Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 June	5 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FC Buffalo season[edit]

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

These season articles fail WP:NSEASONS as the National Premier Soccer League is not a "top professional league." The NPSL is actually a developmental league on the "4th tier" of the United States soccer league system. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 D.C. United U-23 season which covers a season article on a team in the same league as FC Buffalo, which was deleted. Note: This was originally prodded, but the prod was removed by now disgraced user OccultZone. Tavix | Talk 23:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 00:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 00:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my concern is that there is likely to be very little coverage of this team necessary to make a page. Right now it's entirely original research. mikeman67 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a member of WP:WNY and local I can say there is no notability even from a Google search. It's too minor league. Buffaboy ^talk 04:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although opinions are mixed here, the balance of arguments lies with the fact that this is a BLP that currently contains negative content related to two specific incidents. If a redirect is desirable, it certainly does not need this history. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Hannan[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable journalist / WP:COATRACK article, overloaded with undue weight on one or two controversies. One single line of text that's not controversy :/ Alison ^❤ 23:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically, although the article is neat and sourced with the two controversies, there's nothing aside from with the following searches providing nothing significant and notable here, here (two passing mentions) and here (Highbeam and nothing at thefreelibrary). SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Essay Anne Vanderbilt controversy. Add in any missing details related to the Rule lawsuit to the article on Rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per JPL —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep He has received enough attention to justify an article, which is now far better sourced and expanded thanks to User:AuthorAuthor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note it would also be possible to redirect this to the NPOV summary of the incident that already exists at Grantland.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as well as a national and regional award and therefore passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). WP:COATRACK does not even remotely apply here. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But the subject has not received significant coverage; two events he was associated with have. This article is a single line of biography, plus two controversial incidents in extreme detail, plus one negative 'award' plus one minor one. It reads as a hatchet job and a classic WP:BLP1E, not a biography. This subject is not notable in his own right. At best, redirect it to Grantland, as @E.M.Gregory: suggests - Alison ^❤ 19:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Journalist bios are notably hard to source out to meet GNG and I generally favor cutting them some slack. On the other hand, this seems like a real coatrack, edging towards an abusive BLP. It needs to be fixed, if kept. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a WP:COATRACK and borderline WP:ATTACK piece, the subject is just another run-of-the-mill newspaper writer who got into one or the other controversy. His envolvement in these controversies may be stated at the articles which talk about them, i.e. Grantland (where he is already mentioned) and Ann Rule (where he is not mentioned because he was not directly involved). Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this article currently fails the notability guidelines. If they in the future meet the guidelines (such as by actually playing for the Winnipeg Jets) let me know and I will restore. Davewild (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chase De Leo[edit]

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

NN mid-level amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No independent, significant coverage found to meet the GNG other than routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. One of several such articles created by WpgJets4Life. Ravenswing 21:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with the other Winnipeg Jets prospects you have marked for deletion. However, I think Chase De Leo should be left up, as he was selected to Team USA, in the 2015 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championships. He also scored the winning goal, as the US defeated Finland, during the tourney. WpgJets4Life (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being named to the U20 team, or playing in the WJC, doesn't meet NHOCKEY or accord any presumptive notability. Ravenswing 06:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly constitutes `deletion`from Wikipedia, in terms of hockey leagues or skills. I read the Ice Hockey section, but it's somewhat convoluted. TOo bad there are no specific examples. I notice there are Jets players that were chosen much later, but still have Wikipedia entries. So if a player is in some obscure European league (i.e. Swedish or Russian) is safe from deletion, when the AHL is an arguably superior league. Just seems funny that it seems there is a pro-European bias, especially looking at Round 4 entries of the 2014 NHL Draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WpgJets4Life (talk • contribs) 09:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NHOCKEY isn't convoluted at all. It's quite simple, and we really don't need examples: if you've played in a top-end league, you're eligible. If you're a first round draft choice, you're eligible. If you've played enough games in a high enough minor league, you're eligible. If you're a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame, you're eligible. If you've led a minor or major junior league in scoring or been a first team all-star, you're eligible. If you've done none of these things, you probably aren't.
What NHOCKEY seeks to interpret is hockey's end of WP:GNG, which holds that a subject who has received "significant coverage" in multiple, reliable, independent sources is notable. Our take is that someone who's played in the NHL or led the ECHL in scoring likely has received that coverage, and someone who's a third-liner in the Federal Hockey League or the Quebec major junior league probably hasn't. You might not care about Swedish or Russian hockey, but I assure you that the hockey fans in Sweden and Russia do, and hockey receives a great deal of coverage in those nations; someone who plays in their national leagues get just as much press, and that's what meets the GNG. Ravenswing 20:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you may want to review WP:DONTBITE Thanks! WpgJets4Life (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)WpgJets4Life[reply]

I'm familiar with it, thanks. What did I post above that you claim is bitey? Ravenswing 05:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in terms of wikipedia is based on how much coverage they get in sources. Players playing in top level national leagues in places like Sweden or Russia to use your examples usually get more news coverage in their respective countries that AHL players will get in the US/Canada. Notability isn't about skill or the league they are in. It is all about WP:GNG/WP:NHOCKEY. And I would hardly cause either of those leagues obscure they are both covered heavily in hockey media. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. WpgJets4Life (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)WpgJets4Life[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if they meet them through hockey or any other means. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails at WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could this article on Chase De Leo be archived, if it is voted for deletion? Today, it was just announced that De Leo has signed a contract with the NHL Winnipeg Jets, so in the event that he plays in the NHL for at least one game in 2015-16, which is highly possible, the author will not have to start off from scratch. WpgJets4Life (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Lipon[edit]

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

NN mid-level amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No independent, significant coverage found to meet the GNG other than routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. One of several such articles created by WpgJets4Life. Ravenswing 21:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NHOCKEY for now, as it seems slightly WP:TOOSOON. Since he currently has played 161 AHL games, if he keeps playing at this rate he should be eligible for an article at some point during the 2015-16 season. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:HOCKEY. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for now. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austen Brassard[edit]

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

NN mid-level amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No independent, significant coverage found to meet the GNG other than routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. One of several such articles created by WpgJets4Life. Previous AfD last December closed as a Delete. Ravenswing 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, fails NHOCKEY. Worth noting that this likely isn't a G4 candidate as it is not similar to the originally deleted version. This one is, in fact, worse. Reso lute 14:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored history from before the previous deletion so that you can see how it was before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Nogier[edit]

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

NN mid-level amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No independent, significant coverage found to meet the GNG other than routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. One of several such articles created by WpgJets4Life. Ravenswing 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable junior amateur player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets either of them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:HOCKEY. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milton C. Pickens[edit]

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

Milton C. Pickens does not meet general notability criteria. He died in an aircraft accident during training in WW2, while tragic, this alone is not notable enough for inclusion. The crash was publicized in period newspapers, along with thousands of other crashes. As far as I know he did not receive a high medal like the Medal of Honor or Navy Cross and he had no ships or bases named in his honor. He does have a plaque at a library that was built years after the crash, near the site of the crash, but that is not enough for inclusion. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7: no indication of importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, my searches (News, Books, Newspapers archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and notable. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notability than any other pilot killed in an accident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of reliable, secondary, significant coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am in agreement with the others above, but I wonder if such a prominent plaque might indicate more than purely local notability. Bearian (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Barid Shah I[edit]

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

Created by a since blocked user, the page lacks sources and the claim that he "played a key logistical role" is contradicted in that the larger Battle of Talikota page does not mention him. mikeman67 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - based on sources introduced by PWilkinson, he appears to meet the notability guidelines. Thank you for finding those and my mistake for the nomination. mikeman67 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: while cited, the cite is questionable (textbooks are often just blatantly factually incorrect) and does not seem notable. Ogress _smash! 21:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the status of the creator of the article and however poor the article itself, just a little WP:BEFORE would have quickly established that the subject was the ruler of a sovereign state, the Bidar Sultanate, for nearly forty years (from about 1542 to about 1579, apparently with one or two short interruptions) and thus, by any reasonable interpretation, meets WP:POLITICIAN. For sources, try this, this, this and this. PWilkinson (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, seems to qualify as ruler of a sovereign state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I will then create a redirect from this title to Otaku USA. I'm not turning this article into a redirect because I don't see any evidence that they are related. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku Magazine[edit]

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

I did a search and found no trace of WP:Notability, there was a mention of the magazine here [1] but no in depth coverage. I have also not found much on Xvolve Publishing either, clicking on the magazine's official website now provides a dead link possibly indicating that the magazine is now defunct. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a defunct magazine, and fails GNG [2] —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well it's a print magazine that was active from 2005-2009 and was distributed on magazine shelves like at the airport as mentioned in this essay [3] There's also this article clip that was saved on a blog, must have been from a newspaper. [4] Its editor-in-chief left in 2009 and this blog laments the shutdown: [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your search. Well the essay is something, but other than the primary blogs I am not seeing any in depth coverage here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches only found results for a Otaku USA Magazine not this one, there doesn't appear to be significant and considerable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then turn into a redirect to Otaku USA. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Minds[edit]

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

Deleted at 2012 AfD. Recreated by WP:SPA. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It exists, has screened in festivals, and can be watched, but it has no coverage, commentary, or analysis in reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again unfortunately because my searches found no good sources. SwisterTwister talk 15:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An AfD Delete decision should not be overturned for an essentially unsourced stub. This didn't even need to come to AfD, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dayna Shereck[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON at best. Promotional article by WP:SPA. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional and no evidence of notability - Even a rewrite can't save this promotional crap!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon - The best my searches found was some News links and I searched at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary and found nothing significant, I also found a Songwriters Association of Canada bio. SwisterTwister talk 16:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iskander Galiev[edit]

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

I could not find that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable director; maybe WP:TOOSOON —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not demonstrated Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite multiple searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) I found nothing aside from a passing mention. SwisterTwister talk 16:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no compelling claim to notability and there are really no sources. The one listed I went there and could find no mention to Galiev. It may be there somewhere, but it is not where the link takes you and is not easily findable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The delete arguments (that the coverage identified here and on the article is not the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources required in order to establish notability) are much stronger than the keep arguments that do not refute this. Davewild (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moroch[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP notability requirements. Best online sources are individual client engagements in Adweek, or routine announcements; there is no in-depth coverage of the firm. The 1999 New York Times source currently used [6] is a good example: four sentence long routine announcement of another party's investment in the firm. Brianhe (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wish there were fewer press releases online so that the articles about the company showed up better. However, even with sorting out all the press releases, there are still only brief mentions and routine announcements about the company. Nothing in-depth to show notability. --TTTommy111 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To be transparent, I aided an Moroch affiliate in updating this article, but have no particular interest in the subject. My gut instinct however is given the number of high-profile clients the agency is notable. AgencySpy, a website devoted to subjects such as this, seems to offer more in-depth information about the organization other than just naming the major clients ([7][8]). I also found this Bloomberg Business entry showing some key facts. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Bloomberg listing would be classified as WP:ROUTINE business directory stuff. — Brianhe (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is another article about Moroch's founders in 2006 for reference to help prove legitimacy: http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/11/20/smallb1.html and here is another from this week from Media Post outlining the latest big hire: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/251152/mcdonalds-marketer-heads-to-mcdonalds-agency-mor.html 216.250.142.101 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IP appears to belong to the organization. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked, apparently (user Mjespo23). Should that comment be struck out? — Brianhe (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mjespo23 got unblocked earlier. However, Mjespo23 and the IP should be counted as one person, at WP:Help desk they said they were the same person. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, based on this and this I think it's the organization's IP. Either way I think comment is fine, we're not counting !votes anyway, and there is no inherent block evasion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) If the guy's making a substantive contribution to the discussion (even if I disagree that the sources he put up qualify), I see no reason to bust his chops on COI. If someone working for the company comes up with qualifying sources, COI's a poor sole reason to pitch them. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear above, I completely with this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've checked the links the Keep proponents put out there, and not a single one discusses the company (as opposed to founders or anyone or anything else) in substantial detail: even if they were all reliable sources, they're soundbites. Notability doesn't come from having high-profile clients; it comes from receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Where are they, please? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the sources too, and no substantial mentions of the company, it's all about the people or the clients. Notability is not inherited from either of these. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm from Dallas and I'm not familiar with company but my searches found nothing significant aside from this and they're listed at Inc. here but the rankings aren't significant. I also found highbeam and thefreelibrary results but either they're not significant or press releases (mostly the second one has these). SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to clear the GNG bar. Obviously, PR corporations are as popular with Wikipedians as minor league baseball players who lose city council elections and then document their achievements solely with their momma's website... Carrite (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry to be a pest, but can you show me "clear?" I would be willing to change my vote but it looks like the only real source is from the Biz Journals. The other stuff is PR work and routine mentions of its partnerships.--TTTommy111 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted G11 & A7 by Bbb23 NAC –Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Assam[edit]

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

This blog fails notability guidelines for web content due to not having any coverage about the blog in independent sources. As written it contains significant promotional language as well. Borderline CSD A7, but I think the article could be seen as asserting some importance or significance, although without sources to back it up. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage at all, fails WP:WEB. Esquivalience ^t 20:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tibbehah County, Mississippi[edit]

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

No sources are given which indicate why this fictional location is notable or significant, and the page seems to be written in a largely in-universe style. The sources that are given seem to just be book reviews that mention this location. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have experience with fictional places, but if it meets WP:GNG, then I would advise keep. Otherwise we need to get rid of all fiction places (Neverland). Doesn't have the coverage that Neverland does, but has coverage. --TTTommy111 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):I don't have a lot of experience in this area either, but the sources given seem to just be book reviews that mention this location in the context of reviewing the book and not indicating why it is significant. The page seems more an in-universe effort than an encyclopedic article. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - is there a way to speedy delete this? Non-notable fictional setting; article apparently created by fan whose username is the same as this article, and who has given great thought to these fictional characters: "COLSON FAMILY Jason Colson I (b. 1944) -- I think he’s a burnout, washed-up, but an essentially charismatic and likable guy. He has a very hoarse voice from years of cigarettes and alcohol abuse. Very self destructive but a survivor. Long gray hair. Goatee. Recluse. Works with horses." —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a CSD criteria that would qualify; I PRODded it but it was removed by the page creator. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't see how this can possibly pass notability tests. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is indeed a fictional place created by author Ace Atkins. The fictional place "Tibbehah County" has some notability, but likely not enough for its own article (eg. "Tibbehah County (fictional location)"). Some of this article could likely be merged into the Atkins article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe mention at Ace Atkins article - My searches found nothing to suggest this has independent notability but at least it is mentioned enough through Ace Atkins. SwisterTwister talk 16:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm making a page on the series with a limited amount of information about the county, so when I'm finished with that, this can redirect there. It doesn't, however, pass notability guidelines to where it'd merit a page of its own since there aren't really any sources that talk directly about this county in the same way that Neverland or Mordor would be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only brief mentions, not separate from the book. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SNOW. Even though reviews may mention briefly this imaginary world, it really is in context of the author. I also recall the debate over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeast North Dakota State University, which ended in a snowy delete; that should be a precedent, even though I argued against speedy deletion. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for International Study and Development[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No indications of any significant coverage of this organization in any reliable sources. Various online charity monitors list it as a small organization with an annual budget of under $50,000 annually, so it is unlikely to make the kind of impact that would lead to significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This organization currently serves several hundred students who would otherwise have no access to education. "Non-notability" is not relevant to this Page, as it is notable to the region it serves abroad. As a fairly new organization, CISD has garnered little press coverage under its current name, but the organization it was formerly known as has been mentioned by numerous reputable sources, such as the World Health Organization, as can be seen on the page.

~~http://www.who.int/hac/pakistan_earthquake%20sitrp3_13nov08.pdf~~

~~HakimSaid (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) HakimSaid — HakimSaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, also written pretty promotionally, against WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dan61- honestly it just seems like you are trolling. I have reviewed your article on the film "cloud" which has little sources (that are not significant) as listed, no importance or notability. This film has little potential to impact or be seen. What you claim about that other page can be said about yours. or in your words, "so it is unlikely to make the kind of impact that would lead to significant coverage." I hope I do not offend but I am very confused.

~~google search: [9]~~

~~wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)~~

~~Sagaines (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)— Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

as well as you have supported similar articles in the past that are a small time business with little significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beulah_London Sagaines (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)sgaines— Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Joseph2302 - I dont see how it is promotional. Sagaines (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)sgaines— Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

It doesn't impart any information, instead it just tells you about every product/service they have. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is generally what companies, business, and organizations are written about. They are their products and services. The information written isnt biased in any way. If i compare it to the Clinton foundation's page the only difference is the Clinton foundation has sections on history and past contributors. (so therefore the article should just be edited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's how companies write about themselves, but that is not an acceptable tone for a Wikipedia article, as it is inherently promotional, not WP:NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then if you really believe that then there are thousands of other pages you believe need to be contested. What an organization or business sells or provides in terms of services and programs is what they do. and is fact. promoting would take on a more biased tone. If you think the page is lacking some information then suggest it as I have about contributors and history. dont just police and monitor. They are not trying to sell anything for their own gain, its a non-profit! they help people. lets help them help people. we want to improve the world not make it worse. Sagaines (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)sagaines[reply]

Comment @HakimSaid: Serving "several hundred students" is laudable but it is not notable. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (that apply to all topics, non-profit organizations included) require significant coverage in independent media, of which I find none for CISD. If you are going to rely on coverage of the former name of the organization, it might be of use to editors if you mentioned the name. The current article does not name it, and your own organization's website contains only a minor obscure reference to the organization named Pen Foundation International (who is named as an "international partner" but whom I presume to be the former organization). That being the case, I found precious little reliable information about PFI either. @Sagaines: Please remember to assume good faith: I am not trolling, but rather raising a concern about an article that I do not believe merits inclusion in Wikipedia. The notability of the articles to which I have contributed is irrelevant; the present article will be evaluated on its own merits, not in comparison to other articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sagaines: "Let's help them help people" -- that sounds a lot like "Let's promote them", and that's not what Wikipedia does. Not for for-profit companies, and not for non-profits. CISD's mission is laudable, but Wikipedia isn't the soapbox form which they should spread the word. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

im saying you(dan61) have saved a page before so why don't you try to be productive and help them improve it, instead of just negatively commenting. they are harmless, you aren't actually gaining anything from deleting them. I am not saying lets promote them. this is hardly a promotion. I keep bringing up the relevance of other pages because unfortunetly that is the standard not the rules. and unfortunately then there are thousands of articles "promoting" themselves as you say. Im not saying lets help them promote themselves, im saying show some humanity and be constructive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs)

Comment @Sagaines: I've improved articles in the past where there was source material available to do so. Here, there is none. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all bring up great points. I think it would be really helpful if they did add a history section. It's a new non-profit so I think there's a lot of room to grow. I think we should give them a chance. Jlin09 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)jlin09 — Jlin09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Taking all this into account, I'm working on adding some more encyclopedic information to subsidize the info about the orgs projects, e.g. a history per @Sagaines' suggestion. Also putting together some news sources on the site. Thanks for the constructive criticism, its my first article HakimSaid (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)HakimSaid [reply]

Comment Taking into account that the organization lists its Executive Director as Hakim Said, I think we have to assume a conflict of interest here. That doesn't outright preclude useful contributions, but it does weigh against the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a legitimate concern that there may be a conflict of interest, the language and prose do not seem to indicate bias Jlin09 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)jlin09 — Jlin09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is a discussion, not a vote. Seems very suspicious that so many new accounts have decided to defends this, opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HakimSaid. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CAWRI-CISD`/Archive, all the above SPAs were confirmed as sockpuppets, so I've struck their comments. This now leaves the discussion with me and @WikiDan61: supporting delete, and no other legitimate comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply with the search "Center for International Study and Development NGO" (also adding "Washington") I found nothing aside from results for other organizations. Compare the current information and the current sources, there's no notabiility or potential improvement here thus unacceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 16:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's promotional spam. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's based upon the availability of reliable sources. Closing as no consensus due to a lack of adequate discussion regarding the viability of the sources provided early in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Habib ibn Zayd al-Ansari[edit]

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

I'm not familiar with Islam martyrs but I don't see many sources for this to make it notable. A search here found a few results which repeat alot of the article's current information, but again, I'm not sure if this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no shortage of results when you search his name in Arabic ("حبيب بن زيد بن عاصم") —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: - Such as what results? SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what you would expect for an ancient Islamic martyr: [10], [11], [12], [13], also referenced in footnote here in English [14], [15] —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless citations are applied I defer to the user above who claimed to find reliable sources in Arabic. Wikipedia still requires that information which is presented must be followed by a citation to the source from which it came. If someone adds citations to the content, then Keep, otherwise, the minimal standards which Wikipedia demands have not been met. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- That an article needs improvement is no ground for deletion. Not being a Muslim, I have no incentive to improve it myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the page is right now, nothing to support it meeting the WP:GNG. I can't tell if this person is apocryphal or historical. mikeman67 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gli anni di Cristo[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. " It was deprodded by }the creator with the following edit summary: "A book of poetry quoted by RAI Television, by newspapers as "La Repubblica", "Corriere della sera", invited for presentation at important Festival as "Salerno letteratura" and judged by Barberi Squarotti as "a very good book" is without doubts notable". While I don't read Italian, the references seem to mention the book in passing. No reliable source has presented a review of it, nor does it seem to won any awards that would give it automatic notability. The creator should be advised that not all books are notable, and his attempt to promote Menotti Lerro by stubbing every work he created is not proper for the encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Dear Piotrus, thank you for writing it. I just want to let you know I like this poet and his amazing opera so, if you don't mind, I like working on projects about him because I think he earned it. In my opinion the book is notable, as in yours is not. And I respect your point of view. All the bestSellysellyheart (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

PS

I want to let you know that - at the least in Italy - it is almost impossible to be quoted "in passing" (as you wrote) in that newspapers, ecc. if your work is not really apreciated, in particular for poetry and more for not very "old" and "famous" poets... Regards,Sellysellyheart (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sellysellyheart: Dear Sally, I appreciate you writing about things you like (see my comment on your talk page), but if you want to have this article kept, please address the question I posed, namely how does it pass the Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus, I think you are missing the point: I was telling you about 'my aim of working on things I like' to make clear that it is not my intention to "attempt to promote the author stubbing every work of him" as you said, but just because I like his work and I tried to propose it at the community. If they are not enough notable for it, doesn't matter, the community will decide it, but, please, do not write I am attempting at something (bombs like that, in this historical period could be dangerous... ;-) ) Is it making a sense for you? You seems to me getting too seriously your role and position... ;-) Do whatever prefer: delete, cut, break, ecc. I don't really mind. I give up! Take good care! And happy writing and deletions ;-) Sellysellyheart (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Menotti Lerro; only receives passing mentions, and there's little content to be merged, if any (I'm skeptical about quotes in praise of a book sourced only to the publisher, as it may be quoted out of context or there may be a connection between publisher and quoted person). Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to redirect something to a WP:REDLINK. Kraxler (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete these "books" soon!Devbasdev (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real claim of notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that User:Sellysellyheart has been blocked as a sock puppet. We've deleted the other books by Menotti Lerro in the last week, and are considering deleting his page as well unless more RS are found. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oryx and Crake. Davewild (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaddAddam (TV series)[edit]

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

Television project in development, with no script or pilot order- nothing has been filmed or even written. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, as project is not at all certain to take place. Doesn't merit a standalone article at this time. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete HBO's pilot process is a lot different from the industry and has left alot of projects many other networks would pick up not so on HBO. No prejudice to re-creation if this gets a series order, but for now, just something in a "when we get to it" kind of development. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of television projects enter the development pipeline, but for one reason or another fail to ever come out the other end. The time for an article about it, accordingly, is not "the moment the project is announced as being in development", but "when the show is officially upfronted by the network" — meaning when we know for sure that it's definitely happening and not just planned. Until then, it's WP:TOOSOON for us to maintain a standalone article about it. Delete, without prejudice against recreation once HBO officially announces a firm premiere date. Update: also willing to accept Tokyogirl's suggested redirect to the first novel in the trilogy. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Oryx and Crake. If this trilogy had a series page I'd suggest merging and redirecting there, but lacking this I'd suggest that this be merged into the page for the first book. This has only been recently announced and even if it gets a pilot made there's still no guarantee that it'd be picked up. I'd wager that only 10% of prospective series get made into series and even then, that estimate is probably a little too high and that's still no guarantee that the series would be popular enough to warrant a page. But like I said, merge and redirect is probably the best outcome in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure it's worth noting on the book's page that a series is in development for the reasons you mentioned- it may end up being fruitless. The information fails WP:CRYSTAL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that development of the series based on the book has begun is not crystalballing, but sourced and relevant information. Whether it merits an article is another question. Sandstein 19:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Development news is not encyclopedic, since nothing has yet been produced. It is news that something might happen, which is definitely in CRYSTAL territory. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CRYSTAL would cover unsourced predictions about when the show might premiere, who might be cast in it, how many episodes it might have, how faithful it might or mightn't be to the original books, and on and so forth. If the source says "project is in development" and our article says the same without going beyond what can be sourced, then that certainly falls under WP:TOOSOON but isn't a CRYSTAL issue. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oryx and Crake as suggested above until it gets more coverage. Sandstein 19:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Oryx and Crake per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 09:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belén Francese[edit]

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

Notability not established, unable to find reliable sources that meet WP:BIO requirements. Tgeairn (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete for now as multiple searches (News, Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary and Argentine newspapers La Prensa, Cronica, Buenos Aires Herald and El Tribuno) found nothing outstandingly notable and significant and only found results here, here and here but I'm not sensing she's notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - acting/modeling credentials appear to be about reality shows and putting naked photos on Instagram —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reiterating what was said above: no sources, indicating a lack of notability, and fails [WP:GNG]] and WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mah Sing Group[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is notable as my searches here, here (some of the same results but ranged farther), here, here and here found nothing that seems significant and notable. A press release here named them one of the best companies to work for in Asia for 2013 but that won't save the article. The article and company's website says it was founded in 1965 but this must be inaccurate then because it says "18th anniversary". Any comments? SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @SwisterTwister This one puzzles me a little bit. I see tons of sources, but not sure if they all relate to the same company. It develops real estate and manufactures plastics and if you remove the "Berhad" from the Google search, you return these results [16]. I think if we can verify that it is publicly traded, I would be willing to leave a keep vote. Thoughts? --TTTommy111 (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's indeed publicly traded at the Malaysian Stock Exchange, stock sign MSGB:MK according to Bloomberg or MAHS.KL according to Reuters. Kraxler (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachtyar Ali[edit]

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

Bio for a non-notable poet that has remained the same and there don't seem to be signs of improvement. Searches at News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing aside from a few news links. Considering the article has both a BBC and Sunday Times link, I searched at those websites and found nothing (Sunday Times article is paywalled). The Farsi Wikipedia has this (which I don't know what it says) and the Kurdish Wikipedia looks basically the same as English. SwisterTwister talk 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm concerned with systemic bias in this case as the subject is poet and writer working in a language that would not be commonly spoken by editors on the English Language Wikipedia. The best evidence for notability is BBC article which features the Ali as the primary subject, and is a substantial writeup. A search of the Times Literary Supplement site shows a little snippet of the full article which is paywalled. That snippet is sufficient to surmise that this book review (which includes a copyright acknowledgement to the times.co.uk) is a copy of the one from TLS. This review is also substantial. Note that the BBC piece, and the review are from the same author. I suspect that is likely due to a limited supply of writers/journalist fluent in Kurdish and English. This Reuters article is a passing mention, but states that Ali's 1992 poetry collection "Sin and the Carnival" and magical realist novels marked a Kurdish cultural renaissance that flowered after the region broke free of Saddam's grip in 1991. I'm not sure if this is the same person, but the movie Shewi Hisab give a writing credit to a Bachtyar Ali for a novel. That might mean the movie was based on his novel, but I wasn unable to track down any more information. Give two substantial pieces of coverage, and the other items which hint at signifigance as a Kurdish writer, I suspect that Kurdish sources are likely out there somewhere to provide further support for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - don't understand this AfD. BBC article (in English) clearly identifies him as a "leading novelist" so I don't know why nom called him a "non-notable poet." Also, bringing up a Wikipedia article in another language and discounting it as "I don't know what it says" is not a good vote of confidence in an AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the nom was referring to a source that was a available in the Farsi Wikipedia article rather than the article itself. If you click on the link, it leads to a an article on a site "Kurd Press International News Agency". I tried a Google translate on it (and I suspect the nom did too). The translation comes out as word salad. However, it does credit its sources which in the translation includes Wikipedia, so I would discount that article as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - but it's in Farsi... Google Translate does Farsi. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you try the translation? I did. It's a complete mess of words from which it is quite difficult to extract anything truly meaningful. -- Whpq (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed I was referring to the link and not Farsi Wiki and although BBC may call him "leading", the low amount of other sources are a concern so basically it's relied on one source. @Whpq:, are you aware that the BBC link you posted above is the same one in the article? I searched BBC and found no further results so it seems that's the only article. I fully acknowledge the possiblity of other sources but not in English but the concern is whether enough exists or is available to save the article. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao[edit]

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

Basically unsourced article with one link that appears to be a blog, but from what I can tell, doesn't cover what the article says. Of all my searches, Books was the only one that found a few results (this particular one supports the Indira Gandhi Award but that's pretty much it). Searches at News, Scholar, thefreelibrary and highbeam so it's likely good sources are non-English and offline but I don't see why this article should be kept given the longtime issues. SwisterTwister talk 15:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this might even qualify for speedy delete under A7. There's really no claim made to anything notable about him, let alone providing any reliable sources. I defer to nominator that there's nothing online out there that would help with this article. I think clearly fails WP:BASIC. mikeman67 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cock-A-Doodle Deux Deux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the above, and wonder at the Keep proponents the second time out. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move again as suggested as this is not independently notable and Books found passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966, mentions in books are trivial or list entries. Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad Habash[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with one role and no previous experience who starrred in a notable film. Searches here, here here and here found some results but nothing to build and improve this article. An alternative I considered is moving to the film's article Ajami. Any comments? SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think he would be notable even with the one role. However, there are no sources to support anything other than he was in the film. It would be nice to see a few features about his role, but nothing comes up in Google news other than brief mentions. --TTTommy111 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability as actor. Quis separabit? 21:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masood Akhtar[edit]

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

Biography for a non-notable singer with no evidence of significant and notable sources despite multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) with the only relevant result being this (someone else, 1913-2009) and searches at Pakistani newspapers, Daily Mail, Express Tribune, Daily Times and including at Urdu Lahore Post found nothing. Simply not notable and nothing to suggest keeping this article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no indication that any independent sources have written about him or that any of the other criteria listed have been met. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced BLP. sami ^talk 23:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoCubes[edit]

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

despite some removal of promotional material, remains not notable. Most of the refs are trivial or not really aboutthe company., TheNew Indian Express article is reprinted PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a start-up but it has sufficient coverage IMO. In addition to all the usual VC headlines, more mentions: [17], [18], among winners for start-up award competition [19], ranked fifth on Deloitte Technology Fast50 India list —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if after this much effort by the page creator, and not a single reliable article can be provided, unlikely this page could ever meet GNG and CORP notability rules. Did not find anything myself either. mikeman67 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with —Мандичка^YO arguments, but it seems to me not very correct to include sites in the Wikipedia. May be the alter article on "Job Search in India" would be better and this one will put into subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like an ad for a company Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and Fails WP:ORG and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability; the sources provided aren't really about the company. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided do not provide significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:GNG; some of the sources are promotional and others aren't about the subject, but just contain minor mentions. Ghostwheel ʘ 21:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as SNOW. Quis separabit? 22:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdolrezaei[edit]

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

This is probably a good case of WP:TNT as it would need a compete rewrite and several links are simply poetry links and no significant notable and in-depth coverage. My multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) only found this and this. Obviously, coverage about him, if any, is probably going to be non-English and offline but I can't see why that should keep the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think you've answered your own question, in two ways. Firstly, you have found reliable sources which go far towards establishing notability in English, the first of which indeed states explicitly that Abdolrezaei is "one of Iran's most influential poets". Secondly, if a person is notable in one country, not necessarily English-speaking, not necessarily online, then they are notable. You are surely correct that Iranian poets are likely to be written about mainly in Persian: you do not appear, per WP:BEFORE, to have asked any Persian speakers. We should certainly do that now before taking any under-researched action. Meanwhile, I'll add some references to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The search "abdolrezaei ali" -blog -forum -facebook seems to be finding many more results, by the way. I have made use of some of the new sources to strengthen the article; I have also tidied up the format, removed a possible copyvio, rewritten the poetry section and updated the old URLs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 21:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is not easy for me to judge the merits of a non-English language poet, but the fact that he had 7 volumes published before leaving Iran and more since and that his work is getting translated inot German and Turkish suggests to me that he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited in the article establish notability. I would like to see the article improved (e.g. why was he exiled?), and someone fluent in Arabic could probably locate a number of non-English sources to do that. However, WP:GNG is met by the existing sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1968. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Derriere[edit]

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Inspector. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1968, which already includes an entry with key informations for this episode. Not enough coverage nor enough contents to justify a spin-off article. Cavarrone 19:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Inspector. It seems that this is one of the most obvious cases. Shad Innet (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Inspector does not mention "London Derriere", List of The Inspector cartoons does. Cavarrone 10:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1967. Davewild (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Can-Can[edit]

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1967, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no objection to a redirect) - as above. Neutrality^talk 23:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't really see this as a plausible search term so I would prefer delete. mikeman67 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1967 Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the reasons listed above. The article is getting a handful of views a day, so I'd say that a redirect would be helpful. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1967. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sacre Bleu Cross[edit]

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1967, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plastered in Paris[edit]

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree that this episode is not independently notable. Neutrality^talk 23:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Blown-Aparte[edit]

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as above. Neutrality^talk 23:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaux, Reaux, Reaux Your Boat[edit]

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

non notable individual episode Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inspector cartoons#1966, no enough coverage nor enough contents to sustain a separate article for this episode. Cavarrone 04:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is there a reason why you nominated all of these separately? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as above. I agree that these really should have been bundled into one omnibus nomination. Neutrality^talk 23:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Wikimandia I tried that with similar articles for the pink panther episodes, and there was a huge problem with entrenched editors claiming that each episode was an exception for some reason and that they shouldn't be bundled. It took 2 mass AFDs, and several individual AFDs as well to get rid of them. Since some of the same editors are involved in these articles I didn't want to go through the same crap again. I apologize for the AFD spam tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Botswana[edit]

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

Non-notable local pageant, failing WP:RS and WP:GNG. The claimed "tradition" is just one event old. The Banner talk 19:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft-article where the "sources" are a Facebook-page, a Pinterest-image, a blog/forum and a dead link. A worrying pattern of non-WP:RS sources (I could have used a much worse description of it, but we're supposed to AGF...) that we can see in all articles created/edited by the creator of this article. Thomas.W ^talk 22:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the above. Neutrality^talk 23:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources covering it. Davewild (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Thailand[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent sourcing as required by WP:RS The Banner talk 19:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major competition, selecting contestants to five internationnal beauty pageants. Article has already Lots of sources, I will add some more later. Kraxler (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice when you add independent sources conform WP:RS instead of related sources. The Banner talk 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notabilty under WP:GNG we need coverage in "reliable sources which are independent of the subject". The Bangkok Post and The Nation are major metropolitan newspapers that are reliable sources under the guideline, there can't be any doubt about it, or do you question that? Now, how would they be related to the Miss Grand Thailand pageant? See Wikipedia:Independent sources#Examples, and tell me which one is it, "Owner, employees, corporate website, sales brochure, competitor"? Kraxler (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an essay, not a guideline as WP:GNG or WP:RS The Banner talk 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another fancruft-article where the sources are forums, blogs, dead links and at best a passing mention in a source that at first sight seems reliable, but when checked has nothing to do with the subject of the article (the article in Bangkok Post that Kraxler mentions above is about a resort in Thailand, with only a passing mention of Miss Grand Thailand, and thus doesn't count at all when checking notability, and the article in The Nation is about that same resort and the girls who competed, with no in-depth coverage of Miss Grand Thailand, as required by WP:GNG, and thus doesn't count either...). Thomas.W ^talk 22:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRUFT and WP:ITSCRUFT, the latter an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". This article is a list of results and an overview of the pageant. Obviously most of the coverage refers to the particular annual pageants, and is written in Thai letters, difficult to search for. Besides, the nominator has nominated a large number of Miss-related articles for deletion (many of which have been closed already, and were kept) and I spent the whole last week to dig up sources for them. You, Thomas W., should know about WP:BEFORE, especially B2 and B6. more to come... Kraxler (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: This article is an improperly sourced attempt to create notability for a non-notable beauty pageant, a non-notability that is evident in your claim that you spent "the whole last week to dig up sources for them", obviously without finding any. Instead of taking all claims in all articles at face value, as you did in your keep !vote and have also done in other AfD-discussions where I've seen you !vote, and posting long lists of links to policies and guidelines, I suggest you actually read the policies and guidelines, and check the references in the articles, as we're supposed to do before !voting. And stop critising The Banner for nominating articles like this one for deletion, as you've done in multiple AfDs now, he's trying to clean up among the hundreds, if not thousands, of articles related to non-notable beauty pageants and equally non-notable beauty pageant participators that have been created, and are still being created, by indefinitely blocked user Mrdhimas and his multiple sock and meat puppets. I would also like to point out that WP:GNG doesn't require just "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as you claimed a couple of notches up in this discussion; for a stand-alone article, like this, it requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and that significant coverage should be about the subject/topic of the article, i.e. the pageant, not the participants or the resort where the pageant is being held (as in the articles in Bangkok Post and The Nation). So there's not a single reliable source in this article (or in any other article related to Miss Grand International for that matter) that provides significant coverage of the article subject. Which is typical for all articles created by Mrdhimas and his associates in the beauty pageant industry. Thomas.W ^talk 08:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat it again and again, I understood already that you WP:DONTLIKE beauty pageants. Kraxler (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: It has nothing to do with liking or not liking, it's all about treating everyone fairly and equally, no matter who they are or how large and efficient an organisation they have behind them. There are lots of very competent people and very interesting companies and organisations out there who can't get an article about themselves on Wikipedia, or who have their articles here deleted, because of the rules here, so I can't see why we should be more lax when it comes to beauty pageants and beauty pageant participants, just because the beauty pageant industry have a very large and efficient organisation that create and maintain articles about them on Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kraxler (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. I go by the rules no matter what the subject of an article is, and never say we should make an exception, and treat an article harsher or more lax, just because of other irrelevant stuff, which is what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. As you would have known if you had read it. Thomas.W ^talk 19:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read also WP:WINNEROUTCOMES #1 which would apply here. Kraxler (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming irrelevant to the AfD, but I'm beginning to understand what you did in the 56% of the AfD-discussions you took part in where you only "discussed", but didn't !vote. EOD. Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When arguments about the issue get scarce, people start arguing ad hominem. As a sometime admin candidate you should know better. Kraxler (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but may I remind you that you started with getting personal and aggressive? You know a load of nice, expensive sounding links but up to now you have no real arguments nor proper sources conform {{WP:RS]] or convincing evidence that a pageant is notable. The Banner talk 20:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added more significant in-depth coverage. Kraxler (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not. There's no significant coverage of the subject/topic of the article, as required by WP:GNG, in any of the links you added to the article, just the same passing mentions in articles about other things as we've seen before. Not one of those articles, blogs and what-have-you has any in-depth coverage of Miss Grand Thailand. Your rewrite of most of the article also changed much of the focus of it, and made it be less about Miss Grand Thailand, and more about the owner of the pageant, but he's already got his own article (which is about as badly sourced as this one, in fact when I last checked there was only one single reference in that article that was to a reliable source about him, all the rest were either dead links or blogs...). I'm beginning to realise that you're desperately defending all articles about beauty pageants that have been nominated for deletion, but who do you think you're fooling with your repeated addition of links to essays/policies/guidelines and your !votes claiming that this or that pageant is "clearly notable", when all evidence clearly shows that it's not? Others here aren't new to this, we know how to evaluate sources, and we know the rules and regulations here far better than you appear to know them. Thomas.W ^talk 11:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE " Your rewrite of most of the article also changed much of the focus of it, and made it be less about Miss Grand Thailand, and more about the owner of the pageant," - The article mentions the founder/owner twice in four paragraphs. Most of the article is about the actual pageant and its three editions. Anybody can see that, why can't you?

The Nation is a major metropolitan newspaper, a reliable source independent of the subject, per WP:GNG, with a full-page article on the 2014 pageant. Anybody can see that, why can't you?

RE "we know how to evaluate sources" Do you include here The Banner who nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Suriname and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015 at none of which a single delete vote was cast, and where he tried to lecture a former arb on sources? Kraxler (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kraxler, that you once have been an arbitrator is not of any value here. Especially when not seeing the pattern of promotion. And getting personal only weakens your "arguments". The Banner talk 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The results of those AfDs speak for themselves. Nobody (that means nobody) saw the "pattern of promotion" there. Kraxler (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we are discussing the AfD about Miss Grand Thailand, not any other AfD. Do you have any real arguments left? The Banner talk 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are in the article, they are called "sources". Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there are no reliable secondary sources in the article that provide in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, as required by WP:GNG, only irrelevant links, just like you have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion here. Thomas.W ^talk 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the closer of this discussion will check the sources in the article, and make up his own mind. Besides, there is this coverage in Thai Rath, the most widely read Thai newspaper, here, here, and here. Besides, there was a live broadcast of the pageant, in Thailand's Channel 7, and had millions of viewers. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do hope the closing admin takes at look at those links, because (translated with the help of translate.google.com) the first one does not look at all like independent coverage by newsmedia, but has the look and feel of a standard press release, complete with contact information at the bottom of the page, with tph-number, web-URL and Facebook address, while the second one is about a Thai woman who has won "Miss Intercontinental 2014 Continental", and thus has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss Grand Thailand pageants select contestants for five different international pageants, among them Miss Intercontinental, as can be seen in the article. Anybody can see that, why can't you? (I suggest next time you discuss something, you inform yourself about the subject before opining.) That makes this pageant so much the more notable, it was affiliated in 2014 with Miss Earth and selects contestants for the notable pageants Miss Grand International and Miss Tourism International. Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, each article is judged on its own merits, and there simply is no in-depth coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject that supports your notion that the subject of the article, Miss Grand Thailand, is notable (by Wikipedia's standards). And even if notability was inherited Miss Tourism International is a pageant of dubious notability, Miss Grand International has the same owner as the subject of the article, and Miss Earth has, according to news reports, severed all links with the entire Miss Grand-organisation, so there's nothing to inherit there. Thomas.W ^talk 18:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting the cart before the horse. I didn't say that Miss Grand Thailand inherits any notability from somewhere else. I say that there is a lot of coverage because the pageant is important, selecting contestants to that many international pageants. That's reflected in multiple news reports in independent sources, like the most widely read daily newspaper in Thailand. And that makes it notable. Kraxler (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, claiming that there are multiple reliable sources confirming their notability, in spite of you not having been able to provide a single such source here. None of the links you have provided has been a reliable secondary source providing in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, as required by WP:GNG, only links with at best a passing mention of the subject. You have, in fact, not even provided a reliable secondary source for the claim that the subject of the article select contestants for the "many international pageants" that you are repeatedly going on about. If I hadn't been well drilled in assuming good faith I would even had seen the links to the Thai newspaper that when checked proved to not say what you claimed they said as a deliberate attempt to mislead people here, so why are you so desperately defending Miss Grand? Thomas.W ^talk 15:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the inboxes and nice formatting, their is nothing suggesting notability as shown in reliable, in-depth secondary sources. Neutrality^talk 23:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Thurston High School. There is a rough consensus here that this does not merit a separate article. There is not a clear consensus between whether to merge or delete, but the argument for a very selective merge seems to be getting the best of the discussion and so am defaulting to that. Davewild (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Thurston High School Shooting[edit]

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

I'm completing this nomination for Cyanidethistles, who did not add a deletion rationale. Upon looking at the article this appears to be a non-notable school shooting. A search for sources didn't produce anything to show otherwise. The teacher is a hero, but I just don't see where this passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - to North Thurston High School. It's notable enough for that article and it's also a search term people might use. Instead of doing the AfD, I think you can just WP:BEBOLD and do the merge and redirect yourself? (I don't see any way the school shooting article will survive this AfD) —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it's sort of a WP:ONEEVENT sort of deal. Someone attempted to have a suicide by cop but was foiled before anyone was hurt. It's not really all that major of an event when you get down to it so I don't know that it'd be all that notable to include in the school's page, to be honest. If someone had gotten hurt then maybe it'd be worth including, but this was just a case where someone fired a gun without hitting anyone, a teacher nobly stepped in to stop them, and the person was taken off to jail. The teacher is a hero, but this is sort of a routine 1E sort of deal- I don't see where it really needs to be included anywhere. The coverage just isn't that in depth, was only covered for a few days, and was mostly covered by local sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, when I was in school someone did something somewhat similar. Someone made repeated bomb threats and at one point actually planted something that looked like a bomb in the school. It got us out of school on a repeated basis since the police had to continually sweep the school and it gained some coverage from the news, but years and years later it's not even a footnote in the school's history. I kind of see this becoming a similar type of deal- nobody was hurt, the person was caught, and a few days later the media moved on to something else. 05:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Granted, 1E is oriented towards people but I think that it still fits this in general. I just don't see where this really merits a mention on Wikipedia at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable as it received significant coverage, and high school shootings are a significantly notable event in the history of a high school. This was not a false alarm where someone claimed to have a gun. A student had a loaded gun and fired it, twice, before a teacher risked his own life and tackled him. There will be follow up coverage when the student is prosecuted and when they discuss how to prevent other students from bringing loaded weapons (and who knows what will happen with the teacher, but he'll probably win U.S. Teacher of the Year or something). It's not often a high school makes national headlines, but when it does, the reason it made national headlines will probably be a significant moment in the school's history. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a guarantee that this incident will continue to gain coverage and that the coverage stopped only a few days after it was initially reported doesn't really indicate a lot of long term notability. Saying that there is guaranteed long term coverage and long term repercussions is pretty much just WP:SPECULATION at this point. We have to judge notability in the here and now, and I just don't see where this event is major enough to be included anywhere at this point in time. If/when more coverage does come about then it can be addressed then- but right now all we have is a near miss that got coverage for a few days towards the end of April and hasn't been the focus of a lot of in-depth media coverage since then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage spanned April 28th and 29th, after which point it dropped off to almost entirely local papers. I just don't see where this really merits a mention in here at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's notable, but I hate to have a high school's page dominated by this sort of incident. Since it is now clear that coverage is ongoing and substantive, I think a page on the incident works better than filling the school's page with the details.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's an unnotable crime and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Unless the perp was a student of that school, I wouldn't merge either. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is/was, but he was a recent transfer. I still don't know that this would really be something to merge into the article, given that the coverage for this was done over a fairly short period of time and all things considered, the coverage isn't really all that heavy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just another failed school shooting that was fortunately thwarted before anything real could happen. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Just another school shooting with a few deaths, nothing to see here. Move along." Cue Daily Mail comments about how the US is so horrible, should ban guns etc. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep Probably passes WP:GNG but simply lacks sourcing. I'm going to look at how much coverage it got. will be working on the article for a day or 2, on a time available basis. have put up a construction tag.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'update further legal proceedings have been postponed by judge until September or later, as defense gathers material. student had transferred form another school from which he had been expelled following trial and sentencing for groping female classmates. Notable heroism of the civics teacher, a veteran who efficiently tackled and held the shooter before police officer on the scene could get a clear shot. I do think that there is already sufficient coverage to keep under WP:GNG; there will undoubtedly be ongoing coverage of trial. School shootings are a topic of considerable interest, as evidenced by nationwide coverage of this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge maybe one sentence to North Thurston High School, delete the rest. I would not oppose deletion of the whole thing, without a merge. As things go today this was an utterly trivial incident. A student fired two shots, no one was hurt, the teacher was honored. End of story. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that right now we have something that happened, nobody was hurt, and the coverage was pretty minimal when you get down to it. There was a flurry of coverage on April 28/29th, then this essentially dropped off the radar. There were a handful of articles on May 11th from local sources then this again dropped off the radar. Since we can't guarantee that the trial (when it happens) will gain coverage, this doesn't really seem to be an overwhelmingly notable incident as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I still don't think that this really merits being merged into the school's page since it really didn't gain that much coverage. We've got to think of it this way: will this really be worth having in the article 2-5 years from now? Considering the fairly minimal coverage, I don't know that it really would. There's also WP:NOTNEWS to think about. Just because something received a little coverage doesn't mean that it automatically merits inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of have to compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Charlie's prostitution of a child, where there was a lot more coverage on a global scale and the page was still deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DDH We have here a reliably sourced article on an incident that drew national attention because school shootings do draw national attention. This one had 2 aspects that will continue to be of interest in the debates on availability of guns, training and arming of police officer, and school security procedures as it relates to admission policies. The fact that the shooter was taken down by a teacher who had served in the soldier and therefore knew how to take a man down and immobilize him. And the fact that the shooter was a transfer student expelled from a nearby school for prior convictions. The information on the page is useful, it happened, it was widely covered. Frankly, I fail to see the advantage to anyone in taking the page down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to North Thurston High School. The event received national attention for a day or two in April and got some follow up coverage later in May. Additionally, there is a news article indicating that legislation was introduced in the Washington State Senate as a result of the attack. The attack was not notable enough for an article. However, its unusual enough and got enough coverage to justify a very brief (perhaps just a sentence long) mention in the high school article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 09:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedruco Sisters[edit]

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

Nearly unsourced BLP. Fails WP:GNG. Includes unrelated fancruft The Banner talk 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. In the meantime, I will remove all of the article portions talking about the pageants. Even the information box is unrelated to the BLP. --TTTommy111 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Miss Chinese International Pageant 1989 - Searches found no significant coverage to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails everything there is to fail. Thomas.W ^talk 22:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 09:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss St. Vincent & Grenadines[edit]

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

Non-notable local pageant, fails WP:GNG. No evidence the pageant is related to "Miss Grand International" as claimed in the article. Fully based on related sources, no independent ones as required by WP:RS. The Banner talk 19:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Affiliated with Miss Universe, has been held for more than 60 years. Clearly notable. Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are four sources in the article: a page that has no mention at all of the pageant, a Facebook page that no longer exists, a blog/personal website and the organisers own web site, i.e not a single reliable source of any kind. The pageant isn't a separate event but one of many activities during the annual carnival in SVG (equal to being voted "Carneval Queen" in a random carneval somewhere), they apparently have no separate organisation, and even though they claim to be affiliated with Miss Universe Saint Vincent and The Grenadines have only sent someone there a handful of times since 1951 (the last time in 2003), and a search on the Miss Universe web site returns an empty page, with "Saint Vincent" at the top and nothing else. So it's not an active membership. And a search on Google returns nothing. Thomas.W ^talk 21:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SCNR. Also, the Miss Universe website confirms that the girls competed there in the years given in the list. Some winners competed at Miss World. You still didn't read WP:BEFORE, I suppose. (It says that you are not supposed to say "There are no sources in the article", but to search for sources and then [if that's the case] say "No sources can be found.") See coverage here which confirms that it is indeed a pageant, albeit in proportion with the size of this sovereign country. Kraxler (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCNR is just an essay, not a guideline. WP:RS and WP:GNG are guidelines. The Banner talk 10:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in case Kraxler doesn't know what an essay is (which, based on his posts in a number of current AfD-discussions about beauty pageants, wouldn't surprise me the least), it's just the personal opinion of one or more editors, and carries no more weight than my personal opinion, or the personal opinion of anyone else here. I would also like to point out that I, as I wrote in my !vote, did a search on Google on the pageant, i.e. the subject/topic of the article, and found nothing. Just like Kraxler obviously didn't find any sources about the pageant either, just an article about an individual contestant with no significant coverage of the subject/topic of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 10:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I know what a wiki-essay is, it's intended to be advice for people who need it. The above linked news report (a reliable source independent of the subject, per WP:GNG) is not only about the winner, it's about the latest pageant, informing about the whole event, and stating a complete list of winners in the several categories. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Thomas W. No objection to a proper redirect somewhere. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International awards[edit]

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

Fancruft based on related sources The Banner talk 19:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Grand International Kraxler (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft "sourced" only to the organisations own website. Thomas.W ^talk 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peadar Bracken[edit]

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

Non-notable officer of the early Irish Independence movement. Article is sourced entirely to a single book which, based on the similarity of last names and the fact that said book is the only one ever published by that author, may well have been written by a relative. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This book gives a short account of the incident at Tullamore and a rather longer account of his command of a small but moderately important outpost during the Easter Rising, and there are at least mentions of his (and a colleague's) accounts of the latter in several other books on the Easter Rising. Also, on the formation of the original Irish Republican Army the following year, lists show him as one of the members of its Executive Committee, though otherwise there seems to be little available about his later life. PWilkinson (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (perhaps weak) He is named multiple times in about 20 books about the Easter Uprising [20], often as a leader, and some chronicle his actions during the fighting. LaMona (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is poorly written, but there are other sources confirming his significance, according to Irish Military Archives he was involved in the planning for the Easter 1916 rebellion his home county and was present in O'Connell Street during the rising holding the rank of captain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggiegal (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy the page if anyone wants to merge any of the content. J04n(talk page) 19:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academic divisions of University of Dhaka[edit]

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

Fork of University of Dhaka consisting only list of faculties and departments of the university. Per WP:NOTCATALOG this article do not render any significance. nafSadh did say 02:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Now that the numerous copyright violations have been excised, little content is left that doesn't already appear in University of Dhaka. To the extent that it is sourced at all, nearly the only source is the university itself. Although I didn't research every faculty and institute, there doesn't seem to be the in-depth, reliable, third-party coverage of the academic divisions necessary to justify a stand alone article. Merge into University of Dhaka any encyclopedic material that can be reliably sourced (I have in mind dates established and renamings, for example, but NOT current heads or flowery language like "the glorious history of the History Department"). Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to keep that redirect? A lot of * University of Dhaka * names all redirecting to the same University of Dhaka article! --nafSadh did say 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (an independent breakout article is not necessary) - but no objection to a redirect (even though I find it to be a rather implausible search term).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zac Brown Band. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jekyll and Hyde Tour[edit]

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

Just another tour by just another band. Wikipedia is not a listings page. TheLongTone (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I iniially PRODed this: PROD removed by article creator, who at least argued their case on the article talk page, but imo mustard is uncut.TheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The band is a highly notable band having won several major awards, and this article has several major citations. It could have sone of the less important information removed, but overall, I think this topic is notable and encyclopedic. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. Source examples include [21], [22], [23], [24]. Another option is to merge to Zac Brown Band. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: If it passes guidelines, then I suppose it passes, but is this something that will be useful for web searches? From an informational retrieval point of view, it makes better sense tucked in where it will be sought. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - I agree with Hithladaeus. Neutrality^talk 23:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I think merging into the article on the band is the best solution.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Wikipedia is not a directory and it's not a cultural calendar. It actually fails WP:NTOUR, the "sources" shown by Northamerica are run-of-the-mill reviews of the concerts, which serve to promote the ongoing tour. NTOUR says: "Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator

Between Screens[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for albums. Was declined at articles for creation but then moved into mainspace anyway by the article's creator without addressing the reason for the decline. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - Thank you Lunarlake for finding those sources and improving the article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wax Girl. No notable coverage found, not even AllMusic.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep based on recent improvement.~~Move as suggested~~ - My searches found no significant and considerable coverage to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wax Girl. Not notable as a stand-alone article.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is about a notable album by a notable Canadian artist. CubicleMilford (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems there's no good coverage about this album, in that case, it can simply be moved to The Wax Girl. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've done some work to improve the article, as well as its references. I agree that the album is notable. Lunarlake (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn, Dennisthemonkeychild, and Kudpung: Please note the article has been improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability demonstrated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on page improvements. Nice finds btw, when I looked I couldn't find a thing. Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Potter (poet)[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Unable to find evidence she is an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. No evidence her work has won significant critical attention. Little depth of coverage in reliable sources, except for interviews or self-published works. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this stub due to a low-level subtle harassment campaign by an IP apparently stalking (VERY old) Clare Potter-related edits I had made (making "reversions" camouflaged as edits so that I got big fat red notices that my edits had been reverted when the actual edits made appeared legit to anyone else... a real system gamer.) immediately after the blocking of another (seemingly unconnected) IP-range hopper who was definitely stalking/harassing me via reverting random older edits. For some reason they chose to latch onto Clare Potter-related edits for this targeted behaviour. So I created the stub to kibosh their reverts to an edit I'd made to the incorrect link target (to the article for the designer Clare Potter). I have no feelings either way on this subject, I just wanted it to be known WHY the article was created because it is not something I would otherwise have bothered with. So if it's deleted, it's no skin off my nose. Just making sure there's a record as to WHY the stub was created. Mabalu (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's always hard to find sources on poets, and Welsh poets are harder even that most. I did find Potter listed in these web sites: Writers of Wales, Interview, paragraph. I'll note these on the talk page. LaMona (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, even the recently cited notices are not quite sufficient, as one is a WordPress site, and it's darned difficult to assess the strength of the other "national" poetry groups mentioning the poet. Add to that the fact that the poet "performs" her work, and we don't see it as being listed as published in a book yet, and we've got a poet who doesn't pass the current notability guidelines. Again, poets don't generate a lot of ink, so that's a given, but there is a huge puff industry surrounding poetry that obscures the little bit of legitimate (juried/edited) assessment. (The Poetry Foundation and Poetry Magazine hasn't heard of her, but that doesn't mean anything much.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. I am completely confused by message left by creator as to why this was made. Or what "Clare Potter-related edits" are. This article is basically an orphan. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google searches yield almost no results, notability can not be established, in spite of this. Kraxler (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boone County, Missouri. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boone County Fire Protection District[edit]

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

Asserts no notability whatsoever. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Boone County, Missouri, which presently has no mention of the fire protection district. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Boone County, Missouri seems like the best option here. Neutrality^talk 23:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Endless Ages. – czar 09:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Boucher[edit]

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

Article about a game designer that, aside from the inappropriate promotional narrative and unsourced material, seems to fail WP:BIO thoroughly. Alternatively a redirect to Endless Ages might be called for, with a minor bio blurb there with whatever can actually be sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:12, 4 June 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) 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thoroughly promotional, with no evidence of significant, in-depth, third-party coverage. Neutrality^talk 23:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. 203.45.10.187 (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Endless Ages as it seems he's known for creating that, as for notability, my searches found nothing significant to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1458 Mineura[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One orbital study (offline) and one photometric study [25] is not enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vennli[edit]

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

Not particularly notable company. Refs are low-level local publications. No evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This company has received a little more attention than others may get but nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:GNG as it has received significant coverage in the South Bend Tribune and has won a TechPoint Mira Award. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus in favour of keeping an article on this topic here, as it gets significant coverage. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas sign[edit]

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

The article is an elaborate hoax. The purported X-ray photograph is an obvious fake. A similar "X-ray" of a purported knee-replacement, showing the end of an enormous penis, also makes the rounds. (I'd post a copy but I don't own the copyright.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know that it's a hoax as much as it is a medical school gag. Seems like it's been given sufficient attention [26], [27]. That X-ray was uploaded to Commons as "own work" but I really doubt it, since it's from an old meme —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a hoax, although I see that it was prod-deleted last month as a hoax. A quick Google search would have established that is a real term - though possibly not notable. As Мандичка says, it's actually medical humor; as a clinical sign it is worthless. It's also known as the Throckmorton sign. Google search [28] suggests that there may be enough Reliable Source information to do something with this. Let me take a stab at it. Neutral for now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A medical school gag presented as a genuine diagnostic phenomenon, complete with fake or cooked-up references to add verisimilitude, is a hoax, isn't it? Whatever one might call it, how many other student gags get Wikipedia articles? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article is claiming it is a genuine diagnostic phenomenon, as it says "The sign is employed as a humorous aside. Studies have shown that the "sign" is no better than chance at identifying the location of a hip fracture." —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, that second sentence was not there at the time the article was nominated for AfD. I just added it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changing to Keep, see below.) I took a look at sources and added one to the article, but I concluded that this term is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Even a reference to the BMJ, normally a reliable source, was actually written tongue-in-cheek.[29] Medicine has hundreds of in-jokes like this, but this one at least is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. (Deleting the article will also get rid of the obviously faked image, which we should probably warn Commons about. I suspect it is his own work - using Photoshop!) --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the fact that the joke was a subject of at least three articles in serious medical journals makes in a notable medical gag. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Here is another good one: "Jared Rosenberg and John Thomas, senior editors of International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health" - (this is not a joke, -S.L.). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in multiple sources; sources indicate that it's well-known and allow an accurate article to be written explaining its (lack of) diagnostic value. The copyright status of the image is irrelevant. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SL and Cola —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I still favor deletion.~~ However, if the article is kept, I will undertake to improve it. And I will replace the phony X-ray with a real one, of which there are several at Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! When I was an orthopaedics house officer 17 years ago, a couple of the ortho junior doctor trainees would regularly comment on the "John Thomas positive" and "John Thomas negative" fractures (in a jovial way). The phenomenon is not a hoax. Moreover, suitable sources are included in the article to support notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep given the sources in the article. However, the image may very well be a fake. EEng (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder how many people who favor keeping this article have actually read the sources cited. Two are letters to the editor, which presumably are not peer-reviewed, and could be written by anybody. Two appear to address only genital asymmetry, not the purported "sign". (They are not freely accessible, so I'm going by the titles. If somebody has read the articles and can quote them as to the "John Thomas sign", please correct me.) The only source cited that involves a scientific study finds that the "sign" is of no diagnostic value: i.e. that it is not a sign at all. What the sources establish is that this is a popular joke among physicians. Is Wikipedia now a repository for popular jokes? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP is a repository for jokes, if they're notable jokes, and this one clearly is. EEng (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are some other jokes told in the form of Wikipedia articles? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Not peer reviewed: true, and so they would be worthless in establishing this as an actual medical diagnostic sign. But this article is not about an actual medical diagnostic sign, and we will need to make that clearer if the article is kept. Those letters to the editor CAN be used to help establish notability of the subject. BTW speaking of letters to the editor, anyone who enjoys dry British humor should read the BMJ letter I linked above. It's a riot, full of double-entendres. Who knew that the BMJ has a sense of humor? --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be kept as a joke, then the fake X-ray with the mammoth cock should be restored: it's heart and soul of the "humor". I would still delete the whole thing. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article wouldn't be kept as a joke, but because it documents a joke. For analogous articles see GOMER, The Aristocrats, Dead baby jokes, World's funniest joke, The Funniest Joke in the World, Flatulence humor and many more. Oh yeah -- and Dick_joke. EEng (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be kept as documentation of a joke, it will need to be rewritten entirely. When I first proposed its deletion, IIRC, it was plainly a hoax, presented as if it documented a legitimate diagnostic sign. It has since been slightly modified to hint that the purported "sign" is a joke (or "humorous aside"), but it still retains the form of a serious article about a diagnostic sign. It is not presently comparable to the articles EEng cites, which are not jokes in themselves but are about jokes. (Except for GOMER which doesn't have to do with a joke at all.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP. Only in extreme circumstances do we WP:BLOWITUP. You're wasting everyone's time repeating these same complaints, which aren't relevant to AfD. EEng (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC) GOMER is medical "insiders' talk", which applies here.[reply]

Comment The so called John Thomas sign is a joke, but the image is NOT a fake. I see hundreds of X-rays every day and I can assure you, that there is no need to fake it. Even though this is obviously a prominent case for the joke(!)-sign. There are other terms for jokes in radiology as for example "rorschach radiology". I don't think the article is vital, but I repeat, this image is real. Best regards! --Hellerhoff (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO either the image has been photoshopped to insert an erect penis (which is what I think - the angle of attachment seems wrong too), or else somebody deliberately got the subject to exhibit erection before taking the X-ray. Just compare it to the results of Google Image Search; [30] this one (top row right in my search) is clearly an outlier. In fact I found one at the Polish encyclopedia [31] which would be perfectly fine as an image here. Yes, the Polish Wikipedia has an article about this - under its other name, Throckmorton Sign.[32] As for refocusing the article, I will undertake that if the article is kept. A good lead sentence would be something like what I found at whonamedit.com: "Throckmorton's sign is a slang term used jokingly by medical students and residents".[33] P.S. My favorite radiology joke (pathology too) is the "retrospectoscope". That's a device you use to modify your reading of the film, after you already know what the patient has. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The more I take part in this discussion, the more I realize that this article should be kept. Changing my !vote above. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a long-standing thing in radiology. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Yes. Long, standing thing. I get it. Very encyclopedic. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now do you get WP:N as it applies here? EEng (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jason Latimer. J04n(talk page) 18:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Latimer's Laser Fiction[edit]

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

Not notable enough; stub. Only one instance of illusion being used. ACB Smith (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following articles:

Jason Latimer's Water Misfit

Jason Latimer's Fountain Walk

Jason Latimer's Truck to Truck Teleportation

Jason Latimer's Perfect Picture

Delete - FYI Acbsmith (talk · contribs), you should merge these all into one AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers; how do I do that? ACB Smith (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acbsmith go here: WP:MULTIAFD. Just replace the AfD template on the top of all the other pages with the one linking to this one (since I already commented) and then add those other articles using Step V part of the instructions. Then delete the other listings from the current discussions listings. Let me know if you need help. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Listing famous persons in the audience really is a bad move. The magician has an article. The individual tricks may be cosmic, mind blowing, and amazing, but there is no way for the sort of granularity that's being proposed here. Delete for lacking notability. (Once upon a time, David Copperfield's fans would have had an article up for "disappearing" the Statue of Liberty, a 747, the Grand Canyon, and who knows what else. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (the little actual info) and redirect all to Jason Latimer. Kraxler (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas National PBA Invitational[edit]

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

Non notable bowling tournament. Similar articles have been deleted via PROD. See redlinked events on PBA_Bowling_Tour:_1961_Season for examples. This article was PRODed, but tag was removed. Toppsud (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references to establish notability. No evidence that this bowling tournament is notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very obscure, and from my searches, there is almost nothing in reliable sources with which to make an article right now. The only thing I found is a trivial mention here: [34]. But that is clearly not sufficient to establish notability. mikeman67 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000#701. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1758 Naantali[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One photometric study [35] but it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: Unfortunately, even the single photometry study is not accessible so there is no suitable source available to establish notability and build a worthwhile article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1327 Namaqua[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus here on whether the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2623 Zech[edit]

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

This was redirected by Tom.Reding and reverted by Exoplanetaryscience. I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 2001-3000. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did so because it is a binary asteroid, with a small moon discovered in 2014 orbiting around it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, if said information is not referenced and in the body of the article by close of AfD. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it's now in the body & referenced. There are very few binary asteroids. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was originally re-directed by Tom's generic bot that re-directed ~11,585 of Wikipedia's 19,400 asteroids. But the bot did not check for notability. -- Kheider (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satellite info is now sourced making 2623 Zech more than wp:Run-of-the-mill. -- Kheider (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Sourcing to a database is not good enough (a Wikipedia article should not just be a copy of someone else's database entry — what value are we adding?) and nothing else of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The information about the satellite does not come from the common JPL SBDB lookup and Wikipedia is nothing more than a copy of other sources. -- Kheider (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: the meager sources available aren't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Praemonitus, I am surprised that you would write that given there are not that many known binary asteroids and this is a low numbered one. But if some nobody at scholar.google wrote a paper and called it "unusual" or "long" in some way, then it would be notable. Go figure. The "standards" for asteroid notability being used at Wikipedia are largely arbitrary. -- Kheider (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't think I can help you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Binary asteroids are in fact pretty rare, and this asteroid does have enough sources and coverage to write a few good sentences.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rich and Bitch[edit]

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

While the subject is well-known in China, there isn't enough encyclopedic content about it. So this article should be merged to somewhere or deleted. Antigng (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 16:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Antigng (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability; I linked to Chinese article about it, it is proposed to merge to a list of Chinese expressions —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To be specifc, a merge to List of Chinese internet expressions. (or memes, if you prefer) SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An impossible article in every way. It's an article about a literal translation of a Mandarin Chinese slang expression. There is every reason to believe that the slang term, if it were to be referred to in English, could show up in another formulation. Additionally, the purpose of the article violates the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline. So, delete for dictionary, neologism, instability of search term, and lack of verifiability. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Chinese article is just a single sentence. SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sightings (film)[edit]

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

Prod was removed by IP without any explanation. I can not find reliable sources for this future film and No indication on any notability. -- GB fan 15:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTFILM. Only ref is facebook page which is not a WP:RS. Only info there is the name of the people who are to be in the film. If it ever does get outside coverage it can be restored. MarnetteD|Talk 16:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. All that was missing was "be sure to like us on Facebook" from the "article." Hithladaeus (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. Allow return of a proper article only when inclusion criteria can be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Searches found absolutely nothing to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macbeth (2009 film)[edit]

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

I don't think this movie ever got made, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. It was originally created as Macbeth (2007 film) but got moved to its current title. IMDB shows four 2009 editions of Macbeth, none of which are this one, and no Macbeth credit for Anthony Head. The single article reference is to an IMDB title that seems to have been deleted, and the official website only shows a trailer. I did find this article from 2009 that said Head was "still waiting", but it also notes that "they could be waiting indefinitely." The same could be said for us, it seems. If all we can say is that this (might) come out tomorrow, tomorrow, or tomorrow, I say delete per WP:CRYSTAL. BDD (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a very low-budget film that was "made" but just never released.[36] Director's personal site lists it as in "post-production." —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really low ranking, made by few students and has been never (probably) released - ~~Take a look on this....~~ Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Tymon.r that's not the same film. This film is not on IMDB at all. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia - sorry for mistake. Name and production year were too suggestive for me :-) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, likely doesn't change your recommendation. As nom stated, there are four Macbeths from 2009 on IMDB. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If you think that advertising your band, business, or movie on Wikipedia is a good idea, then you are already failing in music, business, or film, as somebody said. In this case, Wikipedia is not Facebook: the film does not meet notability requirements. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film was never released and fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches found nothing significant and notable aside from one Books result as part of a Shakespeare book. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination Bertaut (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as withdrawn by nominator and the article improved (non-admin closure). Additional users could comment but the basic issues have been improved. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maayan Keren[edit]

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

BLP with only a pageant-related sources, no independent sources conform WP:RS. Seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - disputable notability, lack of references out of "Sash Factor" website. It needs also some significat tech improvments Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after adding several references from reliable third-party sources from across the globe. It's true that the stub could use expansion but AfD is not cleanup. The subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds and that's sufficient to keep the article. - Dravecky (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was never meant as a clean up. The Banner talk 18:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expanded it a little, added a source. Reason given for AFD no longer applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep, as nominator. Concerns taken away. The Banner talk 18:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logger (Unix)[edit]

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

Direct copy-paste of excerpt from the FreeBSD manual as seen here, copyright information available here. Falls under WP:NOTMANUAL. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Unix commands Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't anything to merge. The last thing we need are more trivial UNIX commands added to Wikipedia. System logging is a notable topic, but a shell interface to a system logger is not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent ref. Manual page is not independent. Per NinjaRobotPirate, this is a trivial UNIX command, one of many, and it is unclear how any of these would ever gain significant enough independent coverage to meet WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a particularly noteworthy piece of *nix, and not a viable redirect at this point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Min-yr-Awel[edit]

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

I was contacted off-wiki about this article by a friend with local knowledge, they stated that "Min yr awel is a street in a small village called Pontneddfechan". After conducting my own investigations, it seems that there is something at these coordinates called "Min-yr-Awel", but what exactly it is I'm not sure.

Open Street Map doesn't seem to include it at all.
Google Maps labels it ambiguously as perhaps a small area of Pontneddfechan, and notes that the bus stops to the west are both called "Min-yr-Awel" and the one to the east it notes as "Min-yr-Awel turning circle" geograph image on Commons. The only seemingly non-residential building is clearly labelled as "Pontneddfechan village hall". There is no streetview anywhere near.
[37] refers to it unambiguously as a street, but I don't know how reliable that site is.
There is a prominent feature nearby, Dinas Rock, but the only mention of "Min-yr-Awel" in relation to it I can find is the bus stop name.
Google results for the village hall describe it variously as "at Min-yr-Awel, Pontneddfechan" or "in Min-yr-Awel, Pontneddfechan"
I can't find any additional information, other than it has a postbox, that is actually about this settlement (if it is one) that isn't from Wikpiedia's unsourced sub-stub. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - village is noticed in some services, like here. However, by SUBSTUB policy: "If the content is totally redundant and trivial, you may mark it for speedy deletion.". It is very trivial and doesn't provide useful information. It is written not professionally - "very small" doesn't sound good. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot verify that it's a street, and, if it is a street, it's a more or less trivial route in a very small place. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geodynamics Research International Bulletin[edit]

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

Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason given (but with simultaneous addition of lots of promotional material).Prod reason still stands: Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was unable to find any significant independent coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GeoRef is a well-respected index on the geosciences and reflects well upon the journal, but it strives to be comprehensive, so does not contribute to notability. As this is a fairly new journal, it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, not enough time for indexing in selective databases to occur and an impact factor to be created. The journal is verifiable in GeoRef, but I don't see any good merge or redirect targets. I'm left with delete. --Mark viking (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AnswerBank[edit]

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

Fails notability standard. CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything online discussing this. Appears to fail GNG. mikeman67 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, all my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing to suggest good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive Title[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, article was PRODded by The1337gamer (t c), but the article was already deleted once via PROD in 2010.

The1337gamer's concern was: "Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources." —Darkwind (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that it fails the WP:GNG. It seems like nothing more than a fan's documentation of non-notable minutiae about the game's history. Non-notable fangame. If someone finds sources, like the ones documented at WP:VG/S, I'd be willing to reconsider though - there could be some hidden out there behind all the false-positives that would come up with searching for such a generic name. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Notability (video games) --Anar chyte 00:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte, just pointing to a policy without an explanation of reasoning is a deletion argument to avoid. – czar 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets as the dev is not well known. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceBall (game)[edit]

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

No indication of importance, WP:GNG, WP:Notability (video games). There's no references and I can't seem to find any. --Anar chyte 08:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the cell phone the game came with: Because this was a pre-loaded game, it will have an amazing amount of exposure, and there probably is documentation on its approval and selection. That doesn't mean that it is independently notable as a video game, though. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article makes no claim to any notability at all, no sources on page. mikeman67 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, there probably isn't even anything to support a small merge to the phone article as my searches only found one minor mention. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets unless a source mentions its relation to a specific model of phone. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) – czar 15:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sod (insult)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIC: the article does not "go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), ", and it is hard to see how it could develop into an encyclopedic article. See Wiktionary, sod and sod off. : Noyster (talk), 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Sod" -- "dirt" -- by extension, "go under the sod, die." (Sigh.) Well, that was fun. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a dictionary definition. Would be more applicable to something like Urban Dictionary or Wiktionary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Tgeairn (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing wrong with the content but it belongs on Wiktionary, which already covers it, not Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A9 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aman az Eshgh (album)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Snowager-is awake 07:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Snowager-is awake 07:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:A9. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Qualifies for A9. I just marked Iran Man (album) for the same thing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants it userfying let me know. Davewild (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wysocky[edit]

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

Promotional article on a "best-selling" and "award-winning" author, whose page was previously deleted and recently re-made. The citations appear to be bogus. Most of them do not actually mention the article-subject at the URL linked and most of them are trivial awards like "Mom's Choice Awards", where the citation goes to an online web-store. Does not appear to be remotely notable in terms of the kinds of in-depth coverage we need to create a legitimate article. CorporateM (Talk) 05:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertising in a "biographical" article, and the author certainly does get herself mentioned here and there -- look at the energy of this article -- but not for notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft to userspace - There are several sources and more from my searches here, here and here but nothing solid and in-depth. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheekati Rajyam[edit]

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

Future film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears filming has begun —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as project has begun filming and has coverage to meet WP:GNG, so WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. I have redirected the article Thoonga Vanam to this one as they are the same film, simply being filmed simultaneously with same production and cast... but being shot in different languages. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has begun filming —Vensatry _(ping) 16:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as said before, filming has started (2 more sources confirm this). Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the principal photography has been already begun. Rajeshbieee (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bishop III[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Although a person of the Salem witch trials, the complete lack of information about him makes any possibility of notability void. There are other redlinked names relating to the Salem witch trials and in the template. Quis separabit? 03:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:ONEEVENT.TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article Edward Bishop (Salem witch trials) is a mess and may be the same person —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no redirect: This article appears to be an Ancestry.com result. Given the fact that the bare bones of the subject are already covered without the "III," and given that those bones are fairly hard to document in the first place, there is no need to have this more genealogically minded article. Did anyone check the "what links here?" Hithladaeus (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Salem Witch trials were the result of poisoning from mouldy grain that causes its victims hallucinations. This led to mass hysteria in which people accused each other of responsibility. I cannot see how evry villager who was involved in these events can be WP-notable. We have an article Edward Bishop (Salem witch trials), which refers to EDward Bishop III as son of Edward Bishop Jr, who was involved in the events. The Salem events are certainly notable; I would guess that would extend to a few of the important participants, but we have a navigation template on this article with a dozen or more redlinks on it. I would strongly discourage the creation of articles on a lot of NN participants swept up inot these tragic events. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Alexander[edit]

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

May not be a notable lacrosse player. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I put a BLP prod up for this but it looks like "refs" were added though youtube is not a ref and the other looks like a EL. But I'm not that familiar with this so I can't comment on the notability. Wgolf (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being "committed" to Duke University's lacrosse team is not quite playing NCAA lax. No notability. (I hope that playing NCAA lacrosse isn't notability, either, given the non-revenue nature of the sport and therefore the lack of anything but boutique press.) Hithladaeus (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even playing NCAA football is not alone grounds for notability, Lacrosse is further than that, especially when the person has only comitted and is still in high school. At some point Alexander may be a notable Lacrosse player, but we have not reached that point and untilwe do we should not have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LACROSSE. Lacks evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1472 Muonio[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep, there's some stuff out there. The should be another article somewhere where the 3D image was calculated, but I have not edited asteroid articles much so am not familiar with how to find them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One lightcurve study [38] and a line in a table from a 78-object physical modeling study [39] together with several false hits from papers published near these in the same journals. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1223 Neckar[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing plenty of coverage for this one (spins, shape modeling, etc), especially as part of the Koronis family, in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above. -- Kheider (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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