Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 May	21 May >

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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Clinical Interventions[edit]

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

First, this article is written so much like a college essay that to attempt to reach NPOV needs to start from nothing. Second, I am not convinced that this is notable enough to be a stand alone article from Positive psychotherapy. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even has "Conclusion" section - yet another that supports essay should be a criteria for speedy deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too far from an encyclopedic article to be salvageable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Ahmed Qureshī[edit]

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

None of these links exist-potential hoax which the page creator seems tobe doing a lot of these for! Wgolf (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just deleted a blatant copyvio in an article (on a notable subject) created by same editor; and another BLP of a claimed 12 year old politician as a hoax. So due care is needed in investigating their edits. Abecedare (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the creation of other hoax articles means this one is suspect too, but even without that, there is no indication the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN and a search reveals no coverage in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (borderline to G3) - Not even a single source claiming this subject even exists on a search of them in Google. Only result is a search engine. --TL22 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article may meet CSD G5 because it was created by a confirmed sockpuppet of SahabAliwadia and the only edits by others were some DEFAULTSORT cleanup, removal of sources and addition of Living people category. --TL22 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lai Hau Wah[edit]

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

Fails to meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMICS. Not notable and no coverage by secondary sources. Further, article is autobiographical. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the citation record nor the professional activities and awards listed rise to the level of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of secondary sources discussing them. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are generally about drug trials where the company is noted and not given notability. Several are publications of the company's own press release. Fails WP:GNG. Might have been more notable had the article been about Firdapse and not the company that made it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems based on this article Catalyst tried to find a way to profit of a drug that is given away for free. But not enough coverage of it to warrant an article - I'm guessing this is fairly common. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Few companies progress this rapidly towards a first FDA approved therapy for a rare disease. Maybe this point needs to be clarified with additional sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermindful (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC) — Mastermindful (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Also, WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrawos Bassous[edit]

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

There is no coverage from reliable sources about the subject that rises above the routine or passing mentions; everything else is self-generated and/or social media. Fails to meet WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very minor awards as a musician, nothing at all about his present claimed notability as a photographer DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Alfredo Rodríguez[edit]

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

This article seems to be self-promotional so it may meet CSD G11. I am not sure if Rodríguez is notable or not, but based on the information here, it does not seem like he is. Also of note is that this article has been speedied G11 twice, once at this title and once at Manuel Alfredo Rodriguez. If this page is deleted, I would recommend WP:SALTing the title. Natg 19 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - pure promotion. No sources. There's a Spanish article too that's unreferenced also. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. Wikipedia is WP:NOT LinkedIn. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspard Nicolas Perrier[edit]

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

Can't find notability-also kind of have a hard time finding this all real (the new political party for example) His IMDB page has 2 films-if this the same guy even-and neither are notable. Wgolf (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb lists him as the writer, director and producer of two short films, one of them is "announced" (whatever that means) and the other is in pre-production so there's nothing that comes close to what he needs to pass WP:FILMMAKER. There's nothing else in terms of reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing out there about him other than IMDb. This Perrier isn't so sparkling. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page lists several claims to notability, but they are vague and completely unreferenced. I find it difficult to even research them. For example, CMS seems to have some kind of relationship to matte painting, but I still don't know what it stands for or how he was involved. Given that the linked IMDB entry is pretty empty, I'm tempted to believe that the rest of the claims are equally inflated. If the article is recreated, it's going to need citations to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dextrose Leavening[edit]

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

No evidence this is a real process. Unsourced, and most Google results are for unrelated uses of both words next to each other in ingredients lists, in which the words are separated by commas. This indicates that they aren't talking about the subject of the article. The article also seems like a contradiction in that it starts off talking about a process but then seems to be talking about a food additive of some sort, and is in the category "Sweeteners". In short, this seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:V and may, in fact, be a hoax. Even if it is not it is still non-notable and so should be deleted. Everymorning talk 20:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one for the WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Almost six years, impressive. (That's a delete, and I suppose we want to get rid of User:Roeback93 as well?) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's utter nonsense. The same text appears on the OC's user page. I suppose, it was meant as a hoax, and they are still laughing about it. It's also the hoaxster's only contribution to Wikipedia. Kraxler (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcow[edit]

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

Non-notable internet slang PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find significant coverage of this neologism: most of the internet sources out there are self-published. Fails WP:NOTNEO and GNG. Altamel (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for sources only find unreliable sources and some self-published sourcers. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. --TL22 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEO — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet meme repository. This is more applicable to Urban Dictionary. I guess it could be redirect to wikt:lolcow or internet troll, but I don't really see any point. Like Rhododendrites says, it fails WP:NEO and thus has no real reason to exist on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NEO, Shove it on Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Batalla[edit]

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

Not-notable or are U17/U20 appearances enough? He is rumoured to be loan out to Real, but that does not change the fact that he has yet to play in a fully pro league. Kante4 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His performances for Argentina's youth team are the reasons they won his performance was world class. Especially when he played U17 World Cup and 2015 Sundamerica u20

--User:Barcamarco10

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mazzola[edit]

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

Non notable actor, producer and prop master. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not agree. The man has starred in many notable films. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass notability as either an actor, producer or prop master. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, being in notable films doesn't make you notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable filmmaker. Quis separabit? 12:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Manahel Thabet[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harijs Lēvenšteins[edit]

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

If the claims in the article are correct, he meet WP:Notability (sports). However, I was completely unable to WP:VERIFY this. Perhaps someone who reads Latvian can provide sources I've missed, but unless his notability can be verified, this should be deleted. It has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything else. I fixed the dead link to the article, which is from a Latvian newspaper and by all accounts reliable. He doesn't have a corresponding article in the Latvian Wikipedia though he's listed in two articles related to Latvian sports results from those years, but unfortunately it's not sourced. If his primary language was Yiddish, it's possibly his name has simply been translated into Latvian and could also be Lowenstein etc. I'll keep looking. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, only keep !votes, closing early. If anyone objects please let me know and I will relist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Scucci[edit]

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

~~The subject does not meet the relevant notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

In light of the new sources, I'm retracting this nomination. Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per sources in the article as well as the following: [1] [2] [3] Everymorning talk 18:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Everymorning; lots of in-depth mentions, plus some direct coverage. Looks notable to me. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AngleGators[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small software project, article reads like a manual. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability hard to establish. Started by a WP:SPA. NickCT (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AngleGators was created for the RIT Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software Course (Spring 2015) and is part of an Educational Movement to promote the creation of Open Source Games for the OLPC_XO-1 by Rochester_Institute_of_Technology's Free and Open Source Software Program. A larger collection of these games can be found on the SugarLabs Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loothelion (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being created as part of an event/course not affiliated with Wikipedia isn't a reason to keep it by itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:51, 21 May 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) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero in-line citations. Not notable either. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a worthy project with high aims that match Wikipedia's, but simply does not pass the guidelines. Wikipedia is not Goodpeopleopedia. Tigraan (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regpack[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here really rings the notability bell. Sources generally do not satisfy RS and look like fluff pieces. The article is highly promotional. If someone wanted to CSD this per G-11 I would not disagree. Article fails GNG and NSOFTWARE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both article and sources are advertisements, except for the author's Ph.D. thesis (which is obviously primary and hasn't received any citations, according to GScholar). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden's bookshelf[edit]

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

Essentially the copy of a US government document listing documents found with Osama bin Laden. Wikipedia is not a repository for "public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." The existence of this list should instead be mentioned, with a brief summary of the contents, at Death of Osama bin Laden. Sandstein 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTREPOSITORY is fitting here. Un-encyclopedic minutiae. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTREPOSITORY as per the excellent and accurate nomination. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TarkusAB 18:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maralia (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. The release of these documents might warrant an article, but the list of documents itself ain't right. NickCT (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the noms spot on analysis, We aint a repository. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely this is a WP:COPYVIO? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copyvio, and don't call me Shirley. - User:Leslie Nielsen 07:37, 21 May 2015

Given that this is a list released by the US government, it will be free of copyright as a PD-US Government work. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article definitely needs improving (I have started moving some of the named documents to the article's talkpage, in case they need to return and done a bit of a cleanup but more is required:)) but the subject is WP:NOTEWORTHY, as it meets WP:GNG. A google search brings up numerous notable sources including from the first 20 hits - [4] In Osama bin Laden Library: Illuminati and Bob Woodward (New York Times), [5] Osama bin Laden: US intelligence declassifies more than 100 documents seized during 2011 raid (ABC News), [6] US releases trove of Osama bin Laden letters (AlJazeera) [7] Bin Laden's 'bookshelf' included 9/11 conspiracy material (Politico) [8] U.S. Releases Documents Seized From Osama Bin Laden's Compound (npr), [9] Months before U.S. raid, bin Laden considered leaving Pakistan compound (The Washington Post), [10] Bin Laden documents reveal a paranoid family man fixated on the west (The Guardian), [11] US releases more than 100 documents recovered from Osama bin Laden raid (The Guardian), [12] Bin Laden's surprising Taste in Literature (The Atlantic), [13] Osama bin Laden's bookshelf: The contents of the terrorist’s personal library (Sydney Morning Herald), [14] Bin Laden in hiding: Hatching horrific plots despite crippling attacks on al-Qaida (NBC News). There are plenty more. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a library-catalog. The Banner talk 12:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some articles out there like this one that discuss BL's bookshelf, but offhand I'd say that this looks like it'd be best served as a 1-2 paragraph summary on BL's article as opposed to its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aidin Davoudi[edit]

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

Non notable artist-see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidin Davoudi "ArtA" Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search of the English and Persian forms of his name reveals no reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.- Mr X 16:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not notable. Fylbecatulous talk 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aidin Davoudi "ArtA"[edit]

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

Non notable band/music project-all of its refs are to Facebook or to other wikis-see also Aidin Davoudi (I have to go and don't have time to sort out the wiki links) Wgolf (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBAND for lack of available non-SPS sources.- Mr X 16:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable as nominated. Fylbecatulous talk 12:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 02:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Malavé[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability or any reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X X (band)[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG Ormr2014 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If at all, merge ~~delete~~ as News and browser only found some results, nothing at all significant or notable. Other searches found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John D Morton. Trying to google "X__X", failing, and concluding they're not notable isn't really a conclusive argument (WP:GOOGLEHITS is only half of it; it shows ignorance of how search engines work with non-alphabetic characters as well as of how the band used its name). From a legalistic point of view it meets WP:BAND #6 (Morton and Fier) and it is also subject of a lengthy New York Times article[15] which carries slightly more weight than your typical source (coverage in Blurt[16], Lakewood Observer[17], and the cited by Jon Savage who's a very distinguished writer on punk). On the other hand, a very short-lived band with little in the way of releases might be better combined with the article on its principal member. There's some other online coverage of John D Morton (often referred to as John Morton) and his ventures[18][19][20][21][22][23] in addition to the cited; plus this is a 1970s band so there is likely to be more in newspaper and magazine archives. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently in the process of getting this formerly neglected page back in action. The band has been current and actively playing shows in the past year or so and has a new album announced for vinyl release on Smog Veil Records this year. They are easily more relevant than tons of other bands / pages / etc. on Wiki. Starting as usual, from vinyl collectors to music/art writers continuously getting the word out to more mainstream press happening post- archival release and reunion, their music continues to become more and more known, being highly regarded as the 1st post- electric eels music to be released, on noted punk label Drome. I will continue to make sure that sources are cited, up to standards, etc. as i edit. It should not be merged to Morton's page or anywhere else either as the other players, past and present are all highly relevant in the indie/punk underground music scenes of Ohio and beyond since the 70's to now. Eventually they should each get their own pages: Andrew Klimeyk, (brother of Jamie Klimek / Mirrors, ex- hubby of Charlotte Pressler, member of Red Dark Sweet, Tender Buttons (alongside members of Bush Tetras, and tons of other notable acts) Jim Ellis, published Cle Magazine, played w/ Dave E (electric eels) in Jazz Destroyers and/or Cool Marriage Counselors. Craig Bell is or was a member of these bands: Mirrors / Rocket From The Tombs / Saucers / The Down-Fi / The Gizmos / and more, in addition to running well known punk/wave label Gustav Records after leaving OH for CT. Dave E and Mike Weldon (Mirrors / Psychotronic Video Magazine) also played w/ the group, which i'll make note of in ref to the archival Ektro Records LP that came out and they both appear on. The original two Drome 45s of X_____X also regularly fetch upwards of $100 or more if you'd like to check http://www.popsike.com/php/quicksearch.php?searchtext=drome+full+of+&thumbs=&currsel=&sortord=&x=0&y=0 or http://collectorsfrenzy.com/search?q=full+of+drome&search-button= for a few examples. It's possible that a ton of the info about these bands / artists appears in print from years past and hasn't necessarily hit the young internet yet, but it would be doing Wikipedia a great disservice to delete or merge this band's page out of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Guts (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please view WP:BAND and cross reference with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The band in this article does not meet the criteria as outlined in WP:BAND. "Actively playing shows" and having a new album does not necessarily constitute notability. Ormr2014 | Talk

Colapeninsula This particular NYT article reads like a memoir and not a news article and as such holds the same weight as a personal blog post.

As for your assertion that "Trying to google "X__X", failing...shows ignorance of how search engines work" is presumptuous on your part and assumes that's what I did... As a CMO with over 15 years experience doing SEO, web development and marketing, I am well aware of how search engines work. As the saying goes, "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and searches for "No wave bands in 1978", "John D Morton", and so on don't really substantially demonstrate notability for the band. Ormr2014 | Talk

Keep as passing WP:BAND #6, subject to possible merge per Colapeninsula's suggestion. The band name is also spelled "Ex-Blank-Ex" and coverage exists in AllMusic [24]; The Plain Dealer [25]; The New York Times[26] (I disagree with Ormr2014's contention that this is merely a "personal blog"); CMJ [27]; Chicago Reader [28]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article reads like a personal memoir ("One day in 1980, I reached a milestone in a Jewish boy’s journey into manhood: spending my bar mitzvah money on punk rock records. I was searching the racks at a record store for “Adult Books,” the debut single by the Los Angeles band X, and the only 45 that remotely fit the bill featured a couple of white X’s on the front cover, separated by a dash, above a photo of the bare backside of a woman bound at the ankles."). The article is not a news article, nor does it imply notability. It is nothing more than an editorial of the author's memories and opinions about how "great" the band is. Ormr2014 | Talk

An article in one of the world's most prestigious newspapers saying that a band is great is surely an indicator of notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the article, and a few more words in the following two paragraphs, describe the reporter's personal recollection of the band. The balance of this sixteen-paragraph article is written and presented as New York Times music news reporting, is certainly not a blog entry, and stands as evidence of notability, along with the other sources noted above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any coverage that would establish notability. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that significant coverage exists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Succès de scandale[edit]

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

It is a badly written, unsourced collection of information Trumpetrep (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article is a mess because it's a poor translation of the French article. I was going to say delete per WP:NOTDIC, but, as a similar manner to schadenfreude it really has made its way into the popular lexicon outside of French and has no real English equivalent; as an expression it is used in headlines in New York Times, Time Magazine; and even Tech Crunch, and it's used in article context in Vanity Fair and Wall Street Journal. These don't mean notability on their own but I think it should just tagged notability. I've never worked on an article about an expression before; if others see potential I'd be happy to TNT this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until decent references are provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Shouldn't the article's creator, User:Francis Schonken, have been notified of this nomination? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops lost this one out of sight since before there was a really operational references system. I think Wikipedia should have an article on the topic, mentioning at least some of the best-known examples (duly referenced of course), so I suppose exiling it temporarily to user space is not much of a solution. Will see what I can do over the next days, and hope for some similar cooperation from other people who may have been alerted here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems unsure whether it's specifically about scandal in late 19th century French culture which is a legitimate, if specialised, subject[29] (which could however be included in other articles on Third Republic culture). If more general, we need sources discussing succès de scandale as a topic (more generally than saying about individual works "X was a succès de scandale"). Turning it into a list of artistic and literary scandals is possible: Scandal#List_of_scandals omits that topic, while having lists of most other kinds of scandals. For this kind of dictionary definition-like article, we either need in-depth general discussion, or to turn it into a list. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - forgot about this one. I'll read up on the French and see if there's a clearer notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:IMPERFECT, weak writing is not an adequate reason to delete. There's plenty more to pull together here such as Épater la bourgeoisie, shock jock, obscenity controversies, Miley Cyrus, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – added refs, and replaced dubious content by referenced content. Propose to replace the general {{refimprove}} template by more specific {{cn}}s where needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is supported by reliable sources which establish notability. Thanks to Francis Schonken for cleaning up this article. (Though I understand that poor writing is not a reason for deletion). 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paracetamol brand names. L Faraone 01:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panadol[edit]

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

fails NOTABILITY, lack of independent sources so fails WP:Golden Rule, WP:NOTDIRECTORY Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An incredibly common brand of paracetamol in many countries. Why on earth would we want to delete it? Makes no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What lack of independent sources? How does this and this fail the golden rule/WP:GNG? This is clearly a significant product, have you accidentally nominated the incorrect article?Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing notable about this particular brand; the article says nothing notable about it - it just provides a bunch of indiscriminate detail. Contrast with Tylenol. It is just a directory listing.Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, it is a brand that sells 18 billion tablets annually in 85 different countries. A quick search finds dozens of examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. I still fail to see how this fails WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is notable about the brand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:That it covered significantly in reliable sources? For example it has 91% of the pain reliever market share in Sri Lanka,[30] with similar shares in other non-western countries. Can you tell me what specific deletion criteria that this article fails? Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are providing marketing material from http://www.superbrands.com/ as a source? this is exactly the point. What independent sources are there they show there is anything notable about this brand? The article about Tylenol makes sense - the cyanide poisonings happened which led to lots of coverage of the brand in independent sources, as well as damage to the brand's reputation, and how J&J managed it. Anyway, your vote to "keep" is clear. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I hope it is clear, I still fail to see how this fails WP:GNG. If you dislike the superbrand report, (which actually cites HouseholdPanel – LMRB which is independent) there are many, many others. For example the product has the largest market share of any pain reliever in Australia[31] at 28%. They've also come under pressure for misleading marketing claims[32], studies that they aren't better than placebo and have recently faced some controversial recall of their own. This should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that significant coverage in independent sources exists for Panadol. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

most of your sources there are about the active ingredient, not the brand. there is no doubt that the active ingredient, Paracetamol, is notable - it absolutely is; people seem to get easily confused about that. and a blip of a recall over a wrong label is not notable. i do not see how this brand is notable. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:Please explain specifically how this article fails any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only the times article could possibly be construed to be about the active ingredient rather than the brand. All the remaining sources are independent and all significantly discuss the brand. See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the conversation.com article is not about panadol - it is about analgesics in general. (this is what i mean about people being confused) all you have is a pile of trivia about a product.Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:"Please explain specifically how this article fails any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines." WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The brand is documented in detail in sources such as the BMA Concise Guide to Medicine and Drugs and Medicines: The Comprehensive Guide. The worst case would be merger with a page such as paracetamol but, as the various formulations include other active ingredients, it seems reasonable to keep this separate to make this clear. Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support a redirect to paracetamol. the various formulations are just triva that violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep The key question is whether Panadol is independently notable from paracetamol. From a medical standpoint no. The activity of Panadol is no different from generic paracetamol. From a business standpoint and given the large global sales of Panadol, it very well may be. Is there any thing unique and notable about the marketing of Panadol (for example Panadol pharmaceutical markeing)? Are there any controversies specifically about Panadol? Boghog (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: Panadol is the 2nd largest non-narcotic analgesics in the world by market share, with 21% of the global market share.[33] The three recent recalls of panadol (late 2013, mid 2014, and last month) was also widely covered by a large number of news sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major recalls makes it independently notable. Also marketing campaign. Needs to be added to article. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources I just added to the article, as well as coverage in this book, establishes that this brand meets WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 17:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In most cases, I would suggest an article about a specific brand for a drug should be merged with the article for that drug. That may be best here. However, Panadol seems to me one of the few cases where the brand is significant in itself, as per Winner 42. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my view all that Winner42 has done is say that a lot of it gets sold and not provided anything beyond trivia. Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of facts. All the article is, is a listing of countries where it is sold and various formulations, with a little bit of history. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that history is covered in Paracetamol. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close It appears this AfD was not properly thought out before it was posted. I am not seeing much value in continuing the discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The existence of independent sources shows that an article with this name is feasible. The question that should also be asked is "Is it desirable?". I have seen no argument above that indicates why the few sources unique to Panadol should not be discussed in the article for the generic drug, Paracetamol. Indeed, Panadol is already mentioned in the Paracetamol article five times, in the infobox, the lead and the history section, as well as being prominently featured in an image. Isn't that enough advertisement for a commercial brand name already? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related_articles #Article titles gives the following guidance for the article title: Drugs—The International Nonproprietary Name (INN). The INN for Panadol is Paracetamol and that is how our MOS tells us it should be titled. I should add that the article List of paracetamol brand names also already exists and has 107 entries to date. How many of these deserve entries according to the arguments espoused above? We're being asked to retain an article on the brand name of the second largest selling non-narcotic analgesic - so why not an article on the third-best seller, or the fourth? at what point do we draw the line? as I'm sure someone can find sources for all of them. Without a good reason for an exception to our article-naming guideline, this topic should exist solely within the existing Paracetamol article. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Kim Kardashian's butt Merge to ~~Paracetamol~~ and redirect. As explained by RexxS, we don't need hundreds of articles on trade names, and we have a guideline to use INN. Tylenol is notable for an extreme incident; we don't have articles on vioxx, prozac, synthroid, etc. And per Boghog's comment that the recall made it notable, we don't have a vioxx article in spite of the laypress using vioxx rather than Rofecoxib when that scandal happened. There is nothing in this article that can't be accommodated at paracetamol. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paracetamol and merge content to Paracetamol brand names (as clarified by Hrothulf). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It is a disservice to the reader to fragment our drug information across different articles about each brand name. WP:MEDMOS recommends using the INN for articles about drugs. Also, Kim Kardashian's butt. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding, relevant to the discussion below: I support the recent move of Tylenol to Tylenol (brand) because there is plenty of noteworthy stuff to say about that brand that would overwhelm Paracetamol if we tried to include it all in Paracetamol. Anything noteworthy about Panadol can be (and is) easily included in Paracetamol and List of paracetamol brand names, so, at least unless more noteworthy stuff comes to light or until the brand is involved in a lot more noteworthy events, I oppose the creation of Panadol (brand). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - a separate article under one brand name is not needed. If it were found that panadol differed significantly from paracetamol then it would warrant a separate article. Right now it just seems like promotion for GlaxoSmithKline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have been seeing a lot of people trying to create spam articles based on brand names of medications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect We do not need a seperate article for each brand name of acetaminophen. When someone types in a brandname they are looking for information about the medication. They are not looking for a discussion of the brand. Thus the term panadol should redirect to paracetamol. What we need is a series of articles on Brandnames of X were all the brand names of X are discussed in detail for those who care. These brandnames would be linked from society and culture section. And guess what we have an article called List of paracetamol brand names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay IMO we should move Panadol to Panadol (brand) and then redirect Panadol to paracetamol. This is most inline with WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS. The brand article is a subarticle of the paracetamol article which can than link to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the page on Tylenol has just recently been moved to Tylenol (brand) and Tylenol redirected to paracetamol. (Seems like a good idea to me and one that would work for Panadol too if it isn't deleted or merged.) Deli nk (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced we need Panadol (brand) either, because the argument still holds that information that is distinct about this one specific brand name can be accomodated at List of paracetamol brand names or Brand names of paracetamol.

We shouldn't set up a situation where we might end up with duplicate information across hundreds of articles.

Also, I'm pinging the editors who weighed in here before the pharmacy and medicine guidelines were pointed out: @Necrothesp: @Winner 42: @Andrew Davidson: @And Adoil Descended:.

@Bondegezou: @Boghog: and @Everymorning: indicated familiartity with the Medicine and Pharmacy guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I also weighed in on business guidelines which seems to have been completely lost. There does not need to be any duplication of information. Paracetamol is focused on the pharmacological activity of the drug, Panadol on the business aspects. Boghog (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this more I think merge to Paracetamol brand names is best. I am not seeing enough yet for a stand alone article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted above, is the most sensible course of action. I don't see that there is enough notable information about the brand itself to warrant a separate article. A vast majority of people who come to Wikipedia for information about Panadol will almost certainly be looking for information about the drug (the active ingredient) rather than anything particular to the branded product. Deli nk (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given how significant and widespread the brand is I still maintain that a separate article is completely acceptable and indeed desirable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with Necrothesp and Boghog the brand is so widespread and significant that a separate article on it is relevant. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yep, we know. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge Doc James' solution is a good one. Redirect Panadol to paracetamol and create Panadol (brand) to contain content specific to the product. This is a good general approach - certainly there are quite a few drugs whose advertising or business aspects are notable independent of the compound itself. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paracetamol and merge content to Paracetamol brand names. Antonyhcole and Doc James have it exactly right. The brand names article is short, and will benefit from the couple of paragraphs currently at Panadol. Certainly Panadol is a marketing success and satisfies the general notability guidelines, but there is still a strong case for a merge: a reader can find all the drug information in one place, (also easy for experienced pharma editors to watch) and there can still be a supporting article about the leading brand names and their marketing success (or otherwise). Some of these brands proved their significance by outselling generics for decades after patents expire, but it is easier to read about all these in one place, rather than in individual articles about each brand. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Sandy and James, ensuring hat notes are in place to handle wp:EASTEREGG issues. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should just link to these article in the lead of the paracetamol article IMO such as we do with Tylenol (brand) right now. Adding hatenotes IMO is IMO undue weight. These are subpages of paracetamol rather than article on par with paracetamol. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the arguments above about Panadol being a widely used drug, here are, as an example, the top prescribed medications in the US according to WebMD.

This is only the top 10 in the US; if we extend that to the top 100,[34] and then worldwide, we end up with a lot of duplication of information. Every one of them is a redirect to the generic, and that is desirable and per guideline, to avoid duplication of information. Being widely used does not indicate a reason to create separate articles on every trade name; any information that needs to be include a specific brand name can be included in the generic article. Trade name articles for drugs should be the exception (as in the Tylenol (brand) case per the cyanide poisonings) rather than the rule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Everyone agrees with redirection. Although some editors !voted for delete and redirect, not policy-based reason is provided for why simple redirection is inadequate. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Shura[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several similar afd discussions that you have nominated, perhaps it would be best to combine them into one discussion. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Winner 42, thanks for your suggestion, but with the asteroids the consensus is against bundling, after a couple of discussions about it and an aborted bundling discussion. This way will take longer, but we'll get there. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah ok, wasn't aware of the consensus around astro object bundling. Ether way this should be deleted and redirected.Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The general consensus is not to bundle bot-generated asteroid articles as the bot had no idea what asteroids would be notable or not. -- Kheider (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to the appropriate list article, if one exists. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One of 44 objects included in a single lightcurve study [35], not enough for independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1833 Shmakova[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [36] is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1881 Shao[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No need to delete then redirect. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1913 Sekanina[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 15:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only delete or redirect (assuming not individually notable) if Boleyn rewrites List of minor planets: 1001–2000 to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia. Please opine whether you agree that Boleyn should be deleted from Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO; barely any content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Mentioned in several papers as having a close encounter in 1981 with 165 Loreley which may assist in the determination of Loreley's mass. But it's barely more than a line in a table in those papers and I think the notability for this encounter should mainly go to Loreley. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.There is a clear consensus to redirect. While there is some support for delete and redirect, there has been no policy-based rationale provided for why deletion is necessary and for why a simple redirect would not suffice. Rlendog (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1482 Sebastiana[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only delete or redirect (assuming not notable) if Boleyn rewrites List of minor planets: 1001–2000 to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia. Please opine whether you agree that Boleyn should be deleted from Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milowent: please read and follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This kind of AfD contribution is unconstructive and unhelpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO. Don't see how a one-sentence article is useful in any way. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Other than a 24-body lightcurve study [37] there's also a study of its polar angle, more specific to this object [38] which shows it to have an unusual spin axis. But the details in the second study are still quite meager, so I don't think there's enough coverage to make an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus to redirect. While there is a split between simple redirect and delete and redirect, there has been no policy based rationale provided to support the need for the deletion step. Rlendog (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1265 Schweikarda[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As we are talking about a numbered minor planet in the asteroid belt, you should be following WP:DWMP @ NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only delete or redirect (assuming not notable) if Boleyn rewrites List of minor planets: 1001–2000 to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia. Please opine whether you agree that Boleyn should be deleted from Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're upset about these nominations, but please don't make it personal. If you think you have legitimate concerns about Boleyn's conduct, then how about discussing it with her, and if necessary, bring it to a noticeboard for broader community attention?- Mr X 16:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a rational demand in response to an editor's actions. Boleyn could be the greatest person in the world, they could indeed be Jesus, assuming Jesus's second coming involved mainly occupying His time with redirecting asteroid articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO. Barely any content here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1782 Schneller[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Part of a lightcurve study of the Themis family [39] but it's a big family, not a particularly prominent member of it, and I didn't find anything else. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1770 Schlesinger[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 (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charonne Mose[edit]

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

Non-notable dancer with only lead of notability being a 1995 Emmy winning for Miss America with several Books results showing. However, there is nothing else to suggest notability, a lot of this information is unconfirmed but was actually added by the subject herself as what seems to be a self-bio. News found one result from a website I'm not going to click but it seems passing and minor. IMDb shows she has only had two roles both as a dancer. Multiple searches found nothing else and it is clear that Emmy winning is her only lead of notability because browser searches provide the Books links (note: It appears she now works as a interactive art designer so that explains the dancing absence). The article was actually tagged for speedy but declined due to "Winning an Emmy is a marginal source of notability is a marginal notability" but the article was never improved or nominated for possible deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO; an Emmy is considered a significant award —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there isn't anything to support the article aside from that Emmy Award which frankly may be her best shot. In any case, this is something that would be better mentioned briefly somewhere else (not that I see a good target, and she's mentioned at Template:EmmyAward Choreography 1976–2000). SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean "to support the article." The article can exist as a stub with the basic information, including a simple filmography (from here is a start). Other people may have access to additional RS, such as offline magazines. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage in any reliable sources. WP:ANYBIO is not an exception to WP:BIO, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Think I agree with User:SwisterTwister. Granted an Emmy is a significant award and WP:ANYBIO is relevant, but there really doesn't seem to be any other claim to fame here. I don't think we want a BLP for every single person who ever won an Emmy do we? NickCT (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having won an Emmy suggests that the subject may be notable, but it doesn't guarantee it. The coverage in reliable sources is too sparse to justify an independent article.- Mr X 15:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Emmy (national, not just regional) (winner, not merely nominated) is usually a significant award. I have encountered a number of people where this is the only indication of notability, and wondered about them. But I think we consistently accept and should accept highest level national awards in all fields, because the people professionally in those fields can judge better than we can. Personally, I consider it leads to overcoverage in some fields I do not care much about, but my own personal interest is not a valid criterion. For the entertainment industry , I usually rely on MichaelQSchmidt, and I'd like his opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every person who's gotten an Emmy has gotten a Wikipedia article written about them; there's also the fact that the only reference is IMDb, and IMDb's should only be used as external links, not as references. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Struck indef blocked sockpuppet vote Kraxler (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG here. Also see this. Kraxler (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Journal of Sociology[edit]

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

Article dePROD by article creator without reason given. 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." Article creation WP:TOOSOON. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of WP:GNG notability and unlikely to be notable based on it's very short time in existence.- Mr X 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this is 《中国社会科学》in which case, if Google translate is accurate, it's a notable journal. It seems they do a quarterly English version. We need some expertise familiar with Chinese academia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, the subject in question is an English-language journal, if you look here. 《中国社会科学》 is translated as Social Sciences in China and is a Chinese-language journal. Timmyshin (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero coverage in English language media. For a scientific journal this means lack of any notability. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Superstore Festival of Lights[edit]

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

It appears this festival has never received significant and in-depth coverage as News searches found nothing (before and after enhanced with additional words) and Books found guides. Multiple browser searches found a few links such as the Nickelback tour from 2007 and a few others but it seems maybe the festival was fading and maybe now defunct (no recent results and appears the website links are now broken). A search for the "largest Canada Day celebration outside of Ottawa" found a few results but are mostly press releases or primary/local and not significant and in-depth. I would suggest moving elsewhere but I don't see a target unless a small merge to Charlottetown. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than a few books that merely list the festival, I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 15:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per User:MrX; not seeing anything which would establish notability. Produced by an WP:SPA. NickCT (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apexart. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Rand[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Founding a notable organization is not enough to prove notability. A google search for "Steven Rand" artist yields only 16 results, and most of them are not even about him. JDDJS (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apexart. Widr (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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 (biographies) requirement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect - The gallery this dude founded (i.e. ApexArt) looks barely notable itself. These pages were started by a WP:SPA. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO due to shortage of reliable sources that cover the subject in any depth. Arguably, WP:BLP1E would apply as well. The article stats would suggest that not a lot of readers are looking for his bio, so a redirect is unnecessary.- Mr X 16:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazneen_Madan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as well. Looks like WP:COI applies as well. Doublefrog (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge While Nazneen Madan may have acted, there does not seem to be any real coverage and I'm not sure an article about her would satisfy [WP:N]]. Ormr2014 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Tower of Babel[edit]

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

This does not seem like a particularly notable idea. Only reference is clearly not an reliable source, more like a clickbait-blog page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page about it on the Japanese Wikipedia [40] that has a source (though its author seems to be the designer of the proposed tower). Designing the tallest building ever proposed would be a notable idea, though maybe not enough for a notable article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable, third party sources provided which establish notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks any in-depth coverage or third-party to demonstrate sufficient notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gastão Coimbra[edit]

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

Non-notable Brazilian director. Coimbra's one feature film to date (Homens da Pátria) received little note outside of history-centric blogs. The citations used to support this article are paper-thin references to the man. Insufficient source material available from which to derive a real article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, found nothing to support GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Milligan[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No secondary sources. Agtx (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill journalist who doesn't meet WP:BIO. No substantial coverage in reliable sources, or major achievements. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Chrislk02 per CSD G11 and CSD G12. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Michael Lam[edit]

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

Bio of a doctor that sounds like a advertisement. Might also not be notable Wgolf (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have enough of these self-promotional advertisements: User Sanket.futurevision has made NO other contributions aside from creating this article and is the only one who has added any content. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Tagged it for G11 and G12. It's also a WP:COPYVIO taken from Lam's website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (South Korean singer)[edit]

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

Non notable singer with no reliable references Wgolf (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leo has had one lead role in a musical, but I couldn't find any other individual activities. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for an article because he doesn't appear to notable enough yet. Random86 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two sources are for his musical and come from a non credible site. Other than that there really isn't much on the page and nothing to prove notability.Peachywink (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this person is not notable outside of being a member of the band VIXX which has an article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Tewari[edit]

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

This article is based on single source (ET report) apart from a self published source. Also a case of WP:COPYVIO. I am inclined to say that this article should be deleted. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article not based on single source.Please see^[1] ^[2] ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At the time I tagged the article, it was based on single source and a self published source. Article still needs to pass WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/engineer-paramahamsa-tewaris-invention-space-power-generator-excites-interest/1/337896.html
^ http://pesn.com/2015/04/15/9602603_Paramahamsa-Tewari_Reactionless-AC-Synchronous-Generator_RLG_prepping-for-commercial-roll-out/
^ http://changingpower.net/tewari-begins-the-energy-revolution/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:- Subject of the article is a notable engineer and inventor. He was formerly an Executive Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India [41]. I also found India Today, Economic Times and World Science Database]. The fact that an article contain a single source is not a valid reason for deletion. I remind the nominator that deletion is not the only way to deal with Copyright infringement problems. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting is a way to fix copyright issues. Voting «Strong Keep» without editing the article is not a way to fix copyright issues. Spumuq (talq) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New sources have been added since nomination by Amruth M D ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has copyright violation and NPOV faults. Spumuq (talq) 15:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDFLAG. For an individual who is supposed to be notable for defying the First law of thermodynamics, there should be a LARGE number of independent and reliable academic sources covering this historic breakthrough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A prototype of the article tested in the labs of Kirloskar Group exhibited 165% bullshit. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:-The fact that he invented the an electrical generator with 165% shows his worth which motivated me to write this article. Please give suggestions how to solve the issues involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there lies your problem Amruth M D, because he actually didn't invent such a device. I do hope he left the Indian Nuclear Power industry before he thought this thing up. He may have notability for that but I'm not sure, and I don't think that claiming to have invented perpetual motion, or a 165% efficient generator, which of course would change the world, put the totality of the worlds scientists out of jobs, cure poverty and Yaws overnight, actually makes somebody notable. I'm on the fence still. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 15:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it comes down to is that we have nothing on which to build an accurate article. The announcements of "free energy from space" come from two Indian news outlets, one from 1987 and one from 2015. Either an evil conspiracy has been making sure no news of this giant breakthrough gets outside of India, or these are two very gullible sources (indeed, their comments section includes speculation that it is all an April Fool's joke) . The rest of the sources listed are all fringe. (Yes, Tewari graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering and is a former Executive at India's Nuclear Power Corporation - but that in itself is not sufficient to make him notable enough for his own article.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the copyvio (wayback verified that the claimed source pre-dates it being in the WP article). Note also that User:1.23.64.62, claimed that the identical whole sentences were not a cut'n'paste problem...suspect we have WP:COMPETENCE/WP:COI of some sort here. I'm not yet taking a position on the article AFD itself. DMacks (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article has 12 references and does not violate Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing - this article is a testament to the gullibility or lack of journalistic integrity of the publications cited, none of which establish this is notable. --_nonsense ferret 18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe subjects with only credulous sources make for non-neutral and bad encyclopedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'll comment on an AfD for once. I find these sources very suspect - overly non-critical approach and details are lacking on the supposed "verifications". Maybe in the future there will be evidence that such a device does actually work, but we don't have to prognosticate. And without good sourcing an article making such WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements can't stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as badly-sourced credulous unencyclopaedic bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HPGL. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Graphics Language[edit]

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

Non-notable programming library (not a programming language). Fails WP:GNG. Tagged for no sources since January 2007. Was only used in a small number of products and only internally. ― Padenton|✉ 16:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HPGL. Yes it was a language (it had a grammar), not a library. I also think it lasted into Rocky Mountain Basic (for compatibility reasons) and lasted into the '90s on the HP non-PC micros. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to HPGL Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HPGL —Ruud 16:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HPGL. I don't think a merger of unsourced content is necessary. Andy Dingley has a point, changed my mind. Merge. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point in pointing one topic to another, where there would then be no content whatsoever to describe that topic? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (nom) Thought I already added this here, but oh well. No objection to merge per above arguments. ― Padenton|✉ 17:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bendix G-20. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20-GATE[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language. Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any sources whatsoever other than wiki and other user-provided information sites. Even CMU's (where the language was created) website has little to no mention of the language. A search on CMU's website revealed this political science research paper (which mentions it as being used on page 10 and clearly qualifies as no more than a brief mention) and the other article does not appear to actually mention the language, seems to have just turned up based on the heavy use of 'gate'. Article's one reference (HOPL entry in External Links) has been dead since 2012. I found a cached ver of the page at web.archive.org from 2011, but it does not seem to support the subject's notability and only lists 2 papers giving significant coverage of the language, both written by the creators and therefore not independent. Also notifying notability tagger from February 2015: Kephir ― Padenton|✉ 16:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bendix G-20/Weak keep Possibly not of sufficient historical interest to warrant a stand-alone article, but should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article on the system it was designed to run on. On the other hand, also seems to have a predecessor GATE that ran on the IBM 650 and Alan Perlis was involved in its design, so I'd lean towards a keep just out of caution. References:
- Perlis, A. J., H. R. Van Zoeren, and A. Evans, Jr. September 1959. “Gate Algebraic Compiler with Segmenting and Library Features for a Disk 650."
- "20-GATE: Algebraic Compiler for the Bendix G-20", Carnegie Tech Computation Center, September 1962.
- Perlis, A. J., "A format language", CACM, 1964
- Alan Perlis, "Two Thousand Words and Two Thousand Ideas - The 650 at Carnegie", IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 1986.
- Janet W. Fierst & David M. Blocher. "ALGOL-20: a language manual", 1965

None of those papers have a very high number citations according to GS, but I think the numbers may be underestimated because of missing articles and OCR problems for its index in this era. —Ruud 12:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bendix G-20 As per Ruud Koot above. --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bendix G-20 per Ruud's reasoning and source finds. There are sources enough for verification of basic facts about the language and merging into Bendix G-20 seems of due weight. The title is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted as well. --Mark viking (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (nom) to Bendix G-20 per above arguments. ― Padenton|✉ 21:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Super League all time table[edit]

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

This is not notable enough to warrant an article and WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. An admin suggested I go to AfD. QED237 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are lots of articles like these, Category. -Koppapa (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I really did not understand why to be deleted? There are many examples of this kind tables. i.e. Bundesliga, Premier League, Argentina, Norway. All going to be deleted? If the problem is references, I found 3 references. Not enough? --Teacher0691 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable LISTCRUFT / OR. Giant Snowman 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't agree with the assessment that this is cruft, but is definitely original synthesis, given that the only source listed to actually include a complete all-time table is self-published and not reliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~- Still no answers to my questions above. This list is a summary of 57 seasons. Süper lig seasons also exist in wiki. It is not hard to make an excell table and add them. On the other hand, it is said that the source is not reliable, however the same source is used many times in wiki such as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. The same source is considered as 4th reliable source after uefa, sw and wiki at Bert Kassies's page. Please can someone explain me what is really wrong with this article? --Teacher0691 (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Teacher0691: Please do not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OR, no reliable source to support the calculations. Arguments that the creation of this table is simple mathematics are stretching things quite a bit, it is not a simple task for any reader of the page to confirm the accuracy of the data provided. Even if there were a reliable source, there would be major WP:NOTSTATS issues. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sivritepe is a reliable source because as I mentioned before this source is used many and many time in Wiki. (Me and anyone can find them so easily). On the other hand, the reader of the page (approximately average 30 in last 90 days) are not wondering about the source, they wonder the most recent and updated table of their supporting team's position overall. And in finally, as a Pending changes reviewer in trwiki, we don't want to loose an article so easily which can be developed. If and only if the source is the problem, please look at the intervikies of that article. Please clear up them all or keep. (And only 2 delete votes yet. Is that enough for a consensus?) --Teacher0691 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sivritepe is self-published and therefore not reliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of quadrangles on Io[edit]

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

It is not notable. Spumuq (talq) 14:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A perfectly fine example of a list, satisfying WP:SALAT, just like those for Mercury, Venus, Ganymede, etc. etc. They are notable as a group. Mars needs quadrangles (and women).Clarityfiend (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a complete list of a valid subject. I could see a move/rewrite in prose as Quadrangulation of Io if it added something to the subject, but outright deletion? No. Tigraan (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other lists are titled this way, e.g. List of quadrangles on the Moon. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it does look like an acceptable topic for a list. A little thin on information, perhaps - it could do with an opening paragraph explaining what a quadrangle is, rather than just a wikilink - but it seems acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jon Arbuckle and add indefinite full-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Huge[edit]

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

While the article contains a lot of info, the sources are in no way reliable. Most of this is cited to a personal blog on Wordpress or a YouTube video, neither of which are reliable sources. The person in question is only passingly notable at best, with only one VA role and literally nothing else, so either delete outright or revert the article to a redirect, as was consensus in the last two AFDs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect) - article does not support WP:ENTERTAINER criteria nor provide reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Arbuckle and protection. 2 AfDs have resulted in a redirect consensus. Both were undone by IPs. ― Padenton|✉ 14:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this going back through the AfD process rather than correct it to the previous redirect status? Just wondering.--Rpclod (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: I think that it's probably because the article has more content and sourcing than it did at its 2008 and 2012 AfDs. I have no true opinion on the article's notability (although offhand I think that it'll likely end in another redirect), but a third and final AfD would probably be a good enough idea given the additional material and sources. From what I can see he's only done one voice (Jon). He's done some other work and I found some mention of him in Highbeam, but so far I don't really see anything overwhelmingly huge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: That is exactly why I re-sent it to AFD, since this version is significantly different from prior versions and I felt a new discussion was in order. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Arbuckle and protect I remember this from two years ago, seems odd we're back here for the second AfD since then. As I said then the actor is almost notable but their body of work is too insubstantial even with the better referencing (which is incredibly weak nonetheless). To prevent a fifth AfD I feel like it'll need to be protected because I doubt the vested interest wanting to make this article exist will stop. tutterMouse (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Search and Rescue Indiana Task Force 1[edit]

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

there's nothing here! redirect to Indianapolis Fire Department, which had a fair amount of content on the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability indicated.--Rpclod (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I believe that the Task Force is notable and is made up of more than just the Indianapolis Fire Department. Unfortunately, there still seems to be very few sources of information about the Task Force aside from the fact that it exists and that it has been deployed a couple of times so I understand the justification to delete it. Epolk (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for a standalone article; only one source is provided and it is a dead link. I considered a merge/redirect to Indianapolis Fire Department#USAR Task Force 1, but this article contains almost no mergeable information beyond what is already there in the Indianapolis article. Also, the task force properly belongs to Marion County rather than Indianapolis, but the Marion County article contains nothing about emergency services. I concluded there is no good redirect target and nothing worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, off topic - Just an FYI, MelanieN. Indianapolis and Marion County are unigov. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Weinberger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

CEO for a non-notable company is not notable. Note: this is NOT a 2nd nomination. There was a different non-notable Ben Weinberger, but this isn't the same guy. Rklawton (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 13:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the links in the article are red. The company he works for got its article speedily deleted years ago and nobody has thought it notable enough to recreate. It is now owned by TiVo, and there was RS news coverage of the purchase, but it only gets a one line mention on TiVo_Inc.. The non-red link to the company's other founder is not even pointing to the right guy. Even if the company was more than minimally notable, we would not need separate articles about its founders. Nothing else that is claimed of him is notable either. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – He received a notable award from the Governor of Illinois for his business endeavors. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (Striking comment by blocked sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - as per and adopting excellent rationale by @DanielRigal. Quis separabit? 02:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 if someone wants the revisions relating to the Korean band restored to Draft space for a closer look I'll be happy to do that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xing (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band which lacks enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and has failed all points of WP:NMUSIC - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this page was recently overwritten of the following Korean band; see this revision. Though poorly sourced, it has remained the stable page for several years and should consider reverting back to this one rather than deleting the entire page history. Evaders99 (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, even the previous page looks to fail under the same criteria as the nomination though so at this point I think it best served with deletion.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both versions of the article. One tried and failed to make a mark, the other hasn't made a mark yet. - Richfife (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to version on Korean band. I actually have no opinion on the UK band (current version) but the now-disbanded Korean group is notable (though not particularly successful). They charted on the RIAK (pre-Gaon) charts ([42]) at least once, but some of their releases came out during the period when Korea had no chart (Oct 2008 to Jan 2010). Their name is hard to search for because "씽" (name in Korean) is part of many other words. However, they received decent coverage in Korean-language reliable sources ([43], [44], [45], [46] are a few examples). When it comes to older Korean pop artists, I tend to be conservative in deleting them because of the time & difficulty required to find extensive RS (see systemic bias issues). Part of their notability these days stems from them being the group many, many current kpop stars got their start in. Not to invoke "other stuff exists" arguments (which I despise), but we do have articles on many new kpop artists with a lot fewer releases. The article needs work, but I think it's doable. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References include facebook and IMDb, not enough third party sources to indicate notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (striking comment by blocked sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Didn't hold any notability then or now, these unreliable sources don't hold any value.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Biologist Association[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for organizations; only sources offered are this organization's own website except for one which only establishes that it exists 331dot (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I might take the ECBA recognition more seriously if that weren't a redlink. As it is we have nothing beyond the society itself to indicate how significant it is. This is a pretty typical situation for academic societies but we can't fix that problem by allowing any society to declare itself notable only on its own say-so. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daydream Catapult[edit]

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

Marginally notable band. Claims to have song used on TV series, but no independent evidence provided or explanation of song usage. Article lacks non-trivial support needed to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of independent sources. Since this name is easy to google, I feel fairly confident in saying that. Just having a song used in a TV program isn't enough to guarantee an article: see WP:BAND #10. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian under-17 League[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This is a non-notable youth tournament which does not meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Youth football fails WP:GNG and is non-notable... JMHamo (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth league. No indication of significant, reliable coverage of the league itself beyond WP:ROUTINE reporting of results. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International_V8_Supercars_Championship. This probably is TOOSOON but rather then go with the delete, I'll redirect so this can be undone with the minimum of fuss when it's time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 International V8 Supercars Championship[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON The majority of cited announcements are carry over announcements relevant to 2014 or 2015 seasons. References about DJR Penske and Prodrive Australia changing manufacturers are speculative, not announcements and there has been no calendar announcements. There is just one driver signing that is genuinely new for 2016. Not enough to start a new season article. Content is almost entirely copied over from 2015 International V8 Supercars Championship article. Falcadore (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Falcadore (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article reflects cited changes for 2016. Similar articles 2016 Formula One season and 2016 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season have been established. V7867 (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. There is only one change for 2016 detailed. Also - WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Falcadore (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is cited and will evolve over time Transasia07 (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete V8 Supercar season articles generally are not created until the release of the calendar, the exception being significant changes for that season (such as the entrance of new manufacturers in 2013/2014). There are currently no significant changes for 2016, so article should not be created until the calendar is released. ^Kytabu _Talk 05:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe a bit early, but only by a few months, better a bit early than a bit late IMO. Does provide a good summary of what contracts are in place. Would feel differently if the season was > 12 months away. Drs002 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The calendar for the season has not been released and there are not enough major changes to the manufacturers or drivers for the page to be kept as it stands. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7. This AfD is effectively over. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Amparo[edit]

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

Minimal coverage; self-published author. References are largely blogs. I should mention the article was previously speedied as a hoax, as it copies material from David Gandy, and the unfinished website of the alleged company founded by the subject was registered last week. Blackguard 06:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three important links other there. Books he wrote and biography

https://play.google.com/store/books/author?id=Marvin+Amparo

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A133140011%2Cp_27%3AMarvin%20Amparo https://farmingdale.edu/social-media/student-spotlight/marvinsantana.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.125.108.9 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:TOOSOON ambitious young man. His college likes him [47] sources do not exist to support an article. ((should birth date read 1992?).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not apparently notable. Also, the author has requested WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1384 Kniertje[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 redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those under 2000 to be discussed and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Included in three lightcurve studies on small sets of asteroids [48] [49] [50] and mentioned in several other larger-scale studies. I think that may be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep: based on sources. Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has an fairly unusual albedo of 0.3. -- Kheider (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that article does not meet the main notability guideline Davewild (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Times[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Article lacks non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Magazine is quite popular in India and it is not intended for World next editon will come with world concentration hence it is right to have the article from start — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somyatiwari538 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Somyatiwari538 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - If it is popular in India, then there should be some corresponding non-trivial references that can be added to the article that will support notability. Unless you can prove notability there is no "right" for the article to exist in Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please Close the disscussion as soon as possible as i want that diloge to be removed from that page its affecting my repotation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somyatiwari538 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Somyatiwari538 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please provide valid non-trivial references to the article that will support notability. reddogsix (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promoting itself and this title is popular for other things. VandVictory (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability provided. This is not http://www.techtimes.com/ ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Kvng suggests, there are sources, but for the US Tech Times, not this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed kpop music videos[edit]

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

Article has no notability on its own, and despite its creation, a similar list remains on the K-pop article that is regularly maintained. Youtube rankings do not satisfy WP:CHARTS. Also Youtube itself does not track this information distinctly and the chart has had to depend on third-party bots and users having to manually update the information. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Hits on Youtube" is not an accepted metric of notability in this project. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tarc: This article seems to be based on List of most viewed YouTube videos. Do you think that one should be deleted as well? Random86 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the all-time YouTube list, that has notability per all those secondary sources covering the subject. The last time the media cared about the all-time YouTube list was on YouTube's tenth anniversary where writers posted the top 10 all-time. But that's for another discussion. I just don't see that kind of coverage for Korean music. Billboard posts articles for YouTube Kpop video views at the end of a year. Otherwise, saying a video ranked number one on YouTube for the week is similar to stating their rank on iTunes, Spotify, Vimeo, or Hulu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Tarc and Northamerica1000. Also, given that a similar chart exists on K-pop, there is really no need for a duplicate. Gparyani (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same list is already on K-pop#YouTube views, so there is no reason for a separate article. Random86 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Miau[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. No sources and nothing obvious via a search. I only declined a WP:CSD#A7 because the label claimed to be affiliated with Sony Music, though I can't find a reliable source that confirms it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'LL add sources/references today. please do not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6A:8F02:D118:F974:6E6F:18FD:F70B (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'are working with Sony at the moment, we do PR for some of their Artist, If you want we can send you their paychecks. Also we sold Records to Atlantic, Warner and Universal. No every label does/did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtrpb (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We? If multiple people are using your account and you have a severe conflict of interest, you need to declare that on your user page ASAP. Additionally, discogs and soundcloud are unsuitable as sources as they are self-published - that means anyone can create any content on there and claim it is important. I have a presence on discogs and soundcloud myself, yet I do not have a Wikipedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I fix that problem. I will changed the password now, so its just me writing/editing the articles. Richtie333, the thing is that we do not have many articles about Mister Miau on the internet. I saw Spinnin' Records having discogs as references too, so I thought that also count for us.

Can I send you screenshots of the order emails, we are having with sony and universal employees? They ask us to do online PR for some Artists that means reaching out to all the EDM Blogs to get their tracks charted on Hypem.com. We are really not a label-spam or something. We real business. ught to the attention of th Thank you Ritchie for your understanding !

Delete ~~and block user~~ Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC so should be deleted. ~~User should be blocked for admitting using account as shared account.~~ Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discogs, Beatport and Soundcloud surely not RS? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 - I never shared this account, I just switched between my Macbook Pro and my Windows 7 Desktop, you should see that in the Ip address. Why so harsh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtrpb (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because to me it seems like you're only here to promote, and above implied shared account use. Falls under WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removes claim to block user- that's up for admins to decide. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: No one else logged into my account, just me. But it was not worth it to explain it. So - The cleverer give in - thats why I just said someone else logged in. You should check the IP's.

With "We'are working with Sony at the moment..." I meant that my Partner and Me are working with sony, not that I share my Wiki Account with my partner. Was this so unclear that your first reaction was: "oh he shared his account because I read the word "we"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtrpb (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit2: Its not about promoting, it's about what's going on with mister miau. We work with Sony, we released official Tracks with Tiesto (Universal), Warner and Atlantic records. I think thats what you call:

"notability regarding topics related to music".

But do whatever you want to do, I'm exhausted. If you feel better with ranking up your deleted article stats, go for it.

Still, thanks anyways for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtrpb (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yes, because our goal it to have the most deleted articles out of all the other encyclopedias out there...</sarcasm> Chillum 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for admitting it chillum. Will send this talk to jimmy aka jimbo. Please still take a look at spinnin' records. They use the same RS and you dont say nothing!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtrpb (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 May 2015‎

While you are at it you may want to look up the definition of sarcasm. Seriously, your accusations are not just baseless but implausible. We don't track deletion stats and we don't really have any other project to compare such stats too. I suggest you reconsider the idea that we are deleting your article because we enjoy deleting things and realize that it is just because it does not meet our inclusion standards. I have not seen a single reliable source for this article so far, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument.

To be completely frank with you not every record label is notable, if it was then you would not have to write about yourself because other people would write about you. Chillum 15:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not nominate Spinnin' Records for deletion because a search for news sources shows many hits, while the same search for Mister Miau says, verbatim, "Your search - "mister miau" - did not match any news results" and lists a Facebook page. That's my usual triage for articles, and I will cut a lot of slack for historical articles where sources are only in print form, but probably less so for modern record labels, who really need to be written about in The Guardian or The Independent. User:Uncle G/On notability has further interesting reading. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No in-depth third-party whatsoever to support notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now, this record label does not appear notable in anyway. Give it a few years and that may change. For now though -delete.--Aspro (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG and further it was founded in late 2014 through affiliated with Sony it is not currently notable though it may be notable in the future. But for now it is delete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not seem notable, lacking significant coverage. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clear copyvio of the company's website pages. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAATH Charitable Trust[edit]

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

This article reads like an advert, and there appears to be no notability, as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (changed from Keep, the following comment is irrelevant) I disagree - as a charitable organisation I don't see how it can be an advert, and it's a reasonably well written article. Give the author a few days to continue expanding the article, I'd say. Since he asked in the teahouse how to fix up the article, I'd say that you should give it a few days to be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranTribe (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PROMO says " Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."- therefore the fact that it's not-for-profit doesn't come into it. It's promotional because instead of using sources to provide factual information, it's just listing all products/services. Also, there is no way it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, though as I stated, the article still looks to be in development. The SAATH_Charitable_Trust#Awards_and_Recognition shows a certain amount of notability, at least. I'd give it a while to be developed, instead of giving deletion notices as soon as the article begins development. That said, I do agree that it is not exceedingly notable, possibly @Saath123: could explain why it's notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranTribe (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give immediate deletion notice, they've had 6 hours to fix it, when many editors would immediately have put deletion tags on it. If a COI editor decides to post an incomplete, promotional article about their non-notable organisation, then it's their fault for not using the proper drafting processes, WP:AFC and Wikipedia:Article Wizard. Therefore, as it fails Wikipedia standards, it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised it's COI; didn't make the link between the article and author. I now support deletion of the article. KieranTribe (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uthai Thani F.C.[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator has removed the AfD tag from the article, plus unref, notability etc. tags, with an insulting edit summary. I'm not interested in edit warring and have already reverted a similar removal by the same editor earlier today so am loath to risk WP:3RR by doing this myself. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The teams in this league all appear to have articles, thus prodding just one probably struck editors as strange. In 2012, the only AfD related to a team in this league resulted in a re-direct (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phetchabun F.C., but it was later re-created in 2014 without controversy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't beleive my summary was insulting at all. What was insulting is that they're 100's of articles for Thai football clubs that you haven't tagged, you tagged this one without any comment or discussion. I reverted your edit, just like you have decided to tag an article for deletion, which is like reverting everyones edit. If you want to delete the article, then you need to delete all the Thai football articles aswell. This is the issue at stake is it not?
Comment No, it's not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and always will. The issue in question is whether this club meets WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An alternative to deletion is possibly to reirect to List of football clubs in Thailand. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the point of redirecting? If someone wants to find Uthai Thani, then they don't really want to find a big long list filled with 80 odd football teams.....this tells the reader nothing? What is the point of members working on articles if they are just tagged with deletion which happens every couple of months for most of these articles? We aren't allowed to use Thai sources, these have been moved before. All that is allowed is to have the article deleted. Druryfire (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is redirected, then the reader is informed that it is a football club in Thailand and a link is given to the correct region/league they play in, especially if the redirect links to the correct section. It doesn't give the reader much, but an encyclopaedia doesn't give a reader much on non-notable topics. I understand you are frustrated that you have taken the time to contribute, and the article is now having its notability questioned, but this is an encyclopaedia. Your concerns about inclusion / notability would beat be raised at the WP:Wikiproject Notability page than here. Do you think this club meets the notability guidelines - WP:CLUB or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, i'm not frustrated. I'm just stating the point that if this article is deleted, then all the articles for similar clubs need deleting......do you see the huge knock on effect here? Not just for Thai football, but all Asian football, African football, any second tier clubs in Europe! This club has played in Thai FA Cup, if that article is notable, then surely the club is aswell? The biggest problem is that the article is vague, it needs bringing up to something reasonable. Deletion is not the answer. Druryfire (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is what I find for news coverage: SMM (Magazine, TV, radio) 20 pages of news (total about 100 news); Siam Sports (Newspaper, TV) 3 pages of news (but search is not as reliable). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted above, easily meets WP:GNG. Also plays in national cup (FA Cup and League Cup) competitions, as can be seen by checking the links to the page. Nfitz (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be notable by playing in the national cup competition. Giant Snowman 16:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - club has played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alesha, Who Smiles at Death[edit]

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

Character in a trading card game, which just asserts her existence and fails to demonstrate her notability. Most of this article, in fact, isn't actually about her at all, but is merely a WP:COATRACK for a tangential summary of LGBT representation in gaming in general — it actually says almost as much about Super Mario Bros. 2 as it does about the game that the topic named in the title is actually in. Beyond the introductory statement of her existence, any other content which is actually about Alesha herself consists entirely of blogsourced opinion commentary rather than reliably sourced fact or encyclopedic context. It might be possible to write a real article about her as an encyclopedia topic in her own right — I find that very unlikely, but I'm not enough of an expert in this particular branch of nerd culture to rule it out entirely — but this, as written and sourced, is not that article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that it seems a bit COATRACK; a better route would be to have an article specifically devoted to LGBT in gaming. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She does get an article in the Guardian, but that's just a one-time blip. Clarityfiend, Who Grins at Article Deletions (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I definitely agree witht eh WP:COATRACK bit. You'd be hard-pressed to create a full article based on this one character, much less one people would actually need to look at. PureRED (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even anything worth merging about the subject character/card; actual content about the character is trivial. Could be a few bits that could go into a list article for "transgender characters in gaming" or somesuch, but this isn't that article. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Obuh[edit]

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

This Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines , please the references here are mostly talking about Welcome to Lagos: how Nigeria's dirt poor scratch a living in a city teeming with business flair .... there is NO Evidence of Notability about the Musician himself on those few Relieble Article here... --Samat lib (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the nom. ansh 666 09:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim of being featured in a BBC documentary looks significant at first glance, but after looking into it he's one of several who appeared in a multi-part TV series. The article is also extremely promotional, with several paragraphs reading like some sort of personal sales brochure, with sentences like, "His touching story is enough to bring back the dead dreams of an average student." and worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. I found The Punch News, Nigerian films, Premium Times, Nigeria Communication Week, The Nation News, Emn News, The Guardian News, BBC News, Spy Ghana, CP-Africa, China Daily, Vanguard News, The Niger Times, allAfrica, Daily independent, Thisdaylive News and Tribune News to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:- This very article has multiple issues. ( this is another big problem here ) the statement on this Article about this Person need a reliable sources and citation for verification , Secondly this very Article need 100 percent clean up with reliable sources for verification ,,. *Delete:- if those problem is not fix fast *Delete:- Kokobenin (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an article is poorly written is usually not a valid reason for deletion, especially if the subject of the article is notable like this one. In addition, the maintenance tags such as {{multiple issues}} exist for reasons and could probably be used in any of these cases. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: User:Samat lib and User: Kokobenin are currently under investigation for possible Sockpuppetry as User: Kokobenin account was specifically created for disruptive purpose probably by User:Samat lib to always support their hilarious nominations at AfDs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samat lib. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've struck out vote from sockpuppet of nom. -- haminoon (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Shall we consider stubifying? Shii (tock) 07:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shii (tock) 07:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources supplied support GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources provided by User:Wikicology pretty clearly indicate that Obuh meets the GNG, with coverage in both local and Western sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Wikicology (talk · contribs). There is substantial coverage of Eric Obuh in this article^{Internet Archive} from China Daily. There is also detailed coverage of him in articles in China, Ghana, Niger, and the United Kingdom.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eric Obuh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbphenix[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable per WP:COMPANY and does seem to fall well within WP:ADVERT. Tone of the article absolutely suggests a COI. --Non-Dropframe _talk 07:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source looks ok, but with stuff like "An in-depth knowledge of construction, top-notch equipment, technologically advanced capabilities" - even if they are notable, an editor writing on the subject would be better off starting from scratch rather than starting from an advert. CorporateM (Talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches with News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found absolutely nothing so that indiantextilemagaine.in source is the closest thing to best source and that's not saying much. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings of retirement destinations in the United States[edit]

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

This list really offers no real encyclopedic information to this site. If someone really wants to know the best places to retire they can check out Forbes not Wikipedia. ~~WP:INDISCRIMINATE~~ WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we don't have articles for rankings of best places to live or to take a vacation, so this article isn't really unnecessary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure is easier to list for deletion than create, isn't it? This is a high traffic article of great value to readers, qualities I'm sure you'd also like to remove from Wiki! I wrote this article in response to a request from another admin, hope she chimes in here, as I sure won't waste my time in the future. THANKS for bringing this up after numerous revisions instead of initially, so as to have maximum waste of time value. Pdecalculus (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High traffic? Not really. Of great value to readers? That's pure opinion, and I'll take it with a large grain of salt as you're the creator of the article and its sole contributor. On what evidence do you base these claims? Regarding the first sentence of your remark, accusing someone of laziness because they nominated something for deletion is neither a sign of good faith nor an argument to keep the article. Speaking as an editor who's both created many articles and listed many for deletion, I believe both are valid means of improving the encyclopedia. An editor can create many good articles that obviously meet the inclusion criteria, while also sometimes coming across articles that one truly believes don't meet the criteria. Creation and deletion are not mutually exclusive enterprises; one can do both in the course of contributing to Wikipedia (and veteran editors often do, myself included). Your final comment is pure snark; the article has only existed for 9 months, and it's not the nominator's fault that they did not immediately become aware of its existence at the moment you created it. If they had, I'm sure it would have been nominated then. Regardless, it's nominated now, so if you really think it should be kept then address the nominator's rationale rather than retaliating with ad hominem attacks. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note I did not mention anything of the author in this deletion rationale so there is no reason to take this personal. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list article fulfills all requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a list article. The article does not fit in the paramenters of WP:INDISCRIMINATE of what WP is not. One could argue no article is necessary for inclusion on WP because you can always find information elsewhere - so this argument for deletion is null. The editors of this article have done a fine job of editing to bring together information in one place which can be independantly verified. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - abstract concept - ranking by what measure? It's simply a list of cities in alphabetic order, with no additional data, so it's additionally unclear what the ranking criteria authors are using, but even if it were, it is too subjective. It appears this list was culled from different rankings already published, so it's WP:OR on top of it. I can't think of any lists that contain just rankings or "best of" without solid criteria or sourcing (eg AFI's Top 100; list of places by population). Agree with nom - this is fit for a Forbes slideshow, not an encyclopedia. (Also "best places to retire in the US" is NOT an Idiomatic expression) —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I don't think INDISCRIMINATE is the right rationale. I find this to be more a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or, more strongly, WP:NOTGUIDE. It also seems to involve quite a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS. I agree with JayJay's comparison of this article to a "ranking of vacation destinations" or "ranking of best places to live", topics which clearly fall outside of Wikipedia's scope. Just because you can pull together a list of something from various sources doesn't mean that it adds up to an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. While it's certainly appropriate, in an article about a city, to mention that the city has been ranked by some notable source (Forbes, say) as one of the best places to retire, it's not appropriate to pull together lists from various sources and stitch them together into some overall ranking of retirement destinations. That's the part that reeks of original research and synthesis, and why I believe this isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Actually a nice article, but not really for an encyclopedia since it is more opinon, or reporting other people's opinions, than facts. Some of the sourced material could be moved to retirement, but then someone is going to give that article a "not a worldwide view" tag if they haven't already. Borock (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like" from WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, which is exactly what this is. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good to see some input on whether to keep or delete this article, although comments thus far on whether the article can be edited and kept are missing. WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTGUIDE have been mentioned; the article is not a travel guide and does not fit within the parameters of the policy at this time of what WP is not. The article's subject and focus is on the topic of rankings of retirement destinations rather than a list of the top places to retire. The distinction is important, as a list of the best places to retire is a travel guide, while the topic of ranking of the best places to retire is not. The same would be true for best vacation destinations; a list would be a travel guide, while the topic of ranking of the best vacation destinations would not. The article includes a list of places as examples, clearly cited, to illustrate the topic rather than ranking places best to worst which may be considered a guide. As for WP:SYNTHESIS, there are no arguments of A + B = C. If there is, please state a specific example. While the information has been gathered, sources have been clearly cited so the article does not fall in WP:OR. If there is a specific example of original research, please state so. The article has been written from a neutral point of view with the five pillars of WP, something refreshing for a topic usually covered only by the media and advertisers. This is what WP is about. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A simple search of articles containing "ranking" in their title on WP will reveal numerous "ranking" articles, sports seem a favorite, countries' rankings are quite popular, and so are educational institutions. The title Rankings of retirement destinations in the United States may be more appropriate as Retirement destinations in the United States rankings in line with other "ranking" articles. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gmcbjames, by concurring with the delete recommendation of the nominator, we are stating our opinion that the article cannot be salvaged by editing or renaming the article. Additional comments are not needed. If anyone of us felt that were the case, we would say so through a keep vote and comment on how it should be improved. Many, many articles that are proposed for deletion are simply in bad shape, poorly written, unsourced, full of spam, etc, but they survive the AfD process because the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. As I indicated, I don't think there are any "ranking" articles that are not from a specific organization's criteria (eg FIFA World Rankings and other sports articles; World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000) or based on one statistic (eg literacy rates, GNP). There is the broader College and university rankings, but this is not a giant list of universities, but more a breakdown of the organizations and publications in each country that do these rankings. Additionally, all university rankings are based on specific criteria supported by data. When it comes to retirement destinations, the data simply doesn't exist. Nobody registers for retirement, there is no database of retirees: people move all over the place at different reasons at different times and there is nobody keeping track of them. Forbes and other sources are picking places based on criteria likely to be considered, eg weather, cost of living, community services, etc, but it's simply projection. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, everyone registers for retirement - it is called Social Security. There are numerous databases of information on retirees maintained by the Census Bureau and organizations such as AARP - so information is out there. We will have to agree to disagree. This article does not meet the threshold for clearly violating WP policy on what WP is not. Opinions and votes aside. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is almost always possible to edit the article to bring it into compliance." (User:GRBerry/DRVGuide). The same is true for other policies such as WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. The article needs to be improved and expanded, I have made some minor edits to the article for clarity. On the article's talk page, the article had been going through the process which all articles go through, and this process should be allowed to proceed, as mentioned on the article's talk page -- in the vein of Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States. If the article is allowed to proceed, hopefully Pdecalculus will continue improving the article - after being bitten. This whole process could have been avoided, with potentially losing an editor, by first tagging the article for issues and/or by discussing issues on the article's talk page prior to submission for deletion. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can receive Social Security benefits without retiring, I do. Borock (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IllaZilla. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been edited since nomination, taking into considerations of the discussion. The version nominated is here. Gmcbjames (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no substantial difference between the two, thus my comment above remains as-is. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my comments above, only minor changes were made - noting the change was a courtesy. In editing the article, I was able to take a closer look at the content with comments to delete in mind. The article needs revision and improvement - possible suggestions would be adding/expanding the list into a table divided by the sources (Gallup/AARP etc.) or by source under subsections as in Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States. Although the article could be a stand-alone list article, the subject better lends itself to being an article. Another option would be to remove the list section. With over 570 books on the subject of best places to retire on Amazon, the article has potential - if given time - to develop. Gmcbjames (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best chance for a good article might be Retirement destination. Borock (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Dutta[edit]

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

Non notable actress-it even says upcoming. And also a not inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To many sources on google news search but am confuse whether Delete or Keep but also i think WP:TOOSOON. Regards Gurvinder | Talk 13:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - good chance of notability in the future, but now so much right now. Eeekster (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the 411? Remix[edit]

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

The only source is AllMusic review, not enough to met WP:NALBUMS. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, that AllMusic ref points to the review for the 'parent' album, What's the 411? and not this remix album. While allmusic.com doesn't appear to have a review of this album, the All Music Guide to Hip-Hop does contain a review of it (see here). And while I remember this record being pretty popular at the time, I couldn't find much else to meet the guidelines for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 10:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sports South Korea[edit]

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

TV channel I'm having trouble finding notability for. Most results are just containing any combo of the words it seems. Wgolf (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searching "sky tv" or the Korean-ized version, "스카이티브이" on a major Korean search engine, Naver, turns up quite a lot of articles: [51]. I selected the "뉴스" ("news") tab, so these are all actual news stories. It seems to pass WP:GNG, but all sources are likely to be in Korean, so it'll be tough to make much of an article. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - linked to Korean-language article. Perfectly notable TV channel. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The notion of a page move can be further discussed on the article's talk page, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (pharmacy)[edit]

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

There's a decent claim to notability here - one of Moldova's leading pharmacy chains - but try as I might, and I did search diligently in Romanian, I can't find any independent coverage of this firm. True, there's this and this, but I have several problems with those links. First, the text is exactly the same on both sites, suggesting we're dealing with publicity material. Second, this text indeed a laudatory one, with little attempt at balance. Third, one of the links is a gossip/fashion magazine, the other a men's magazine, neither of which is really the type of high-quality reference one might want to establish the notability of a pharmacy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Dorian Berdos, who at least has a very thorough article at http://www.vipmagazin.md/profil/Dorian_Berdos._Un_filozof_al_afacerilor/. It will be a stub for a time, but eventually, if he gets enough press, it will made a strong article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers (radio show)[edit]

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

Found no evidence of notability of this program in any sources. Google search turns up this article first and foremost. Other hits are places where you can buy it, and apparently nothing else. Unless some reliable independent secondary sources can be found, I propose this article be deleted as non-notable. KDS4444^Talk 03:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The notion of a merge can be discussed on the article's talk page, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-West Foundation[edit]

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

News searches found this Huffington Post minor mention and this Spanish minor mention and a Books search found one listing. Basically, it seems this is a think tank but maybe not a notable one. Multiple other searches (including with the Netherlands name and a precautionary search at Scholar) failed to find anything good. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Arab-West Report That article also has some problems, but putting the material together will be most helpful. The publication is I think the title that would be the more looked for. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy relist. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong Madar Bari[edit]

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

Non-notable neighborhood and searches including Books, News and browser find nothing to suggest this is notable. Also, the article reads more like a tour guide than an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently it may be a part of Double Mooring Thana, a defined administrative subdistrict. It could be redirected there. But I can;t really tell without geographic coordinates. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Film Award records[edit]

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

Looks like promotional. VagaboundWind (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have these for other awards (List of Academy Award records); NFA is India's top film awards, and the Indian film industry is huge, so a list of records is perfectly reasonable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Beyond any doubt it is notable. National Film Awards are India's prominent award ceremony and with this big industry, there is significant scope of developing the list. I don't understand why this was even nominated for an AfD. The nominator says "looks like promotional", but I do not see any promotional material here. We have similar list on other awards and with the amount of significance that NFA holds, I don't see any reason to delete it. — Yash! ^(Y) 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFA is regarded as the greatest film award organised in India. There's no promotional material in the list. Although it needs a bit of introduction in the lead, it doesn't deserve to be here. I think it needs to be closed with a "keep" decision, ASAP. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 12:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richa (Actress)[edit]

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

*Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:N. Furthermore, all cited references are non-credible blog posts, a Wikipedia article reprinted on mtv.com, and a Facebook page. A search for the awards supposedly won reveals nothing. I did find several lists of recipients of the National Bravery Award for the year 2000, but none of them listed Richa. Ormr2014 | Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Faint delete. Despite her notability, this article comes across as being non-encyclopedic. --JenniferTheEmpress0 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neither of the Keep arguments address the delete concerns that the article fails the main notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church São Paulo[edit]

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

Fails notability. It's a church plant of a notable church, but does not meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence it needs a separate article from the parent church —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article about this church is very important and will grow. The article is good because it has reliable and concrete references. Tha wikipedia have many articles about regional churches of Hillsong, as Hillsong Church Kiev, Hillsong Church Cape Town, Hillsong Church Paris and Hillsong Church London. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Importance is not a valid criteria, notability in the relation to having others write about it is. Also, see WP:OSE. I'll review those articles and nominate the ones that should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the four had a sufficient number of sources and were tagged for two years or longer. I nominated them all. Thanks for alerting us to their existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is good and follows all standards imposed by Wikipedia for an article recently created. It is worthy to be maintained. --LewisDaCosta98 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This editor is a new account and the editor's second edits: here. WP:SPA and user page bears uncanny similarity to User:DavidStarIsrael7. May have to start a SPI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too little information, and all is sourced by three non-independent references. No reason for a separated page. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 02:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatantly promotional (as well as being a likely copyvio). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Okarma[edit]

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

A BLP with no references. Reads like a CV Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, TNT - it's a total CV but he probably meets WP:GNG, has authored several texts about stem cells and gene therapy, and CEO of highly notable company [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was basically written in this edit on April 15, 2014 [57]

Concern is that this content "acquisition which includes Geron’s entire cell therapy intellectual property portfolio, contracts and license agreements related to their stem cell programs, product candidates previously in clinical trials such as OPC1 (hESC-derived oligodendrocyte progenitors for the treatment of spinal cord injury) and VAC1 (dendritic cells loaded with human telomerase to direct the immune system of cancer patients to recognize and potentially destroy a wide array of human cancer types), master cell banks of hESCs and therapeutic cells manufactured under cGMP conditions, research cell banks, customized reagents and equipment, and banks of cGMP-manufactured OPC1 product used in the aforementioned Phase 1 trial in spinal cord injury, the world’s first human clinical trial of hESC-derived cells." is exactly the same as that found here [58]

Here is what the page looked like in Mar of 2014 before this edit [59]

Looks like copyright infringement to me. Likely this article was paid for and cobbled together from press releases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Kay[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, poorly referenced. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Also article creator removed your AfD notice, I put it back but you might want to keep an eye out. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nomination. Flat Out talk to me 03:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and failure of GNG. Dismas|^(talk) 09:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pour sources, no notability. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah diet[edit]

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

I couldn't find any independent reliable sources except for Quackwatch and two "human interest" type news stories from 2007[60][61]. (The journal article appears to have been written by an employee of the organization that is promoting the diet.) The other sources are either passing mentions (e.g., a book about diets includes it in a long list of diets) or not WP:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there aren't any other independent mentions, then it's not notable enough for an article here. If anyone can find such sources and improve the article, let us know here so we can change our !votes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete but only if information is merged elsewhere. I am the original author of the article. I am confused as to the reason for this being put up for deletion. There is no doubt that the diet exists and that it is promoted by its creator. If the issue is the article's content then surely this is not a reason for deletion as content can be improved upon. If the problem is of independent sources then the various articles about it surely indicate sufficiency in that regard because they are evidence of the diet's existence. Moreover, while the journal article may be questionable, it is nevertheless a journal article. As to the diet's notability, I was surprised to see it included on Template:Veganism and vegetarianism. There is no doubt in my mind that this diet exists and has its followers, even if it is not a particularly well-known diet. Can someone please explain further the reasons for the afd? --One Salient Oversight (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is notability. You need more "independent" sources. If you can find and add them, then !votes will be changed and this AfD will likely be withdrawn. So get busy and improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I ever send anything to AFD is my belief that the subject does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article. The requirements are strict about only non-questionable, fully independent sources "counting", so a journal article by a paid member of the organization does not indicate notability at all. The sources must also discuss the subject "in depth", which "human-interest" stories don't (typically) do. Another way to think about this might be like this: Pretend that you knew nothing at all about it, and that you had no information from the proponents. Could you write a real encyclopedia article, without repeating the same facts? Or would you get a paragraph or two and be stuck with a doomed WP:PERMASTUB?
  BTW, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool m:Mergeist, so if you can think of an article that this could be merged to (perhaps we need a Biblically based diet page to collect several of these diets of dubious notability?), then I'd support that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I see your point of view now. I'm happy to switch to delete if the article is merged elsewhere. If there's an article on minor fad diets, that should be enough. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet bare minimum needed for GNG; whether the stories are "human interest stories" or not is irrelevant; @One Salient Oversight: here are some additional sources:, [62], [63], [64], [65] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimandia (talk • contribs) 05:20, May 20, 2015‎ (UTC)
- GNG requires coverage "in depth", which human-interest stories don't typically provide. These sources often give little more than a barebones description, and none if them meet reliable source standards for health content, e.g., whether there are sufficient nutrients in it. (The Daily Mail might not be considered reliable for anything, since its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is so poor.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular diets often receive coverage in general media and meet the criteria of GNG. I don't think they require the same level of coverage in medical sources as in WP:MEDRS's example: "Supplemental Vitamin E and selenium increase the risk of prostate cancer." The article is not making any claims like that. Yes, the Daily Mail sucks, but until it's blacklisted it's apparently considered an acceptable source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage in independent sources, per WP:Golden rule Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I defy any normal human to find their way in this thicket of links and run-on sentences, so I hope my vote - to KEEP gets included in the totals. I could not figure out how to put it in the KEEP section. I fail to understand why this very sensible and, it must be noted, unprofitable nutrition regimen would be getting the axe in the first place. Are you also considering the deletion of your McDonald's entry? If not, why not. The Hallelujah Diet, bland though it may be to the average American's jaded palate, is at least not killing tens of thousands of Bernaysed customers with its marginal nutrition and all-sugar-all-the-time fare; not to mention all those damn carcinogenics. And why do we give a damn what Quackwatch says? Many of us know that site is just a shill created for the sole purpose of fighting tooth and nail against any and all attempts to threaten the income stream of its owners, the AMA and the medical-industrial, sickness-maintenance cabal; hardly an objective opinion, eh? The only "...serious deficiencies" in Mr Barrett's QW smear are to the bottom lines of those who pay him. How many veggies have you ever heard of being the subject of a pharmacological study? I also note that QW is your only quoted source but, I would never ever accuse Wiki of trying to stack the deck. That wouldn't be right, would it? Might even be seen by some as an abuse of power ;) Is Jimmy really in favor of stifling the very few (and small) voices of reason on this issue? If so, why? I don't want to believe it's because he might be working for the same gentle folks who would like to see the eating habits of Americans remain just as they are. note: I have tried before to register (I am not a big fan of unsigned opinions) with no success. I hope this meets your contribution guidelines anyway as I feel it is necessary input. If it doesn't measure up try making this stuff comprehensible to the average analog mind. Thanks, NjW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.136 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — 70.106.231.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi, I'm back with a postscript. As I was closing this page, I decided to re-review my original comments, They're fine as-is. However, I noticed that the first researcher's comments, Whatamidoing, states that all he was able to come up with in the way of Pro or Con was Quackwatch's (interesting history - look it up, just not on Wiki) input on this diet. In hopes of doubling the range of opinion, here is another POV for all you Deleters. Dr Russell Blalock knows this stuff backwards, forwards and sideways. He also walked away from a thriving Neurosurgical practice in order to focus on educating the public as to the abysmal truth behind American fare (diet would be to insult that term). We call that living a principle-centered life where I come from; I recommend it. If it's the medical science aspect of this diet that is so hard to comprehend for those who just want to hit the old delete key, all that info is in his seminal book, Health and Nutrition Secrets, 2006. He says it in plain English (unlike the maze one encounters all over today's culture, such as the editing page of a Wiki entry), with total command of his subject. You-all (the Doc hails from Louisiana) may delete this diet for a host of reasons but, after reading a few reviews (you didn't think I was going to ask you to read the thing, did you? ;) of the Doc's book, the FACTS as to why this diet stands head and shoulders above most of the others won't be one of them. I advise you not to waste your time on the obligatory Quackwatch smear of this good Doc or anyone else speaking a smidgen of the despicable truth. Just trying to bring a bit of balance into this discussion. My name is Nigel at freesense at gmail and nobody is paying me to say any of this. You can take that to the bank because I refuse to. NjW PPS me again, sorry. Motivation (cui bono) is always my first concern in surmising someone's reasons for opining as s/he does. So you know, I am a freethinking Humanist civil libertarian (far Left) AND libertarian (far Right). Not too many of us around in any era. My goal here is, as always, to help increase the variety of voices and views - on this or any other issue. I MIGHT be okay with a merging of this entry so long as there was an easy UNIVERSAL TAG way to search for its main tag terms. For now, I am still in the KEEP column. I'd also appreciate a quick email from someone once a decision is made - be nice to know how this shakes out. NjW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.136 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the whoile thing reads like an advert for a shop or two. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable (the only real source is Quackwatch) and promotional, basically an advertisement for a commercial business. No evidence that any of the diet's claims are true, and not notable enough to merge or redirect elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Tapia[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX. Being a sparring partner is not a claim to notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Glen Tapia is notable. The article is well-written and well-sourced. It should not be deleted. Furthermore, the policy that you cite (WP:NBOX) is a red herring. That policy states: "A boxer is presumed notable if he or she ... [meets the following criteria]." That policy does not limit notability to those criteria. It simply states that if a boxer meets those criteria, he is presumed notable. It does not work "in the negative". It does not say that a boxer must meet those criteria in order to be notable. It does not say that if a boxer does not meet those criteria, then he is not notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A generous reading of WP:NBOX might support a claim of notability for his NABO title fights. I do not see the significant coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG (which is WP's main criteria). Being Pacquiao's sparring partner is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED and other coverage is routine sports reporting (and is badlefthook.com really a reliable source?). Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Tapia had extensive coverage for his fight against James Kirkland. For example, see [66], [67], [68], [69], and [70]. Further, other aspects of his career have received coverage, such as switching trainers [71] and his rise [72].RonSigPi (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received significant coverage in the media per some of the fights he's been in. Therefore, we should keep this. 16:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverSurfingSerpent (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sources found by Wikicology are enough to demonstrate the subject should have a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Sweetman[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Low citations [73]. Note, started life as a copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. It seems the thing he is most noted for—writing a "warts and all" history book about a high school Article 1, Article 2—is not even really about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable because he is a leading Historian in his field which is New Zealand Irish and Catholic history.Dome1000 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dome1000: for sure that is significant, but do you have any references in reliable sources which define him as such? We need some kind of verification he meets the criteria at WP:Author. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal of him when someone suggests deleting one of his St Peter's Old Boys pages. Just make an unsupported assertion of importance. Don't worry about wether it can be verified, don't worry about wether it's true. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of the article meet WP:NAUTHOR [74]. I found Nzherald News, Otago Daily Times, Murray State University, This book, The Hibernian, The encyclopedia of New Zealand, New Zealand history, The Scotland Times and Manatu Taonga books to mention few. I remind the nominator that WP:BEFORE is important. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the links you posted? Only one is any good. A book review from New Zealand Herald. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep This minor historian in the very small field (Irish immigrants in New Zealand) fails WP:PROFESSOR. But mayjust squeak past WP:AUTHOR when you add the 2 respectful reviews of Fair and Just Solution to the popular coverage of a controversy surrounding the official history of the boy's school and his very minor presence on the lecture circuit as a speaker on Irish immigrants in New Zealand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable within Academic field in NZ, with reasonable national coverage given its focus NealeFamily (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chris Mortensen. Both nom and 2 !voters prefer it redirected which is usually preferred over deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Unreal Story of Professional Wrestling[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only 146 Google results. Out of these, only 1 is a reliable source focusing on the documentary. Zero reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be coverage, and it may even be in reliable sources, but there's no significant coverage at all. Every source I could find only mentioned this documentary in passing. APerson (talk!) 13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mention at the articvle of its director/producer Chris Mortensen. Since so many books and news sources refer to and quote from his documentary film, it can at least be spoken of even if not having the same level of coverage as some big-studio highly-touted blockbuster, specially as it is verifiable as having screened commercially more than 5 years after initial release.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, there might not be as many sources as you are presenting it. 3 of the 5 news sources are Bleacher Report blogs. There's only 36 book sources when you click to the end of the Google Books search, and some of them are on "Power Electronics", "Particle Physics" and "Orthopaedics". But I'm fine with a redirect, added a sentence to Mortensen's article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying I'll support a redirect to director/producer Chris Mortensen. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - from basic search results, I can tell this is a respected documentary that was the first of its kind. If it had been aired today it probably would have extensive coverage and reviews. But we do need coverage in RS and I just can't find any. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was See below. If it's a hoax, it needs to be deleted. If it's not, it needs to be moved since this is not the primary topic. I'm going to go and move the DAB page to this primary page and restore some proper DABby content. If it turns out there is a rugby player who's notable enough, it can be recreated--preferably not with a copy-paste job from this history. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Davies[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. No player named Gareth Davies has played for the England national rugby union team. References are all copied from Tom Wood (rugby union) with small changes, such as substituting "Wood" with "Davies", club names, or making the dates from the 1990s to match his career span.

Gareth Davies was originally a disambiguation page, changed to this version in March 2013. The article is now the primary topic, listed at the top of Gareth Davies (disambiguation) (which has 16 articles). A revert and merge may be required rather than deletion, if determined to be hoax. Jevansen (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax - you can see what they did to manipulate the references, to make it seem like the article about Wood was actually about Davies. (fake URL)—Мандичка^YO 😜 14:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if all that is right (and I don't know but it looks so to me) it certainly shouldn't be deleted but should be changed to a redirect to Gareth Davies (disambiguation). Thincat (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a hoax and is deleted, the edit history prior to 02:22, 23 February 2013 should be kept as part of the disambiguation page history. older ≠ wiser 10:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary comment - It is unclear to me whether this is a hoax, a poorly written cut-and-paste job from another player's article, or a non-notable lower division rugby player. That said, I did find this article, "Cup on parade at Barkers Butts," Coventry Telegraph (7 May 2004), which seems to substantiate that a rugby player of this name did exist, and did play for the Barker Butts. That should be enough to to stop any speedy delete until we have (a) done thorough search of available media to substantiate/disprove facts in the article, and (b) if the person exists, then go through our usual notability analysis, which the person may or may not satisfy. No rush, folks -- let's do this right. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be the same person. That article is from 2004, and the subject of this article was supposedly active from 1990 to 1995. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: He would have been 32 in 2004; I don't know if it's true, but it's plausible. There were some awfully funky links in the footers which have not been explained though. I've been ignoring this discussion for the last few days, but I'll make a deal with you: if you spend 30 minutes looking for rugby player "Gareth Davies" in the next 24 hours, I'll do the same, and we can put this AfD to bed one way or another. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is deleted, then the page Gareth Davies (disambiguation) should be moved to the primary page. Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, and then move the disambiguation page to this title as there is no apparent Primary Topic. Comment: Note that the content was added in a series of 36 edits by 2.222.68.189 (talk · contribs) on 17 March 2013 (though the "access dates" of the references include 1991, 1993, 1995, ...). That IP made six edits the same day to another rugby player, Neil Back, which seem to have had the effect of replacing an image with a non-existent (or since deleted) image and were revertd a few hours later. That IP appears to have made no other edits. PamD 14:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The net result should be to delete this phony biography, but I'm not sure how to do it. Basically we need to move Gareth Davies (disambiguation) to this title Gareth Davies, leaving a redirect, and possibly doing a history merge. If we didn't care about the earlier history, we could just delete this and move the DAB page here, but there is quite an extensive history at this page, covering its time as a DAB page prior to the page being hijacked - as noted above by older ≠ wiser. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arihant follow-on submarine[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to support the claim of follow-on submarines of "Arihant class" i.e., new class. The sources does not mention anything about follow on class of Arihant (It simply mentions 'follow on submarines of INS arihant' i.e., INS Aridhaman, ATV-3 and ATV-4). Hence the article might simply be a hoax.. Proposing DELETION. Regards JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- For now due to the lack of multiple or any reference which points to a follow on class of Arihant as of may 2015, the article should be deleted. a discussion was open on 21 March 2015 regarding Number of ships in Arihant class please check this Talk:Arihant-class submarine page and post your comments also.Nicky mathew (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is mentioned in many places on the internet, but mostly blogs. It seems the Indian DRDO has released early plans[75][76] and pictures[77] for the boat, but I cannot find the originals, or a reliable source. It also seems that no funding has been approved for the program. Martin451 17:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Websites linked by Martin451 fall under WP:UGC and thus are not reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Websites aren't reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Assuming the information is true, it fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I don't think anyone is seriously insisting on deletion at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Secular-Humanist Association[edit]

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

Does not appear to meep Wikipedia's WP:N criteria. Also may possibly be promotional in nature. Ormr2014 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for keeping it[edit]

(Sorry if this is disorganized, I don't know how this page should be structured, forgive my lack of Wikipedia experience.)

This article was marked for deletion on May 11 on grounds of lack of references to attest notability. I removed the notice on the 12th because a stub simply doesn't always have enough content for references to be included. As for notability is concerned, just because mainstream media ignores Eastern Europe in most of the English speaking world, it doesn't mean it's internationally irrelevant. The English Wikipedia is directed towards the international community in general, and not only to the community of native speakers. I believe I speak for many editors when I say I do not have time to create a full article at once, and I defend the approach of creating stubs and working on it gradually. After removing the notice I added a justification to the talk page explaining that I intended to add more information and references ASAP.

On the same day the page was proposed for deletion again and the justification was included in this page. I worked a bit more on the article and included references to international reports and academic journals mentioning the organization. The article is still a stub and I know that much improvement is needed, but I believe that for now there is enough referenced information for the notice to be removed. As for it being "promotional in nature", I think this is an accusation that applies equally well to any article on a member organization of IHEU. I believe the references included in the article provide credibility to my defense. I fail to see how the article on the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association is more relevant than this one. If someone is of the opinion that it is clearly more relevant, please explain me why it is so.

That being said, I once again bring attention to the fact that I am fully aware that the article needs improvement, but I believe this is normal for a young article. Wikipedia is collaborative and grows gradually, the first version can't be perfect. You are all welcome and encouraged to add any "this article needs improvement" notice that you see fit, I just don't think deleting it is a fair or necessary measure.Ariel Pontes (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Pontes You do make some valid points, but if the article is not complete and you have concerns about it being deleted before you have had the chance to finish it, you should move the article to the Wikipedia:Drafts Namespace. Ormr2014 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*This AFD is Closed - As the article has not been finished and the author expressed a desire to continue working on it without it being deleted, I have moved the article to the Draft Namespace. Ormr2014 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice struck. Article was moved back to main space. Discussion continues. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Draft namespace for being a valid stub[edit]

Hi Ormr2014, thanks for closing the AfD! However, I don't think I expressed myself well enough and there might have been a misunderstanding. I did not say that I see the article as a draft that I will work on until I "finish" it. What does "finishing" an article on Wikipedia mean anyway? All articles on Wikipedia are incremental and subject to change. The concept of a "finished" article is meaningless. What is meaningful is the concept of a "minimum viable stub", and I have provided the arguments to defend that this is one and I still maintain my position. After all, if this is not a valid stub, what is? Wikipedia has the concept of a stub for a reason, and the fact that it provides stub templates for editors to include in their articles implies that the existence of stubs is legitimate.

That being said, please don't take it as a personal challenge, but I removed the article from the draft namespace. I don't want to seem stubborn but I also don't think I should be passive and act contrary to my beliefs just to avoid any possible conflicts. I have added some more information and I hope you will consider that the article is more decent now. In any case, as further evidence that stubs as short as this one are legitimate, you can check these articles:

For more see: Category:Non-governmental organization stubs. Thanks for understanding. Ariel Pontes (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, Ariel Pontes, you say that lack wikipedia experience but it appears that you have been actively editing since 2007 -- and you definitely know how to move things in and out of draft. So I am going to consider you a fairly seasoned editor. The article, as it exists, does not reach notability through its sources, IMO. Of the references, 1, 6, 11-12 are the organization's own web site. I can't find ASUR mentioned in #2. There is one paragraph (out of a long article) in #3. In #4 there is one quote from a representative. #7&8 state that ASUR sponsored a festival, but there is not anything substantial about the organization. #10 is a member list. Any that I don't mention here I was not able to access. So, there is no substantial information in reliable sources. I would like to see some substantial sources listed here, or I think this needs to go back to draft. Note, I took a general look at the sources in the Romanian article and many of those would not be considered RS for notability in WP@en, but I didn't look at all of them. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am impressed by the sources listed below by —Мандичка. Not having the Romanian version of the name made searching hard, so I suggest that the Romanian name be listed prominently in the introduction for future usage. Also, those sources should be added somewhere (talk page?) ASAP so that they don't get lost. Ideally, the article should be updated to avoid future questions. I would advise removing the non-reliable sources from the article and replacing them with better sources if ones have been revealed. LaMona (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel: LaMona, I have some experience, yes, but you'll see on my history that I'm not that active and I've made mostly small changes. I mentioned my lack of experience because I don't know how to comment, reply, whether to discuss in the talk page of the article or the AfD page, etc. In any case it's a pointless discussion because it is subjective how much experience is "little" or "a lot". I just wanted to apologize in advance in case my replies are disorganized. Now about the article, ASUR is mentioned in #2, just do a Ctrl+F and write "ASUR", it's there. It is also mentioned in #3, #4, #5 and #7. The references that link to the NGO's own website are not included as evidence of notability, they're just references showing where to find more information. That I believe is also one of the purposes of references. None of the external references include substantial information about the organization, you're perfectly right. But this is also true for most humanist organization articles from non-english speaking countries and for all articles in the "NGO stub" category, as I mentioned in my last comment on this page. Ariel Pontes (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was moved back from draft space to main space but had the AfD tag removed, which is not correct, since this discussion is not closed yet. I restored the tag. The sources are all either the organization's own website, or trivial mentions in directories and news about loosely related things. It fails WP:NORG, especially WP:CORPDEPTH, so far. And talking of Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association: First, please check out WP:OTHERSTUFF, and second, that article should be nominated for deletion too, since there are no independent sources at all, that could establish notability. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - tl;dr - I have no idea why this was nominated for deletion. Easily meets GNG with large number of articles about the organization and its activities - nominator is reminded to look for native language sources before proposing deletion: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87] —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel: Just to be clear, I wasn't the one who removed the deletion notice. I just brought it back from the draft namespace. Ariel Pontes (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a source review, meets WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Litchfield (band)[edit]

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

Insignificant band that does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in WP:BAND Ormr2014 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of the problem in finding sources is that the term "Litchfield band" could also refer to several towns, cities and regions in the world, and many have bands. In other sources, such as AllMusic, I could not find any mention of the band. Additional sources would have to be provided to satisfy WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage in reliable sources, either through a general music search or searching prominent music websites. The cites are mainly to social media, fan publications, iTunes, a record label, etc - the exception is Nidmag, a local Ohio publication, and that's mostly an interview with a short introduction (interviews are not reliable sources). Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, per above. Not finding reliable sources to establish general notability or for the guidelines at WP:BAND. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources listed are mainly primary sources detailing how the band got their "start". No notability, as mentioned above. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Role of Women During the North Korean Revolution[edit]

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

The article may merit inclusion here, but it is written like an essay or term paper, there are no references, and the Bibliography is only accessible to individuals who actually have access to the books. Ormr2014 | Talk 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite there not being footnotes (WP:INCITE), there are sources. Hence it's not an unreferenced article. Formatting those into footnotes is a cleanup and not a deletion issue (WP:NOTCLEANUP). Books as offline sources are verifiable and don't have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop While citing books is acceptable in Wikipedia per se, they must be "available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections" if unavailable online, and when questioned, an ISBN or OCLC number should be provided (See: Indicating Availability). Furthermore, there is absolutely no indication which part of the article any of the references are even attempting to support. Ormr2014 | Talk

Keep -- This is not a good article, and the syntax used for the referneces is incorrect. My worry about it is that the sources are all from one book and one dissertation. Rather than deleting it, can we ask the original author to correct the syntax of the notes? POssibly even userify? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added full bibliographical details. These are very good sources; Charles K. Armstrong's book is one of the most widely used sources and Suzy Kim's dissertation has been since published and well received. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also formatted the citations into footnotes (original citations commented out). I have added a list of possible references under Further reading (I have access to each of the articles in full, and books in part). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like OR. This is telling the story, not reporting on the story told. Most statements of fact are not referenced. I don't know if this could be made into an encyclopedia article, but it is not one today. If it is kept, it needs to be researched and re-written. LaMona (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems notable and the referencing issues require clean up. Not bad enough for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is articles for deletion, not articles for improvement, and the sources added by Finnusertop in Further reading show without a doubt that the topic has attracted scholarly study from reliable sources, and is thus a notable topic per WP:GNG. As discussed in WP:BEFORE, improvement should be sought before deletion-request (notifying the relevant WikiProject(s) would be one way). Most Wikipedia articles need improvement, and this is one of them, and it has already improved appreciably since being nominated. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article indeed needs some copy-editing and rewriting. Deletion is not a very good solution for cleanup issues. Furthermore, the article's topic is one of those which has relatively few articles existing in Wikipedia, so the scope itself is not an issue. Related articles that do exist include Women in the French Revolution, Women in the Russian Revolution, Role of women in Nicaraguan Revolution, Women in the Israel Defense Forces and Women in the American Revolution. There is a notable lack of articles about revolutions and women. I think there is nothing written about women in Eritrean War of Independence, or even about women in the Israeli Independence War, in any meaningful length on Wikipedia. This is a common and notable topic for feminist, sociologist and left-wing scholarship. Finding (good) sources even for the North Korea is not going to be too difficult. Ceosad (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve - first, fix the capitalization in the title. Secondly, right now it is based only on the same two sources. The "further reading" list indicates more sources are available. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Allentown, Pennsylvania#Fire Department. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allentown Fire Department[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable fire department. The only sources available are from the fire department website. Tinton5 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources available for this and so the topic is notable. They include:

Allentown: The Story Of A Pittsburgh Neighborhood
Living in the Allentown Area
Souvenir History of the Allentown Fire Department
Historic homes and institutions and genealogical and personal memoirs of the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania
The Firehouse: an architectural and social history
Past, Present, and Future of the City of Allentown, PA
Statistics of Fire Departments of Cities Having a Population of Over 30,000
Fire and Water Engineering
Men of Allentown
Allentown, Pa. Bicentennial, 1962

Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment- I really don't think it's a big deal to keep it but I agree that it does seem like a lot of superfluous information. The problem is that almost everything on the page comes from Allentownpa.gov and not a book or books about the fire department. It needs those things in order to meet the notability criteria.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such work is not done by deletion. Please see WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOEFFORT and {{sofixit}}. Andrew D. (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D., What about Tinton5's argument of not meeting the WP:Notability criteria?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Andrew D., you provided a number of "sources" but you didn't give enough information for me to know what they are. Are they books? Articles? Web sites? There's no way to verify them based on title alone. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are books. A search engine such as Google will readily provide more information about these titles and there is a Google Books search link in the AFD template above. The snippets which Google provides indicate that these sources provide significant coverage of the topic. For example, "Roberts' 1914 "Anniversary History of Lehigh County" devotes six full pages to the history of the Allentown Fire Department ... Allentown's highly trained well-equipped Fire Department is the result of a process of evolution dating back to the Ascension Day fire on June 1, 1848 ..." (Allentown, Pa. Bicentennial, 1962 pp 105, 108). So, there are many pages out there covering over 150 years of detailed history. The claims that the topic is not notable are therefore blatantly false. The work of putting this information into this article is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Deletion would disrupt this work and so is not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have started to look them up on Google books, which is the only access I have. The first title returns two different books (a good example of why titles alone are not sufficient). The first [88] is by Allentown History Book Trust and has one photo, but no info, at least not in the Google search inside. The other [89] is by Robert Kress, 1990, and there's no snippet display. The second book [90] returns information on various fire companies (Germantown, etc.) but returns zero on Allentown Fire Company. Of course, I can only do searches and it's not 100% accurate because bad OCR had thwart those. Therefore, since you appear to have access to the books, it would be good to provide 1)full citations and 2) page numbers. I don't think we can rely on snippets, snippets are only... snippets. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first title is just one book - you seem to have found two different editions. It contains information about a fire station on Walter Street on pages 147-148. The second book does indeed contain information about the topic. For example, on page 35 there's a section headed Allentown Fire Department which starts "The Fire Department of Allentown is staffed by 158 salaried fire fighters. Like several other city bureaus, that of fire protection is under the Mayor...". These sources both satisfy WP:SIGCOV and so we're good. The work of actually obtaining all these sources and fleshing out the article from them is not a matter for AFD because AFD is not cleanup. We are not here to assess the current state of the article or to work upon it but rather to assess its prospects. As these things go, these prospects seem quite good. If the work takes some time, that's fine because we do not have a deadline. If the article is poor in the meantime then that's fine too because Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and our articles are explicitly allowed to be imperfect. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allentown article; fails WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As said there is very little outside its own city websites. Reduce and merge back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allentown,_Pennsylvania#Fire_Department seems to be proper. Ozzyland (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC) — Ozzyland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Merge to Allentown, Pennsylvania § Fire Department. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Buses & Ferries[edit]

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

As the 1,900 bus Sydney Buses article has been incorporated into the State Transit Authority article, propose this article on the smaller 200 bus fleet also be set as a Redirect per branch policy. Mo7838 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.Mo7838 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mo7838 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the intention is simply to redirect. There is content in the article that should not be lost. While part of the State Transit Authority, there is enough content to support a separate article. Note that WP:BRANCH is part of a section on "Non-commercial organizations" and this is a commercial organisation, so WP:BRANCH doesn't actually apply. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assam: The Endless Attacks[edit]

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

Article about a documentary film. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 01:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad De Losa[edit]

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

Per WP:Notability and WP:BLP1E, sourced from a ~30-word BBC article. There is no justification for this standalone article. Step hen 01:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a lumberjack and he's ok The subject was five times Australian champion, became the world champion in 2013 and retained the title in 2014. Setting a new world record is just the latest exploit. He therefore passes WP:SPORTCRIT, "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". WP:BLP1E is irrelevant because this requires that three conditions be met -- that the person be only covered in the context of one event; that they be low profile; that their role in the event was not substantial. None of these conditions apply because he's competed successfully in multiple events, gives personal interviews to the press and, in setting a new world record, is the focus of particular international attention by major news organisations such as the BBC. The BBC's coverage is a video. I'm not sure what the word count for the narration is but the pictures are worth at least a thousand words.Andrew D. (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his victories have received sustained coverage over a period of years. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, BLP1E clearly does not apply. Someone intentionally seeking publicity is not a "low profile individual" as required by the guidelines. Second, coverage is extensive and over many years, conveying notability. Third, the current sourcing is irrelevant - we just notability on article potential. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Čagalj[edit]

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

Apparently a hoax. I cannot find any sources that support any of this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No refs. Foreign language term not used in English. Equivalent term exists in English.

It's not a hoax, but it is exaggerated and unsourced. It's the Croat word for jackal. singular Čagalj plural Čagljevi. If you go to the English article on jackals and click on the 'Hrvatski' link under Languages you'll reach the Croatian page on jackals. At the end of the article is a section on jackals in Croatia (Čagalj u Hrvatskoj) that states that a subspecies of the golden jackal is seen in southern Croatia and Slavonia, that they are a pest in winter when they come into settlements in search of food and that they can be mistaken for foxes. They are real, not mythical. I doubt that the information currently in the Čagalj article is notable and see no evidence of jackals being any more dangerous than wolves but if someone has reliable secondary evidence regarding jackals or mythical jackals in Croatia it would surely be better placed in the jackals article or one of the articles regarding individual species, such as the European jackal. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a real Čagalj, but the Čagalj described in this article doesn't seem to exist (that is, I've been unable to verify the existence of such a myth). The article doesn't appear to be about jackal mythology; it states outright that the Čagalj is a mythical animal, only it isn't. Which is why I think this may be a hoax, or at the very least factually inaccurate (though I'm not sure how one can mistake a real animal for a mythical one). Adam9007 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Factually inaccurate. We should assume good faith and there is insufficient evidence to call this a hoax, which is deliberate deceit. Guffydrawers (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as pointed out this is the Croatian term for jackal, which has its own article hr:Čagljevi (in the plural form, Čagalj redirects to Čagljevi). If there is a mythical creature, it's not called Čagalj. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solji[edit]

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

Singer who may not qualify yet for a wiki page-apparently another band member of this group was redirected (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hani (singer) Wgolf (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I vote to keep. Solji is the only one that has been associated with multiple groups, not just EXID, as well as having roles as providing guide vocals and being a vocal trainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsujimasen (talk • contribs)

Delete. Solji is not independantly notable outside of EXID and its subgroup Dasoni. Most of the article is a copy-paste from EXID. Random86 (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page and yes, most of the article is a copy-paste from EXID, so either I should put a translate tag on it or just delete it. Arceus3333 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if this was a , say Zac Brown Band member page, I would delete it, because not only is it big, but most people only really care about the singer. But with Girl Groups, especially small ones lke EXID, fans want to know everything about all the members, just look at the Girl's Generation page, every member has a good page, even kicked-out member Jessica. So I think we should keep the page and maybe change a few things about it. If we have to delete, Solji's and Hani's are the ones I would delete last, since they are both quite notable in South Korea. Arceus3333 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not independently notable outside the musical group. Fylbecatulous talk 11:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep: She was on air alone like "my litte television" and "king of mask singer". Also she has featured other singer's songs. So I think she is independantly notable outside of EXID or Dasoni. beatlehoon 15:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyerin[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solji (maybe these 2 afds should turn into one afd) Wgolf (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyerin is not independantly notable outside her group and most of the article is copied from EXID. Random86 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this was a , say Zac Brown Band member page, I would delete it, because not only is it big, but most people only really care about the singer. But with Girl Groups, especially small ones lke EXID, fans want to know everything about all the members, just look at the Girl's Generation page, every member has a good page, even kicked-out member Jessica. So I think we should keep the page and maybe change a few things about it. If we have to delete, Solji's and Hani's are the ones I would delete last, since they are both quite notable in South Korea. Arceus3333 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arceus3333 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Girls Generation members are all independently notable with lots of solo work, Hyerin has no solo work and I'm betting a good many people in Korea wouldn't recognize her even if she came up and told them she was in a girl group. If people want to know all the non notable details of a member, like their elementary school, they can go to a fan-site. Peachywink (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junghwa (singer)[edit]

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

Singer that might fall under too soon See-Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solji Wgolf (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junghwa is not independantly notable outside her group and most of the article was copied from EXID. Random86 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if this was a , say Zac Brown Band member page, I would delete it, because not only is it big, but most people only really care about the singer. But with Girl Groups, especially small ones lke EXID, fans want to know everything about all the members, just look at the Girl's Generation page, every member has a good page, even kicked-out member Jessica. So I think we should keep the page and maybe change a few things about it. If we have to delete, Solji's and Hani's are the ones I would delete last, since they are both quite notable in South Korea. Arceus3333 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arceus3333 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not independently notable outside of group article. Fylbecatulous talk 12:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC
Delete and merge with EXID. Re-create only when notability as constituent outside group increases in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The discography section made me think that she had quite a few notable works, but apparently these are all for EXID. Can anyone confirm if any of the charted songs feature her as the sole credited singer? This could be evidence enough for notability, but the article still would need more content about her specifically. Otherwise merge. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Prosperosity, the entire discography section was copied from EXID. She has no solo releases. Random86 (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then definite merge! --Prosperosity (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Classroom: Support resources and Benefits 52[edit]

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

Article is an essay about a school but without a clear indication of what the subject is. Major flaw is that it is an essay, but Wikipedia is not a repository of original research. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no context; and I have argued essays should be included in WP:A7 criteria as they typically have no indication of any notability; clearly not an article: "The school that is discussed in this paper is located..." —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seedy declined: "No context " does not apply, the context is perfectly clear: it's an school classroom apparently described and specified in a published paper. Essays are not included in A7, because no individual admin is qualified to judge surely what actually is or is not an essay--there's a continuum with valid WP{ articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

If something is a published paper (or any paper, as it states) it's clearly not a Wikipedia article. And a school classroom, somewhere, possibly fictitious, is a total fail context-wise. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn)(non-admin closure) ƬheStrike Σagle 06:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi[edit]

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

WithdrawnNon notable unreleased film that has been deleted a couple times via prod already-so I guess it just time to do afd it seems. Wgolf (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already cited with more than enough reliable sources, and the film is under pre-production.VagaboundWind (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Lord Livingstone 7000 Kandi" "Anil Radhakrishnan Menon"

Send to Draft for a few weeks. As the topic of this planned film does have wide coverage [91][92] to meet WP:GNG we can allow it back under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) as soon as filming is confirmed. UNTIL THEN, it can certainly be spoken of at director Anil Radhakrishnan Menon as one of his anticipated works-in-progress.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems filming has begun —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The filming has already began, the film has already acheived the notability.27.97.25.89 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Filming is already completed. It meets all the criteria for a film article. VagaboundWind (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually looked for and found a source telling us filming has begun. No need now for draft space. Struck that !vote above. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw-Okay thanks for all the people who found stuff! Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/engineer-paramahamsa-tewaris-invention-space-power-generator-excites-interest/1/337896.html

[2] ttp://pesn.com/2015/04/15/9602603_Paramahamsa-Tewari_Reactionless-AC-Synchronous-Generator_RLG_prepping-for-commercial-roll-out/

[3] ttp://changingpower.net/tewari-begins-the-energy-revolution/

[1]

[2]

[3]