determine notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, plus there are a ton of news and book sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed the PROD. To respond to the deletion nominator's accusation, "bogus", above: The deletion nominator is in fact working from a list of articles having generic {{Infobox}}, as he did during a PROD then AFD spree during April-June 2014. Deletion nominator won't perform wp:BEFORE (won't answer the question whether he did or not, in previous cases), appears to make quick judgments that are often/usually wrong, at a rate that I think is unacceptable. Goal in the editor's campaign is clearly to remove uses of the infobox, which this article has. Claim was not "bogus", is based on informed judgment supported by diffs in ongoing administrative enforcement action case. I am kind of dismayed to see this behavior. --doncram 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic of the article is notable and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources available to show that, which should be better integrated into the article as well as addressing issues of tone. The issues with the article should be addressed but notability is established. I agree that it appears that WP:BEFORE was not complied with and that a cursory search would have demonstrated notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple[edit]

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

Small churches which have not even been built are surely not notable. The current sources certainly do not constitute Significant coverage. If this merits any coverage at all, it should be part of a list - not a self-standing article.—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gemcrafter: Puzzle Journey[edit]

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

A casual puzzle game released this past Saturday, without the independent reliable sources that might distinguish it from the tens of thousands of others it so closely resembles. Fails WP:NSOFT. —Cryptic 08:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's limited coverage/reviews among a few tech/Android-specific sites, but not enough to establish notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Enough" isn't the word I'd use. If reliable sources exist for this game, I couldn't find them amidst the blast of SEO spam. —Cryptic 23:12, 20 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) 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Android software article of unclear notability, lacking reliable references. One is from the developer, and the other has no stated editorial policy, in any case, one review is not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Sossaman[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Biography of an actor who does not meet the notability criteria for actors nor the general notability criteria. bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't currently find any substantial references about this actor, although the situation may change in April once Unfriended (released in 2014 as Cybernatural) gets a wider airing as a Universal release. As it stands, it looks to me like WP:TOOSOON. Libby norman (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to have received much coverage. If the article is correct and she is best known for a role in a film that hasn't been released yet, that isn't surprising. --Michig (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Cambridge. The consensus is that although the subject does not warrant a stand-alone article, a mention of salient points should be made in the University's article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Globalist[edit]

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

Although the University of Cambridge is notable, this student does not inherit its notability. Without reliable, independent references this fails WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 19:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you for the feedback, I definitely see errors made in the first drafts. I've substantially reviewed the article, adding elements of notability and better sources and removing unsubstantiated claims. I'd say it now has notability equivalent to the Yale Globalist and TCS, two related pages. (It has readership equivalent/higher than either I think, though I can't find a reliable source for this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossywitt (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mossywitt account appears to be a WP:SPA, judging from its creation date and edit log. AadaamS (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 7 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 deckertalk 00:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if I'm an ex-employee of Cambridge, I'm not sure I'm permitted to take a formal stance on this one, but I'm not sure that Yale Globalist is also notable--- issue being seeing a flood of student run publications all over WP, and then after those are included, we have mud-hut unaccredited half schools existing for two semesters jumping into the fray, none of which have two independent media articles about them. Under WP:Be Nice it seems the author (and voter above) has done some very hard work putting in references, but Twitter is definitely as per sysop consensus not a reliable source. Hmmm... somebody please dig up two independent media references to this publication, or failing that, AfD Yale Globalist as well. best -Augustabreeze (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think Yale Globalist and other student newspapers lack notability then you are of course welcome to nominate that article for deletion as well. AadaamS (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Augustabreeze: ok, good but that doesn't help verify notability of the CG as notability is not inherited. See also the WP:AADD and implying that the CG is notable because the YG is, falls under the fallacy of inherited notability. AadaamS (talk) 10:05, 20 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 07:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to CUSU as above, as the globalist is recognised by CUSU as an affiliated society. [23] Is Mossywitt the same Mossy Wittenberg that describes themselves as editor-in-chief in the print edition of this project here? Surely that would be a significant interest to declare, as per WP:COI? Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cambridge University, the magazine isn't notable enough to have its own article per WP:GNG (specifically, the bit about the sources not being independent of the subject), but it could use a mention in the article about the university. I'm sure the magazine is notable within the confines of the university. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Upon review, the subject of this article does not seem notable enough to stand alone as an article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have nothing here to establish notability, and there isn't usable (reliably sourced in third-party sources) content to merge. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears clear after relisting. --Kinu t/c 07:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabongari fire outbreak[edit]

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

Does not appear to be of lasting importance. Got a bunch of local/Nigerian coverage on the day it happened (two days ago), but seems unlikely to have sustained coverage as nobody died, and it wasn't a terrorist attack or anything. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE events that receive a brief news spike are "likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep: per significant coverages in reliable sources. Subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. The time of event occurrence is irrelevant and certainly not a valid argument for articles deletion but its notability per significant coverages in reliable source (if in doubt). Its an intrusive shock to see a rationale like but seems unlikely to have sustained coverage as nobody died, and it wasn't a terrorist attack or anything despite the multiple coverages in WP:RS such as This Nigeria tell Newspaper, channels tv,Nigerian bulletin, The punch Newspaper ,Leadership Newspaper, Nigerian Tribune among others with a quick Google search. An event doesn't have to result in deaths to meet WP:GNG and doesn't have to be a terrorist attack to be a subject of encyclopedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:31, 12 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 deckertalk 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: I hereby flag this discussion to speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator had failed to advance an argument for the article deletion. The article seemed not to be a candidate for deletion in the first instance and the nominator's rationale for deletion is not a policy-based rationale. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said "not of lasting importance". There is no requirement that I link directly to the relevant policies, however since you ask. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#REASON #8 is meeting the relevant notability guidelines, and the relevant criteria WP:EVENTCRIT specifically discusses "enduring historical significance" and "lasting effect", "widespread impact" in particular WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE specifically discusses events that receive a brief news spike and says they are "likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article"Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your recently modified rationale, there are in-depth coverages of the subject beyond a mere "brief news spike". However, WP:EVENT is an alternatve to WP:GNG. It seems you had misunderstood WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. By the way, What is your interpretation of "lasting importance"? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:51, 16 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 07:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fires in crowded markets are a dime-a-dozen; even spectacular ones shouldn't rate articles for WP:PERSISTENCE reasons. Even massive deadly fires are often forgotten by RS beyond their current news cycle. Fires are the most common form of piece-meal property destruction. Pax 09:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The only coverage I could find was on the day of the event and the day after.[24] No followup in the nearly four weeks since. The event seems to have caused a lot of property damage but had no sustained impact. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NEVENT. No continued coverage. Per WP:NOTNEWS. 04:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Carter (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per MelanieN/CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 2 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. Not seeing any rationale for deletion, valid or not, in this rant. (non-admin closure) ansh666 08:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Header added -- John of Reading (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a matter of fact tone regarding accusations that have yet to be proven with solid evidence. Examples:

Putin's exact words about Crimea were that the Russian troops (referring to troops stationed by a previous agreement with Ukraine) supported the Crimean self defense forces (aka the little green men). The Western media spun the presence of previously stationed troops, into the use of the previously stationed troops to occupy Crimea. There has yet to be any tangible proof of this, and "Putin's confession" is a misinterpretation.

The claims of Russia using artillery to bombard Ukraine's forces have not been proven in any way, other than satelite photos of Russian military exercises, where Russian artillery is pointed in the direcion of Ukraine. It is only natural, if Russia was to hold military exercises near a border, to point the weapons in the direction of the border. They're exercising to defend their borders, and possibly counterattack, why would they point their weapons in the direction of Russia? The published photos never showed an artillery piece actually firing, but even if they did, they would also have to have accurate timestamps of the artillery firing, calculated trajectories, and the resulting crater from the shell to build a valid case to prove that that particular artillery piece actually fired at a specific point, at a specific time.

NATO photos of Russia transporting tanks to the DPR and LPR consisted of a photo of tanks standing next to trailers, then tanks on trailers, then no tanks or trailers. Coincidentally, these photos were taken at the same time when Russia was finishing a military exercise, and the Russian forces were returning to base.

While "NATO claims" or "NATO says" may sound more credible than the Ukraine defense minister claiming Russia used nukes, a claim or accusation is nothing without proof.

PLEASE don't go along with the western mass media war against Russia. Keep Wiki neutral. If a page is expressing accusations, claims, and opinions, it should be clearly named, and marked as such.

Suggested page names:
Alleged 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
Accusations of 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
Claims of 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

Suggested content:
Accusations, or Claims subsection - sentences that start with NATO accuses, NATO says, Ukraine claims, etc...)
Proof or Evidence subsection - Any proof or evidence of events actually occuring, preferably objectively filtered to exclude random photos that prove noting except that Russia has troops near the Ukrainian border
Defendant's claims subsection - things like Russia's admission and apology of a Russian convoy accidentally crossing the Russian-Ukrainian border while on patrol. Might I add, that Ukrainian forces routinely crossed the Russian Ukrainian border into Russia, and were allowed to pass through without any interferance from Russian troops.

If you want a trial of Russia vs Ukraine on the matter, then treat it as such. None of this mass mob, "he said, she said, therefore Russia is guilty", and if you want a trial, then keep in mind that most wertern countries assume innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

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

The result was delete. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jarosz[edit]

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

Entire article appears is WP:OR based off of youtube videos and fansites. WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage. Seems to be a relatively successful local musician, but is not getting coverage that pushes us past WP:GNG or WP:BAND

Best I can find is

  • Passing mention in a concert announcement [25]
  • Passing mention at announcement for same concert [26]
  • Self published bio at the "book a band" site [27]

Article creator may be WP:COI (manager/promoter?). Is an WP:SPA with all edits dealing with Jarosz or related items

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 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 deckertalk 00:53, 13 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 07:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Barely any coverage found from a web search, and playing with several notable people isn't enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dannic[edit]

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

fails GNG - the 30th most popular DJ in the Netherlands DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 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 deckertalk 00:49, 13 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 07:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Japan[edit]

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

Not a dictionary. So obvious no need for an article Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If, like many countries, Japan has any form of legislation on this issue then this is certainly able to be turned into a good article. I suggest consulting WikiProject Japan. JTdaleTalk~ 07:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even dictionaries assume that the reader can work out what "Made in X" means, for any X. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Made in Japan (disambiguation). Sorry, but "Made in Japan means it was made in Japan" is not an article. Reyk YO! 18:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Made in Japan" is not your everyday lexicographic triviality. It has been a phrase weighted with significance since (at least) the post-WW2 era. Hundreds of good sources (one example: [28]) tell the story of how "Made in Japan" was perceived as a synonym for shoddy, cheap stuff, and then gained a reputation for quality in many sectors (and now maybe the reputation slipping again[29]). It's no small point that Sony's Akio Morita chose the title Made in Japan for his autobiography; as one reviewer of that book noted, "Few phrases have taken on such a dramatic change in meaning in the English language". [30] Having said all that, we already have an existing article entitled Manufacturing in Japan, which might be the most appropriate place to discuss the changing reputation of Japanese manufacture. That page is already listed under "See also" on the Made in Japan dab page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could be a notable topic but nothing in this article provides supporting evidence of that. There are minimal standards for an article to exist and this article does not meet them. There is almost no content here and nothing which stands alone to make an article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was There is no reason to expect that some of them might not be notable, so they need to be considered individually, a few at a time , so they can have proper discussion. . DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Font[edit]

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

Fails criteria for WP:NMODEL - note a state winner from 2008 Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMODEL Criteria: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

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

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

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

Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and also nominating:

Reading earlier text in this page, the notability requirements only require individuals to meet one of the above criteria. From a small sampling, all of them have won competitions at state level, in a significant competition. They're not Miss Teen Alabama or runner-up of Miss Alabama. They won the full level competitions. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, this was not a good bundling of AfDs. Just at first glance, some of these articles look like they may not be notable, while others appear to pass WP:GNG quite easily. These really need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First of all, the nominator's deletion criteria NModel doesn't apply because the person he nominates isn't a model, but a beauty pageant winner. None of that notability section applies here. Secondly, these are state pageant winners. That's sufficent for WP:GNG....William 02:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie. Also note that that AfD, the above 2 editors' opinions are shown to be wholly without merit; vague handwaves of a "keep they meet GNG" evaporate when one actually looks at the articles in question and finds blogs, tweets, primary sources, press releases, and local newspapers as sources. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, when did local newspapers become unadmissable? So long as they are reliable, why is this relevant? A notable state-level pageant is a notable state-level pageant. If the cited coverage is in a smaller market paper, so be it. That the individual is most of interest within their home region isn't surprising. The very fact that the paper does its own reporting is to be celebrated, that they didn't just run a newswire article about their hometown winner. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My local paper covers a game of cowflap bingo (if that turns out to be a red link, it is a contest where one draws large bingo cards in a field, lead recently-fed cowers back and forth, and...you get the idea) held at the elementary school every year, but I doubt an article on such would survive for very long. WP:GEOSCOPE would be the answer to your questin regarding local newspapers. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ...William. State winners of major pageants are notable (whether or not the articles are properly referenced). If that doesn't apply to all in the list, then run AfD on individual articles. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
State pageant-winners are not inherently notable; the simple repetition of a canard does not make it become true. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same way you keep insisting that they are not? Some things in this world are obvious, and state-level winners of pageants usually get reported on in the regular press and are considered of notable stature. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to prove a negative, the burden is on your head to prove notability here, I'm afraid. Scant mention in a local newspaper, alongside the dog-catcher elections and the new sidewalk constructions isn't notable, it is routine. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although state level, the winners rarely get newspaper coverage outside their own home town. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which had nothing to due with BLP1E. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of the articles have at least 2 reliable sources, which in the absence of specific argument against said sources is sufficient to establish notability. It is not feasible to debate the merits of each individual source in a mass AfD, and it is unfair of delete voters to try to shift that burden unto keep voters. (The default of an AfD is keep, not delete. Mass AfDs are normally a huge waste of a time - the only plausible outcomes are keep all (because the community decides all X are notable) or no consensus (because some X are notable and some aren't, but no one can simultaneously research a long list of X). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Korea[edit]

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

Kind of completely obvious Legacypac (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even understand what this is supposed to be. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalology[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N, also Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Used to promote an uncommon or made up term. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I guess in a year we will know whether this is a real party or a bogus, and then another nomination can be made if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Communist Party of the Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all wikipedia policies WP:N, WP:V Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely or does not exist. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is notable that this party is claimed to exist. Of the citations in the article one is a Russian government-controlled source that explicitly claims that it exists: TASS October 2014; that source is evidence that the Russians claim it exists. Another citation is an American source saying that the Communist Party was not allowed to participate in the Donetsk People's Republic so-called "elections": Foreign Policy October 2014. The other two sources provide information about individuals and not the claimed party. That there are a range of claimed political parties in the Donetsk People's Republic is notable. To what extent these things are fake (like the fake organisations invented by the Cheka in the 1920s) we do not know. The present Russian government is ran by Chekists, so what else do you expect? Under Wikipedia rules on original research we cannot speculate. So the best thing to do is to record the existence of these claimed entities, and build up information on them over time as more information becomes available.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your point: this is a fake/puppet/nonexistent Party. However, it is also not notable, and therefore this page should be deleted. Note that in your example the page is correctly titled Operation Trust (and it is notable as the famous operation by GPU), not the non-existing Monarchist Union of Central Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject clearly passes WP:V as its existence is mentioned in multiple reliable sources. The coverage is not particularly deep, though given the public ban I'd be very surprised if there weren't further sources attesting to notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient RS (though poorly formatted). Pax 09:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a non-notable Party - based on currently provided sources that are insufficient to establish notability for a political Party (just a couple of notes in national newspapers). There is no such article even in Russian and Ukrainian wikipedias. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has sufficient RS, including TASS and Foreign policy. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). I believe that a comprehensive encyclopedia, which WP professes to be, should include articles on all political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keep. I am in Donetsk. I am a Spanish citizen from Barcelona. I assisted to an event organized by the Communist Party of Donetsk People's Republic. This event was organized in the building used by the Central Committee not far from Donetsk down-town. Around 70 people attended the event cellebrating the 90th anniversary of Fidel Castro (13/08/2016). The video can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzo Blogger (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn. —Cryptic 01:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm L. McCallum[edit]

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

non notable WP:PROF Deunanknute (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a multitude of citations, references, and links. I am not done with this, but it is far more complete than yesterday when the message was posted. This page is linked to the List of herpetologists at on wikipedia at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_herpetologists#M McCallum's website: http://www.herpconbio.org/McCallum/ The Herpetological Conservation and Biology journal website: http://www.herpconbio.org I interviewed the subject of this article prior to writing it. It is not autobiographical. This individual has rapidly become an internationally renown herpetologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


To any Admin:
I made a mistake and should not have nominated this article for deletion, please remove the tag.
Deunanknute (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Bass Tour[edit]

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

It seems as if every single tour these days gets an article, despite the requirements of WP:NTOUR. Here's another one without in-depth discussion in reliable sources (RyanSeacrest.com is not a reliable source for our purposes), and the article isn't more than a list of shows. That's not surprising for two reasons: there isn't much to say about this regular kind of tour, and it hasn't even happened yet. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NTOUR "Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." -- Calidum 05:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom, per WP:NTOUR. Hasn't started yet. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The tour has not started, nor is this there significant information about the set list This stub can easily be recreated when the tour starts. MaRAno FAN 11:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 03:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Robertson[edit]

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

Biography with no claim of notability. Went through AFD in 2007 with keep. However, in the intervening 8 years, the article has not improved. Only citation is an obituary. Drdisque (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an article where I am going to invoke WP:IGNOREALLRULES and argue for deletion against normal policy. Yes, this article satisfied WP:GNG at the first AfD. However, the Jason Robertson is not and never will be Ryan White. He had some small, fleeting notability as an aids activist, but never came close to the level of Ryan White. I believe this article has existed since 2003. Twelve years and still a one line stub. If allowed to remain, I would bet that twelve years from now, in 2027, it would still be a one line stub. At some point, we have to use common sense and realize that in some cases, such as this case, notability does NOT equal to viable article potential. Lets cut our loses and delete this, in realization that a viable article will never develop here. Safiel (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Respectfully, I don't see what kind of a deletion argument it is that this young man wasn't as well known as Ryan White. I'm sorry that no one has previously seen fit to expand this article, but I was able to come up with a reasonable narrative and multiple national sources in about 20 minutes. To-wit:
Robertson became nationally prominent at age 7, in 1988 when he had to fight for the right to attend regular classes at his school in Granite City, Illinois, where previously the administration had isolated him in his own trailer. A federal court ruled in his favor. "Schoolboy With Aids Virus Polarizes Downstate City", Chicago Tribune, May 17, 1988.
He appeared with Ryan White and Elton John at an AIDS benefit that year. Elton John Sings--to Benefit Others", Los Angeles Times, July 11, 1988.
Then, he was in the news again the following school year when his family, seeking to escape continuing hostility, moved to a new town where he found more acceptance, though it wasn't perfect. "An 8-year-old boy with AIDS symptoms...", Orlando Sentinel, September 25, 1988. "AIDS children shunned and isolated", The Daily News (Kentucky), February 20, 1989.
When he died in 2003 his obituaries stated that he was seen as a symbol and a role model in the fight against AIDS discrimination. "Young fighter against school's AIDS segregation dies at 23", USA Today, September 10, 2003.
Ten years after his death he was still being remembered. "Music played a big role in Alton High’s student activities", The Telegraph (Alton, Ill.), November 16. 2013.
--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of students and their families get in disputes with school administration. Many of these are written about in newspapers, this does not make them notable. Many ill children meet with celebrities, this does not make them notable. Many people who die have obituaries written that embellish their importance or accomplishments. This does not make them notable. Most people are remembered after they die. This does not make them notable. -Drdisque (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: So hold on here. This kid's discussed at length in major media outlets, over the course of years, and the best the Delete voters can come up with is that he's not as important as Ryan White? Who gives a damn? He meets the GNG, easily, and THAT's what makes him notable, not some "He's not important enough for my liking" or "There hasn't been any new news about him lately" arguments. Before you trot out WP:IGNOREALLRULES, how about you first not ignore WP:BEFORE? Notability still isn't temporary, guys. Nha Trang Allons! 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability of Ryan White should have nothing to do with whether or not Jason Robertson is notabie, and there is significant coverage to be found with virtually no effort. Jacona (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Well, at least this AfD has been worthwhile in that it has forced people to do some work on the article. Sometimes you just have to slug people over the head to get anything done around here. And with that I will withdraw my earlier comment and vote. Safiel (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all for the time being; renominate separately--they are likely to be of unequal notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Guthrie[edit]

Madison Guthrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kimberly Agron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Natasha Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Ponyo deleted page Natasha Martinez (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Daniellovaughn)
Talyah Polee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ashley Golebiewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renee Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lizzy Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ashleigh Lollie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brooke Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emma Wo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Claira Hollingsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renee Wronecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gretchen Reece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taylor Even (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexis Railsback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Candice Bennatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heather Elwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mamé Adjei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Polikseni Manxhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rashontae Wawrzyniak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Courtney Byrd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tahnee Peppenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hoang-Kim Cung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brittany McGowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vanessa Oriolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexis Duprey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Julia Dalton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Molly Ketterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olivia Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bridget Wilmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elizabeth Cardillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah Weishuhn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lexy Schenk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kiara Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ylianna Guerra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nicol Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jackie Croft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Laura Puleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
McKenzi Novell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrea Mucino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haley Denise Laundrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caroline Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NMODEL all only notable for one event (winning a state level pageant). Poorly sourced and part of a big effort by banned socks of the pageant co to create pages and build high SEO value wikipedia links to their websites and facebook pages. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMODEL Criteria: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

a) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
b) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the lot per nom - Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 03:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'd individually nomed a couple of these, then grouped them together. I've deleted the individual listings to save confusion. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, I can see why you stopped trying. They look bot-created; about two thirds amount to "{{INFOBOX}} '''{{ARTICLENAME}}''' was crowned [[Miss {{STATENAME}} USA 2015]], she will represent {{STATENAME}} at [[Miss USA 2015]].<ref>miscellaneous external link</ref> ==External links== *[same external link] *http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa {{Miss USA}}", complete with the same comma splice in all of them except where someone's come along to clean up. So redirect the ones that are still no more than that to their parent articles (Miss Alabama USA for Madison Guthrie, for example); no opinion on the others; and when this afd inevitably fails as no consensus, go ahead and do that editorially. Like, you know, you should have tried in the first place. —Cryptic 10:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing My Vote to Delete: Previously I voted to keep some of these articles on previous individual AfD entries, but I now change my vote to delete them all. I was mistaken that all Miss USA contestants receive their own articles, while it's really only all Miss Universe contestants receive their own articles (plus notable Miss USA contestants). My mistake. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jjj1238: (or anyone else who knows): Where did you see that all Miss Universe contestants receive their own articles (plus notable Miss USA contestants)? I'm asking not to challenge you but because as I was going through the sock's contributions I came across a few international competitions but haven't been able to find any specific guidelines pertaining to specific competitions or titles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. They are pretty much junk. All created by a banned SOCK user, but it is impossible to get Admins to speedy delete based on banned user because they say it was not created in violation of the ban (yet they are created by a SOCK related to many banned accts). I built the list off one page that listed them all. There are hundreds and hundreds more based on different years and contests. I'd rather not spend the rest of y life trying to deal with the listings one at a time, since some program or paid editor likely created all this useless spam. Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Per Jjj1238, contestants at this level don't get articles automatically, so they shouldn't be created automatically. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all as plausible/useful search terms. State pageants aren't inherently notable. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tarc. Nathan T 17:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this overly broad sweep has caught up several subjects that would appear to meet WP:GNG and most editors are unlikely to give each article the attention due at AfD with this many piled in a heap for consideration. At worst these should be redirected as highly plausible search terms. At best, they would have been tagged and the proper WP:BEFORE effort would have been made before each was considered. - Dravecky (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I clicked on all of them, and once the eye-bleed wore off, what I found was that they are all sourced to twitter, instsagram, facebook, blogspot, pageant websites, with a select few having a tiny blurb in a local paper. The closest to a fleshed-out bio is Olivia Jordan's, but when you dig at the claims to fame such as "..is slated to appear in the upcoming Hot Tub Time Machine 2", one finds her credited as Bridesmaid #2. So if you would, please, point to a specific article that you feel meets the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the sourcing to the pageant websites is usually just to the homepage - not like they even warrant their own page. And some of the facebook sources are just a group photo! I listed a few one at a time and got posts here and on my talk page complaining they should be bundled. If any of them met GNG someone other than spammers would have created the pages, and they might be doing something other then paying their own $$$ to be in pageants. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've significantly improved the Madison Guthrie article and now believe she crosses the WP:GNG threshold. If these has all been tagged for improvement instead of being sloppily mass-rushed to AfD, it's reasonable to presume that many others in this sweep would also cross the GNG threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires enduring coverage over a period of time, which she does not have and there's still a BLP1E issue. Even if we ignore both of those, I disagree these sources come close to GNG. BroBible.com, Axs (which appears to be a promoter/pr venue, but I'm nto sure), a list, a quick blurb via the Miss Universe site, a hyperlocal blog (280 Living is "for the communities along the Highway 280 corridor in Birmingham, Alabama"), and her agency/promoter's site along with only one source I would consider pretty solid in the Tuscaloosa News (still primary and local and for the same one event, though). I respect trying to save some of these, but I think this is an uphill battle. Some better cases on the other mass AfD which I've been meaning to look through. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AXS TV is a cable network formerly known as HD NET. - 12:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As a well established media company, AXS should be considered a reliable source unless evidence is presented that they don't fact check... and all the contestants have articles about them on AXS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Group AfDs are messy. This is one of the rare cases where the approach seems to have merit. Unfortunately it didn't get all of them (as has already been pointed out). Here are others created by the same sock. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'em all: Yeah, a great case for WP:TNT. (And heck, if Dravecky thinks that any of these are good articles, say which ones are, with which evidence. Otherwise, sorry, Deletion policy allows bundled AfDs.) Nha Trang Allons! 15:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I've personally improved the Madison Guthrie article to at least cross the WP:GNG threshold and suspect that many others could be similarly improved if they had been properly tagged per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEADLINE instead of sweeping them all right off to AfD with no visible effort at improvement or even basic clean-up. - Dravecky (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went back through and added some third party sources to the Duprey article. On the Railsback one, I missed that fact that the Shawnee Dispatch piece is apparently user-submitted PR - in that case, strike that one, as I'm not finding anything else in third party sources on her. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep because of faulty nomination. NModel makes no mention of beauty pageant contestants and beauty pagent contestants are NOT labeled automatically as models. Some of them may have done modeling but their competing in Miss New York, Miss Hawaii, Miss Nebraska, etc doesn't make them a model. I've looked through about a half dozen of the nominees here or in another similar AFD, and either the articles make no mention of the person of being a model or if the word model was in there, there was nothing else saying they were so and the word model was removed by me. They are however winners of major stage beauty pageants and that makes them all pass WP:GNG....William 02:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point out where "winners of major stage beauty pageants" is listed as a criteria at the WP:GNG link? I am unable to find this line. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you want to dispute the applicability of NMODEL in the nomination, that multiple other people have expressed problems with the article not limited to NMODEL means it doesn't qualify for speedy keep. It can furthermore be presumed from invoking NMODEL that the nominator believes them not to be notable (and by any of the notability criteria they are not). The nomination was a bit sloppy, but functional now and discussion has proceeded. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really happy with the mass nomination either, but this argument has no merit. If you refuse to accept WP:NMODEL as applicable, then the only remaining guidance we have is the stricter, last-resort general notability guideline; and to credibly argue that they pass that, you have to provide sources. None of the articles have them, and just asserting that they must exist doesn't cut it. —Cryptic 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[WP:NMODEL}} is just another shortcut to WP:ENTERTAINER. If they are not models (and I think that is exactly what they are modeling evening gowns and swim suits) they are "celebrities" or "actresses" - so which of a, b or c criteria do they meet? This is not an athletic sport, but it is a type of competition so we could apply the principles of the sports figures rules WP:NCOLLATH which require winning a national award, hall of fame induction, or significant independent coverage. Also consider WP:ROUTINE (100% of the few news sources on these people), and WP:BIO1E ("People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.") Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State winners of major pageants are notable (whether or not the articles are properly referenced). If that doesn't apply to all in the list, then run AfD on individual articles. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to point to an existing policy or guideline that supports this argument, that state pageant winners are inherently notable? Tarc (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • IANAWL, but if all elected state-level politicians are considered notable, then state-level winners of major pageants are, within reason. Not everything that is common-sensical has to find a policy or guideline for support. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, anyone who wins a blue-ribbon at a state fair is notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winning a state level election based on thousands of votes and making laws for 4 to 5 years is a little more notable then winning a pageant because you look good in a swimsuit etc based on a handful of judges. It is not even like there is just one Miss New Mexico, there are 4 or 5 different pageants run by different private companies with sightly different statewide titles. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And first-round NHL draft picks are considered notable, but so freaking what? They're considered notable by the pertinent SNG the same way that state-level politicians are considered notable by their pertinent SNG -- because people at that level generally pass the GNG. There's nothing "common-sensical" about this: had you noticed how many people don't agree with you? Nha Trang Allons! 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on this talk page are VERY revealing under Your edits he says: I will hand off this project to Vanbros.com who are agents for Alexis. They initially set this up. I was just trying to assist with adding the information. I hope Vanbros.com knows what they are doing. Referring to (Alexis Railsback - one of the subjects of this delete discussion. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator is now simply redirecting other pageant winner articles without comment or discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they aren't part of this nomination this should be dealt with (or not) elsewhere. Redirecting isn't against the rules and if you disagree it's likewise within your right to revert. But to be sure if he/she is redirecting after AfDing there's a problem. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I've redirected a few articles (not from this list) without debate. There are thousands of these out there. If you don't like that, you can recreate them and if they fail notability, they get AfD'd. See also this deletion now closed. [31] Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - in unlikely case that any of them are truly notable, a deletion review can be requested on individual cases. Due to the high volume of drek here, I think blowing up wholesale is the only way to handle - and at least we can restore any individual article which can be proved to pass GNG. Mabalu (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect there are a number of articles that have been created for the Miss USA 2015, contestants. They ought to redirect to Miss * USA for the respective states e.g. Madison Guthrie ought to redirect to Miss Alabama USA, Kimberly Agron ought to redirect to Miss Alaska USA etc. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the one sentence "articles", Keep the others. There is a wide variety of individual notability which can't be assessed in a mass AfD (each individual needs researched to do that). That only leaves quality as a quick hit. Redirecting the useless one sentence sub-stubs will take care of the majority of the problem articles on quality grounds. Others can then be dealt with properly (one at a time), if needed, as some are definitely notable. "Delete all and let someone else deal with it later" is not an acceptable position. The default is keep, and for those wish to delete to try to shift that burden ("you can go to DLEREV if you want them back") is not how thing work around here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You provided no specifics as to why any of them are notable. Others assessed each one as not worthy of an article - so can you be more specific? Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is clear - it is not possible to properly evaluate 40 articles on an individual basis in one AfD. Anyone who claims to have researched the GNG case for each individual is most likely lying (and I don't think anyone is actually claiming they did so anyway). Such evaluation involves a lot more than clicking on the article and seeing it does not currently have any sources. Proper research would take 15-30 minutes per person, and would be lost in a sea of "delete all because I can't be bothered to research" votes anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is clear, yeah. It also goes against deletion policy, which explicitly allows bundled AfDs. If you don't like bundled AfDs, the Deletion policy talk page is the place to try to get consensus for your POV. Like that good faith you're assuming, by the bye, that anyone claiming to have done due diligence must be a liar. Nha Trang Allons! 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. This is how mass AfDs always go - they either end in keep because "all X are notable" (rare) or no consensus because "some X are notable and individual X didn't receive proper attention." The option deletes are arguing is "all X are non-notable" which is not a possibility because the GNG can always override failing to meet some specific criteria. The default of an AfD is keep. If a subject (as an individual, not as an X) doesn't receive proper discussion, the discussion ends in no consensus defaulting to keep. Votes such as "if any of these people are notable, someone can take them to DRV" and efforts to force keeps to list sources for 40 articles simultaneously are trying to say the opposite - that the default is delete. That isn't how things work.
The more articles you list in one AfD the more likely it is to end in no consensus. A multi-AfD only makes practical sense if you are talking about a couple of closely relate subjects (e.g. a guy and his band), not if you are talking about 40 subjects only connected by the fact that they participated in the same contest. That is like saying I can nominate 40 different basketball players who played for Kentucky in one AfD because merely playing college ball doesn't make you notable. Of course many went on the have pro careers, and others meet the GNG, but hey I can point to one thing that they have in common that doesn't make them notable so it is up to you to prove each one is notable while I don't make any effort to check myself and say "delete because playing college basketball doesn't make you notable." If someone wishing to delete can't be bothered to make the effort to evaluate individuals separately, in is utterly unfair for them to expect others to do so either.
Incidentally, I checked 3 of the nominated articles at random. I easily found 2+ sources for each. Now, the sources may not hold up to scrutiny. However, no one can honestly scrutinize 40x2+ sources in a single AfD. Since some kind of sources exist, again the default should be keep in the absence of specific arguments against the quality of the sources.
The only real solution that complies with both policy and common sense is to redirect the useless articles (which is most of these) and renominate the others one-by-one AFTER first checking if the sourcing that can be found is substantial enough and reliable enough or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all In my opinion, none of these meet WP:NMODEL. Even the ones who have more than a one-sentence article do not meet any of the three criteria. BenLinus1214talk 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I think WP:NMODEL isn't a perfect fit but per point 1 ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") each contestant has had significant roles in notable productions. For example, Madison Guthrie has significant roles in the Miss Alabama USA and Miss USA 2015 productions. - Dravecky (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Being in the pageant production as one of 51 compeditors is not a "significant role". In a movie there might be 2-10 significant roles tops. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, it's not a perfect fit, and national-level beauty pageants are not movies. - Dravecky (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All you can really say is they don't meet it my virtue of being in the Miss America pageant. Without researching the individuals you can't say they don't meet NMODEL for some other aspect of their career, and you especially can't say they don't meet GNG without researching each person (which is the only actual requirement to be notable). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh profanity[edit]

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

WP:NOT a foreign language dictionary. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 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, Deadbeef 01:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of OTHERSTUFF EXISTS, but all I'll say is that we have Category:Profanity by language for a reason and dozens of other articles like this, I don't see why the Kazakh language is any less worthwhile than the others. In its current format it doesn't seem encyclopedic though, and some of the entries in the table do look like somebody having some childish fun with some of the phrases. I do think it's possible to create something a bit more sophisticated! It needs an overhaul and wider sourcing to be worthwhile, like the Finnish one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a set of dictionary entries: This has word, transliteration, meaning, sample uses and etymology. The handful of vague notes on Kazakh uses of profanity do not change this. However, writing a better article on the subject should be encouraged, and this would be part of that article. No objection. therefore, to recreation, or keeping this text in user-space. The closing admin should ask for people to host it, starting with Tavix. I'd be willing to, if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:DICDEF really applied we'd have to delete hundreds of articles including my entry on Hooray Henry. It is possible to write something encyclopedic about terms, however, this current entry has no place on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The present version is a childish list of forbidden words. It relies on one source, a dictionary, and is original research unless the dictionary says these terms are profane. That is irrelevant. The question is whether the subject has encyclopedic potential. If so, it should be tidied up and then expanded. Are there good sources that discuss the subject in some depth? Does profanity play a special role in Kazakh culture? Claims of "obscenity" are sometimes used for political censorship. Would that apply or have applied in Kazakhstan? Are there famous real or fictional examples? Borat? We need a Kazakh-speaker to inform us whether the sources exist. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Burks[edit]

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

I suspect this article is a hoax; I can find no mention of this individual. It's been out there since '07. Vrac (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, appears to be a hoax. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and archive to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. I can find absolutely nothing to show that this person exists. Normally with some hackers there would be some sort of chatter somewhere, either in reliable sources or at least in some of the non-usable sources (message boards and so on). I can't see where any of that exists, which means that either this person was extremely good at covering their tracks (leaving it up to a friend to make a memorial page) or more likely, the person just doesn't exist and this was a joke page someone threw together. The claims in this are pretty outrageous: the guy managed to hack into an office mainframe and release a virus, he wrote a type of virus programming that is being studied in universities throughout the USA, he reportedly got into the NSA's database, and he was part of a civilian-only special forces unit. These are some pretty large claims and it's highly, highly unlikely that someone with that sort of background wouldn't be written about somewhere. All I can find are mirrors of this Wikipedia site or people quoting it verbatim. No posts about him in reliable sources, no posts about him in various forums, nothing. You'd think that if the guy existed there'd be at least one news story or hacker blog that mentioned him, but there isn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good thing it only took us 8 years to realize it. I guess there are always a few that will slip through the cracks. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per Tokyogirl, per everything. Thought I'd turn on Highbeam for this one. Precisely 0 results across all time for the relatively basic search term "Jason Burks" v00d00 and all its variants, along with his death date, the quote from "Traffic Specialist Sgt. Ed Ferguson", and pretty much everything else in the article. Either he hired someone good to clear all traces of him (or did so himself) or, as Tokyogirl says, more likely is completely made up. Going back to the first edits of the page, they were the first three (and only three) edits of a user Skortch412. Going to have to call this one a pretty clear-cut hoax. Possible G3 candidate. Deadbeef 05:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's some differences on the actual redirect but deletion is clear. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Dunn[edit]

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

Notable for only a single event, poorly sourced only to a facebook post. Article created by a huge corporate sponsored effort using meat/socks. Legacypac (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMODEL Criteria: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

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

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

c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as I can't find any shred of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010Talk 01:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely apologize If I or Legacy have offended anyone with what we said .... We were simply making light-hearted jokes but in hindsight probably not a wise idea (I've decided to remove them since its best all round I think), Again sorry!, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I fail to see what her appearance has to do with anything, but fails WP:BIO and WP:NMODEL. If she wins the article can be recreated. And can we please move any discussion not related to notability elsewhere, preferably off-wiki. Valfontis (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Trout for the leering comments about BLP subjects. Not funny, just stupid. That said: this is one of a web of 50 (or so) stub bios for the Miss USA 2015 pageant contestants. One would think this should be a mass nomination. What is the AfD precedent on such biographies of contestants who have won no award other than the state preliminaries? Most of these are pretty much not going to be GNG passes outside of the BLP-1E wins of the preliminary competitions, don't you think? I have no further opinion about the specifics of this particular AfD nomination. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: WP:NMODEL applies. In most prior years we only had articles for the National winner (another policy on contests somewhere) but that was not a big enough link building opportunity. If/when a girl does something more notable, like becomes a notable actress, TV anchor, or Playboy model (like one I saw) then they get an article. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Roberts Stoler[edit]

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

Article sources are purely WP:SPS aside from one reference that has nothing to do with this person and does not establish WP:BIO. Article is full of WP:OR, which is not surprising given this is an obvious autobiography, likely written to promote her books on Amazon (which is also used as a reference). -War wizard90 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've struck your !vote as it is implied by your nomination. Deadbeef 01:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_20&oldid=1142625982"