Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 April 24 April >

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 no consensus. The article may need significant editing to clarify its scope. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Global Highway[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable as a topic unto itself. The only source speaking of a "trans global highway" is sourced to the website transglobalhighway.com. The rest is a collection of mostly unreferenced WP:SYNTH and WP:OR info about certain areas where there are gaps, and not about their role or proposed role in a trans global highway. Note that there are many questions to its notbility on the talk page and a semi move war over a redirect by a user to Pan-American Highway (which is not a suitable source as it is not "global" in scope, and I cannot find any other suitable target location) has also recently occurred. Thus bringing here for a wider discussion. Ravendrop 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; this particular concept isn't notable in its own right. There have been various other fantasies about global infrastructure networks, but we shouldn't treat them as serious proposals, or give them undue weight. bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The Trans Global Highway article should and must remain as the project is and has been significant and in both discussion as well as in the planning stages for over 200 years. The fact that all elements and segments of the highway have not yet been unified into the Trans Global Highway, should not be a reason to remove this vitally important article. The Trans Global Highway has been referred to by many different names over the past 200 years including the "Inter Continental Highway", "Trans World Highway", "Cosmopolitan Highway" and many other names. The planning for the Trans Global Highway goes way beyond the Trans Global Highway NGO (www.TransGlobalHighway.org).

Many books and printed articles have been written on the topic or have mentioned the Trans Global Highway over the past 200 years. Here are a handful of such writings:

  • "The Three Americas Railway: An International and Intercontinental Enterprise" book written in 1881 by Hinton Rowan Helper discusses the need for an Intercontinental Highway, using railroads, starting on page 418. The Trans Global Highway article also mentions the need for a global railroad network.
  • "The Rotarian", January 1936. An extensive article entitled "Seeking Peace in a Concrete Way" is written about the Inter Continental Highway, starting on page 42.
  • "Looking far north: the Harriman Expedition to Alaska, 1899" written in 1982 by William H. Goetzmann, Kay Sloan, writes that Harriman in 1899 proposed a "Round the World Railroad" (page 128). The authors go on to write that Harriman traveled to Japan a few years later to continue this proposal.
  • "The Bering Strait Crossing: A 21st Century Frontier Between East and West" by James Oliver published in 2006 (256 pages) mentions extensively the Intercontinental Highway. He goes on to mention that the notion of a global highway has been around for hundreds of years including William Gilpen, who suggests it in 1846 was a proponent of a global rail highway to link to the then being proposed European and Asiatic Railway.
  • "Planning and Design of Bridges" by M. S. Troitsky, 1994 describes many of the bridges and tunnels proposed in the Trans Global Highway article including on page 39 this book mentions that in 1958, T.Y. Lin mentions the possible construction of a Bering Strait bridge (and obviously a needed highway network).
  • Alaska History: A Publication of the Alaska Historical Society, Volumes 4-6 (1989) mentions on page 6 that in 1892, a man named Strauss proposed a global highway and a man made bridge over the Bering Strait. The article goes on to mention the Lin proposal of 1958.
  • "Maritime Information Review" a publication of the Netherlands Maritime Information Centre, in 1991 had an extensive article, on "strait crossings" covering the then proposed Bering Strait bridge, the Gibraltar Tunnel and so on, and mentions the proposed global highway network.
  • Popular Mechanics Apr 1994 has an article called "Alaska Siberia Bridge" and the article goes on to mention the construction of a global highway.

The above are just a handful of the hundreds of articles and books that have been written on the proposed Trans Global Highway. The potential references for the Trans Global Highway is very extensive.

Many distinguished and intellectual websites have discussed the Trans-Global Highway. A quick search on Google.com, Yahoo.com, Bing.com or others will quickly show thousands of discussions covering the Trans Global Highway (using either the Trans Global Highway name or any one of many other variant names, such as the Cosmopolitan Highway or others, as mentioned above.

Russian President Putin as well as Japan's prime minister Abe, both in their first terms, also have mentioned the need for a Global Highway, including the Bearing Straight Tunnel.

The Schiller Institute in the late 1980's wrote about the need for a unified highway system that they referred to as the Cosmopolitan Highway (http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps3.html#bering%20straits) .

In 1923, when the Pan American Highway (also referred to at the time as the "Trans America Highway") treaty was being signed, there was also mention of extending this highway to cross the Bering Strait and become a global highway. It is apparent that they signators viewed the Pan American Highway as a portion of a future global highway (ie Trans Global Highway). The Trans Global Highway is the key to connecting the world in the not to distant future.

The Trans Global Highway Wikipedia entry should be expanded and encouraged, not removed. Detailed maps, other alternative paths and photographs should be added to the entry to enhance the article.

If you look at the statistics for the page, you will see that in just the past day, about 80 people have logged onto the page. This translates to 2400 people per month who are interested in the topic. The number would have no doubt been higher had the page not been forwarded to the Pan American Highway article and thus deprived of its own index. These statistics show that the idea of Global Unification by a physical pathway is indeed of general interest and is something on people's minds.

The Trans Global Highway is a summation of the goals and aspirations of people around the world proposing a global highway over the past 200 years. The Trans Global Highway is a lot more than lines on the map. It is a direction for the future. The Trans Global Highway article must remain and is perhaps the single most important article in the field of highways on Wikipedia. The article should be expanded to include greater detail on the Trans Global Highway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.224.136 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—the wall of text above establishes the notability needed for an article on a Bering Strait Tunnel, but it doesn't convince me of the notability of this purported concept. Imzadi 1979 → 13:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep this article and don't forward it to something else! It is such a great and well known idea. It took me 10 minutes to find it because of the forwarding to the Pan American Highway. Not fair!!! We spent a week in school discussing the Trans Global Highway and the various bridges and tunnels that will have to be built and the fact that the railroads will have to be standardized. We obtained a lot of info from the Trans Global website and from a UN office. I don't understand why anyone would want to remove this article. BTW the Bering Straight or Asian American Peace tunnel will be thousands of miles away from the nearest roads and of course a major highway network will have to be built. As we discussed in class, the Trans Global Highway organization calls for standardized world wide highways, tolls, customs and so on. This is a wonderful project and has been mentioned by so many governmental organizations. This standardization seems like a much better idea than what happened with the "Pan American Highway" which was never completely built and has all sorts of good and bad roads. Keep this article on the Trans Global Highway!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.228.134 (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using a different IP address doesn't entitle you to "vote" a second time. These discussions are based on policy and consensus, not on votestacking. bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel a bit of a dick as I assumed from the title It was a list of "highways" .... Turns out I was wrong, Admittingly it could be better sourced but other than that the article isn't that bad & is actually rather interesting imo. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the article must be reworked since it does not seem to reflect the unique Trans Global Highway proposal. The word "highway" seems to be confusing since most people associate this word with a road, rather than as a pathway, which is what the Trans Global Highway project is all about and what distinguishes it from the Cosmopolitan Highway and other roadway proposals in the past. After completion, the Trans Global Highway will be a pathway for water pipelines and thus will make arid areas productive, it will also be a pathway for electrical cables, gas and oil pipelines and communication cables. It is generally understood that rail lines will be the primary vehicle traveling along the Trans Global Highway system, similar to the Chunnel today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.223.246 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: this and the other two keep !votes are highly likely to be the same dynamic IP. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and per all the other arguments that have been made. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article had a bunch of maps with new motorways then it would be an original synthesis and crystal ball gazing however it doesn't have that. Instead it has a brief paragraph on each of a number of related projects, each of which has it's own WP article. Think of it as a well developed List article if that makes it easier for you to accept it. filceolaire (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Or even rename it as List of major proposed ocean links or something similar. filceolaire (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be many sources for this (including a report by the WDF I found in the last deletion discussion [1]), and it looks like this article just meets general notability requirements. That being said, this article really needs some major editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I can see both arguments but I lean towards delete if only because I really don't believe that can realistically come to fruition due to the Atlantic crossing. I realise that not neccessarily a relevant point to an AfD, but think about this. How many "pipe dreams" (for want of a better word) pass the notability test? Not many I'll wager. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, but I don't think how probable something is relates to how notable something is. We have articles an article on perpetual motion, even though it is provably impossible, while things that are provably real often don't get an article. The reason for this is that perpetual motion is covered in reliable sources while the real stuff is not. Regardless of how improbable this article is, I think that it is covered in enough sources to justify keeping it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miami SunPost. There appears to be insufficient coverage in secondary sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Branham-Bailey[edit]

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

No indication of notability according to Wikipedia:Creative; sources are all articles in local free newspaper written by subject, and there's no significant coverage of him online in WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. The Miami corruption scandal was covered in other papers, and I can find no evidence online that he broke the story or contributed significantly to the investigation. Proposed deletion in August 2012 by PhantomSteve was contested by article creator [2]. Tone is significantly less promotional now, but notability issues remain. Ruby Murray 17:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 17:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 17:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article improved with secondary sources added.--Leah278 (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)— Leah278 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Contrary to Ruby Murray's assertion, I was able to find in Lexis-Nexis search of stories on scandal that subject did in fact contribute significantly (and extensively) to story about the corruption in Miami Beach, not Miami (let's be accurate, people). Murray's challenge fails. Re: reference source to Graham interview, there can't be a more reliable source than former Senator Graham posting it on his own blogsite, can there be? So Paul McDonald's WP:GNG challenge fails on that merit. .--EagleEyedExpert (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)— EagleEyedExpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Nope. Still nothing that rings the notability bell here. And blogs are not WP:RS sources. It doesn't matter who writes them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concurr I agree with Ad Orientem. Blogs typically are not the type of sources necessary to achieve notability. I'd like to find a path to notability for this article, but I just don't see it yet either. The article is improved and userfy could be an option at this point. Still fails WP:GNG at this point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Allen's Hummingbird Webcam[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability standard. Staglit (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good page. It just needs a little improvement. ℜ@ƴмøηd 00:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're going to find sources look up Phoebe Allen's because most people call it that. ℜ@ƴмøηd 00:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't quite see enough evidence of notability. There's coverage on Huffington Post[3] and a short article on ABC Go.com[4], plus local media[5], and a bit of content on websites of ornithological organisations. But not much goes beyond "look at the cute birds". It's just a webcam, and there's no indication of wider cultural impact. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs improvement. ℜ@ƴмøηd 13:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fixable. I know it. ℜ@ƴмøηd 20:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Enough RS coverage to establish GNG. Some of it is "look at the cute birds", and there's some duplicative, repetitive info, but there is more varied detail about the site and its subject when taken as a whole, over a period of years. I'm listing some sources found on Google, including a couple of arguable reliability. phoebeallens.com/news.html lists additional sources, including television news coverage, foreign language coverage, and some other articles.
    • Vallis, Mary (2010-03-15). "Thousands of people are watching Phoebe's hummingbird eggs hatch live online, right now". National Post.
    • Wootton, Sharon (2011-03-19). "Smile! You're watching 'Hummingbird Candid Camera'". HeraldNet. The Daily Herald Co., Everett WA.
    • Meyer, Jennifer J. (2012-01-06). "Some hummingbirds nest in winter". Orange County Register.
    • Curry, Colleen (2012-02-12). "Mom, baby hummingbirds star in live webcam". ABC News.
    • Breyer, Melissa (2012-04-06). "Watch mom and baby hummingbirds in real time with Phoebe's hummingbird nest cam". TreeHugger.
    • Gonzalez, Jonathan (2012-04-09). "Hummingbird cam: Live video of tiny birds in their Irvine nest". NBC Los Angeles.
    • Wyatt, Susan (2013-02-12). "Watch: Mom, baby hummingbirds star in live webcam". KING5.com.
    • Powell, Wendy N. (2014-02-28). "Phoebe Allens, the little hummer that could". Huffington Post.
    • Breyer, Melissa (2014-04-09). "Watch live, baby hummingbirds this very minute!". Mother Nature Network.
––Agyle (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Agyle's amazing list. That's several times as much coverage as required to meet WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 19:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental warriors[edit]

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

This is a self-published book series. It gets virtually no hits on Google, and there seem to be no professional reviews. Fails WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG. Page was possibly created by the author of the book series. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While self-published works can occasionally get coverage enough to merit an article, this is not one of those instances. I wish the author well, but this just doesn't meet notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A self-published book series with no indication of notability and no forthcoming reliable sources. Moswento talky 09:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions for electronic keyboard[edit]

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

Looking at WP:SALAT this list is too broad and would have too many entries, akin to List of buildings made out of brick. The list would have thousands upon thousands of entries. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to create this entry consistently with existing entries such as List_of_solo_violin_pieces or List of compositions for horn because the "electronic keyboard" is an instrument among the other instruments and have been addressed with solo scores (or duo, trio and so on) as any other instrument. I think that a page that collects the works that have been written for this instrument and have been created to be performed in theaters or concert halls is missing. I am a keyboard player myself who performed in classical (contemporary) music concerts in europe, asia and america and I can say that there are only few works that are originally written for that instrument (solo or within for little ensembles), whose score is published and conceived to be performed as such in classical music concerts. So, no thousand of entries here, not even hundreds. Nevertheless I agree that a very short introduction might be necessary to point out that the list is about published scores that are originally written for solo (or in classical ensembles) electronic keyboards that are intended to be performed as such according to the classical music tradition. Sincronie (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo display[edit]

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

Extremely clear example of WP:MILL. Should we create long articles on aluminium, PVC, glass, fibre or such displays? "This same method is also used in some hotel bathrooms to hang towels." Oh boy... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominated. Bamboo is used to make stuff, end of story. Article sources (& what I can find) routine product hits, ie people selling & making the stuff do not establish any notability.TheLongTone (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Delete - The article is actually really well written. If bamboo displays are really a *thing* in the save the planet crowd, I'd like to see it kept. Unfortunately the article is basically completely unsourced. If the author can provide some reliable sources for the article, I'll gladly vote to keep the article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Anselm[edit]

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

BLP of a local videographer. I conducted several searches online, and found nothing reliable. I only found a lot of information about a member of the hours of Thurn und Taxis. Fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 United States Presidential election YouTube parodies[edit]

2012 United States Presidential election YouTube parodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTNEWS, all the content here is already in the subjects respective articles. So merge any content to them where applicable. Otterathome (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lots of things get parodied. Does it make sense to have an article about one very specific target? No. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In agreement with nominator, no need for a separate article. WP:NOTNEWS.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's already been said. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elitserien (baseball)[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources in this article. The subject cannot be notable, because baseball is not popular in Sweden Bandy boy (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominators rationale is frankly silly "can't be notable because baseball isn't popular"? Where does anything say that? Though as an alternative perhaps a Baseball in Sweden article that can incorporate all the different leagues in the country. Spanneraol (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a clearly WP:POINTy nomination for bandy articles in the US being nominated. Popularity has nothing to do with notability. Did you make an honest effort to find sources in newspapers or google? -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the discussions about American bandy clubs, popularity in the country has everything to do with it. Your nomination of Minnesota Bandolier is more pointy than this one and you know that. Bandy boy (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sundsvall Mosquitoes[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources in the article, only a link to the homepage of the club itself. There can be no notability for this club, since baseball is not popular in Sweden. Bandy boy (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a Baseball in Sweden article. Spanneraol (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding the bad faith nature of this nomination, this appears - assuming Google translate is not leading me completely astray - to be primarily a club team organization not at the highest level of play. I am also not finding much in the way of non-trivial secondary sources. Resolute 16:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Trout. Article needs to be deleted because there are no independent reliable secondary sources. Nominator needs a WP:TROUT for the bad-faith nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 22:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden national baseball team[edit]

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

This page has no second-hand sources, only one source to the organisation itself. No notability can be claimed, as this sport is not popular in Sweden. Bandy boy (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources can be added, and also this team seems to be qualified enough, as they can play in the European baseball Championship.Staglit (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Team has played in the Baseball World Cup in addition to the European Championships. Spanneraol (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is just a pointy nomination because some of his bandy articles have been put up for deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. Resolute 16:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - no point in nomination. at all.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Pointy nom clearly. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep on a bad faith nomination, per Resolute. This isn't an article about some low-level club team in Sweden, this article is about Sweden's national sports team for baseball. And, a national sports team is definitely notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep *facepalm* Alex (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Holtz[edit]

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

Holtz only claim to any notice is that she was extremely young when she became a lawyer and someone thought on making a TV show based on her. She does not pass any standard notability guidelines, we lack widespread indepth coverage, and it is all about one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alex Borstein#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Douglas[edit]

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

He did have a notable role on Gilmore Girls but it's really hard finding reliable sources (or any sources) about him to begin with. I found one People article about him and Borstein having a baby but that was pretty much it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Alex Borstein As much of a Gilmore Girls fan as I am, even I have to agree the subject hasn't earned steady notability, so a rd to his wife is proper. Nate • (chatter) 17:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alex Borstein for now. Seeing to it that he's had one notable role, a delete seems somewhat over-the-top. When he gets more notable roles (and coverage from reliable third-party sources) to pass WP:GNG, article can be recreated. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy to User:Classicintl/BFF: Best Friends Forever (2014 film), to be worked on until more reliable sources are found.. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BFF: Best Friends Forever (2014 film)[edit]

BFF: Best Friends Forever (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon? As of yet it seems unnotable-only evidence is on Facebook. Wgolf (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorized into Upcoming films. The movie seems evident in online and print media of the country. The article has well citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicintl (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somehow I just saw the FB link-still I am unfamiliar with that culture and I couldn't find any film sites from the US with any evidence of the film-and since many unfilmed American big films often get this, I think possibly a wait till it gets closer to release would be the best.

Wgolf (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NFF as shooting as not yet started. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/userfy. The problem that I found is that this film really hasn't gained any coverage in reliable sources to show that this passes WP:NFF, and the sources on the article aren't entirely useful. Most of them are unusable for notability, as they're either WP:PRIMARY sources or in WP:BLOG type places. That it hasn't yet started shooting also works against it. It's just too early for an article and it could probably be userfied, if someone wants to go that way. However I do have a strong suspicion that there's a bit of WP:COI here so I'd also recommend that if the original editor wants to userfy it, they should probably get someone from either WP:INDIA or WP:FILM to look over the article before placing it in the mainspace again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nepali:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since the article is a stub of Upcoming films, it can be accepted as an Wikipedia entry. There are multiple sources in English and huge coverage in Nepali, the movie seems to have noticeable space in the media. Though, we can take this down temporarily and bring it back as we find more news sources. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicintl (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Classicintl: If you would like, the article can be placed into a user draft-space so you can work on it, expanding and sourcing as information comes forward, and seeking input on style, formatting and tone, with plans for an eventual return to article space. Read WP:PRIMER and study WP:RS and WP:COI. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new on Wikipedia. I found these links on internet on this article and added texts. I saw Editswikifornepali starting this entry. PS: Here are sources in Nepali Languages: 1. http://www.nepalsandesh.com/2014/03/05/75325#sthash.6wazbgOC.gbpl 2. http://nepalpati.com/bff-film 3. http://nagariknews.com/entertainment/nepali-film/story/15928/15928 4. http://manoranjansansar.com/5369/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BF-%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%AB-%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%AB-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%89%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%88-%E0%A4%9F%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8/#.UyhAyc48GH0 5. http://www.filmykhabar.com/news/9091/ 6. http://www.nepalsandesh.com/2014/04/01/79600 7. http://www.namastefilmy.com/archives/2228 8. http://manoranjansansar.com/5723/%E0%A5%A7%E0%A5%AF-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%AB%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B0-%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87/#.UzuW1-OunIU 9. http://www.onlinekhabar.com/2014/04/183506/ 10. http://nepalpati.com/nepali-movie 11. http://www.thuloparda.com/post/5017#sthash.1zSixcY0.dpbs 12. http://nepalkuwait.com/koselinews/kuwait/news.php?news_id=10515 13. http://nepal123.antvus.com/%E0%A5%A7%E0%A5%AF-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%89%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%AB%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8/ 14. http://www.filmyupdate.com/2014/04/4004.html

Sources in English: 1. http://showbiznepal.com/bff-best-friends-forever-enters-pre-production-stage-scheduled-to-begin-filming-this-spring/ 2. http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=72095 3. http://modishnepal.com/news_bbf/ 4. http://showbiznepal.com/bff/ 5. http://entertainment.bluzog.com/2014/04/06/nations-first-youngest-director-writer-pair-make-best-friend-foreverbff/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicintl (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Afd discussion now be closed since it has been 8 days. WP:AGF WP:FAITH WP:GOODFAITH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicintl (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (Non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbidden Legend Sex & Chopsticks[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:MOVIE. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the non-notable sequel to this non-notable film:

The Forbidden Legend Sex & Chopsticks 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Withdrawn by nominator --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably Delete - Are there guidelines that discuss how foreign films should be treated? It's tough, as an American, to determine how notable this film was in China Bali88 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We use the same guideline for non-English films as we do for English-language ones. The English-language Wikipedia is not for English-only topics. Under WP:NONENG andWP:CSB, we treat foreign-language topics just like we do English-language ones. Film notability, even if only in and to someplace like China, is not dependent upon Western release nor upon Western coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional Chinese:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pinyin (with tone marks):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pinyin (without tone marks): (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep per meeting WP:NF though coverage in reliable sources, and coverage (no matter the country in which it is covered) IS the governing criteria. We do not care if the coverage for a Chinese film is not English as long as it has received coverage. Suitable start class. Project and article will benefit from expansion from Chinese-reading Wikipedians, but not through outright deletion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies the general notability guideline. Sources are as solid as they come in that part of the world and by definition reliable.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Schmidt's analysis, multiple reliable sources, nonsense nom. Cavarrone 09:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't formally withdraw the nomination because Bali88 supported delete, but I now see that there is coverage of these films under the alternate title "Golden Lotus" (which wasn't originally indicated as an alternate title in the articles). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw if everyone else thought it was notable. I wasn't sure how notable this film was overseas. KeepBali88 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. It's pretty clear that there's WP:SPA activity here and quorum would be thin after eliminating the suspects. Deleting the AfD via G5 would have been appropriate before the discussion started, but once it's started, it becomes less so. slakr\ talk / 10:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley Jackson[edit]

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

This was rejected at WP:AFC here and yet the user uploaded it anyway. Not notable and has done nothing to warrant this article. 203.12.30.74 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC) -- completed at IP request at WT:AFD by GB fan 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. For one, it is not nominated by a registered user, and I don't see who has any responsibility here, as GB fan disavows it. Two, the link to the AFC draft shows it was then rejected for not having any sources. It does have sources now. It seems the nomination is misleading. Why should we take this seriously? --doncram 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The responsibility for the AFD goes to 203.12.30.74 who nominated it but did not have the technical ability to create this page. GB fan 00:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I know votes don't count by themselves, but Doncram's comment should be noted as not relevant and the rules exist for IP's to nominate for AfD's. On the article, notability is severely deficient per WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER. BerleT (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per my comments on the Kellie Skater AfD. BerleT (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plenty of unsourced statements that have been tagged accordingly. The sources given (with the exception of Cage Match, Wrestling Titles and Pro Fight DB) are at best highly questionable as reliable. Many are self promotional (Merge and Johnson in particular). Dragonfire X (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • HOLD EVERYTHING This AfD was initiated by banned User:Justa Punk. The IP has admitted to being this banned user here. Let's close this immediately, as any result will inevitably be overturned on procedural grounds. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed the case. However, this still appears to be a reasonable AfD, and the outcome of closing this would inevitably be to immediately open another one, so I suggest we let it run. The closing administrator can judge any issues that occur. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two delete votes are suspicious, at the very least. For an account (Dragonfire X) to return to activity after 4 years away from Wikipedia and immediately gravitate to this trio of Australian wrestling deletion discussions (User:Justa Punk's m.o.) sounds like a WP:DUCK to me. I also notice that BerleT spends a disproportionately large time on Australian wrestling deletion discussions.
  • To the closing admin, please note my comments on the Rionne McAvoy AfD as they also apply here. 1.124.170.156 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hayakawa Serina[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page has no indications of notability. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not convinced that notability has been established. --DAJF (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although deleting the AfD via G5 would have been appropriate before the discussion started, once it's started, it becomes less so. This discussion highlights that reason, for even though the existence of WP:SPA activity on the AfD is clear, it seems that even after negating the reasonable suspects, there's rough consensus to keep. slakr\ talk / 11:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Skater[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Still fails the notability test and has done nothing that warrants this article. 203.12.30.74 (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC) -- completed at request of IP editor at WT:AFD by GB fan 14:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see a lot written about her. I think she meets notability guidelines. Bali88 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of 3 AFD noms suggested by a non-register user that GB now "helped". I say Keep, as, for one, it is not nominated by a registered user, and I don't see who has any responsibility here, as GB fan disavows it. Two, I see there was a first AFD in 2009, but there is no evidence that this article is the same as was rejected then. The history of this article page doesn't go back that far. It seems perhaps the nomination is misleading. Why should we take this seriously? --doncram 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article deleted 26 June 2009 by Juliancolton after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellie Skater is about the same person as this current article. The responsibility for the AFD goes to 203.12.30.74 the person who nominated the article for deletion but didn't have the technical ability to create this page. GB fan 23:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER which overules anything in WP:GNG in this case. A lot may have been written about here allegedly but do these mentions go to notability? I would say not. Doncram's statement is not relevant to this AfD as the rules are in place for IP's to nominate this article, as indicated by GB fan. BerleT (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is incorrect. Failing WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER does not overrule meeting WP:GNG. "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline" (WP:ATHLETE). "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below" (WP:BASIC). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense...how can something "overrule" meeting WP:GNG? I've never seen some guideline that these things overrule some other form of general notability... Bali88 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage spoken of by another nominator appears trivial (Google search results show social media content coming up first). Finding reliable coverage seems difficult, and this places notability under question. Much of the article is unsourced, with the first section rashed with challenging tags. Reliance on Shimmer seems to press the WP:INHERIT button. Perhaps a re-direct to Shimmer Women Athletes could be an alternative. Some sources have questionable notability (I also noticed this with another nomination that I just commented on). Dragonfire X (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, and more added. starship.paint "YES!" 10:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfire X. Interviews require independent back up to prove notability, Mr Salminen, no matter how reliable the interview source is. At a glance, the others mentioned only carry results and nothing else. Notability therefore not established. What has she done that makes her notable? 1.124.85.78 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Independent backup inserted. Notability - Shimmer Tag Team Champion - main evented Shimmer due to that. starship.paint "YES!" 10:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed the case. However, this still appears to be a reasonable AfD, and the outcome of closing this would inevitably be to immediately open another one, so I suggest we let it run. The closing administrator can judge any issues that occur. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two delete votes are suspicious, at the very least. For an account (Dragonfire X) to return to activity after 4 years away from Wikipedia and immediately gravitate to this trio of Australian wrestling deletion discussions (User:Justa Punk's m.o.) sounds like a WP:DUCK to me. I also notice that BerleT spends a disproportionately large time on Australian wrestling deletion discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... which is why I suggested that one lets the closing admin sort that issue out. Though, if you have reasonable evidence of such, WP:SPI is the place to go. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin please note my comments in the Rionne McAvoy AfD, which also apply here. 1.124.170.156 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: call for closure with Keep I voted "Keep" above. This is one of three AFD noms (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rionne McAvoy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellie Skater (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartley Jackson} by a banned editor "helped" by editor User:GB fan who refused to take responsibility for the nomination, and it is a waste of regular editors' time. Deleting it per the banned editor's wishes would reward the banned editor, i.e. it would feed the troll. I call for immediate closure, which I believe is regular practice in this situation (though I am not really familiar with it), as per User:GaryColemanFan at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Rionne McAvoy, Kellie Skater and Hartley Jackson AfD's, "This can only turn out one of two ways: (1) Kept, or (2) Overturned on procedural grounds. Can we just close them now and save the hassle, please?". I endorse that. --doncram 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely passes GNG - significant number of mentions by reliable sources slam.canoe.ca / pwtorch.com / f4wonline.com etc. Has appeared in iPPVs through SHINE. starship.paint "YES!" 03:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am withdrawing my Delete vote above, not because I no longer believe this person is not notable, but in good faith to avoid what appears to be a paranoid witch hunt by GaryColemanFan. I will also be withdrawing my other votes and I will never edit in the Australian pro wrestling area again. Clearly if anyone votes delete in this sphere, you are a Justa Punk sock automatically and this is not true at all. BerleT (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, a checkuser will confirm guilt / innocence. Please understand that abuse has taken place here by Justa Punk which explains the paranoia. starship.paint "YES!" 08:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHO'SHEARDOFHER isn't a policy based argument. WP:GNG is objective, and this article passes that.LM2000 (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I for one, have heard of her. Also, the multitude of reliable secondary sources seems to indicate that she is in fact, notable. starship.paint "YES!" 03:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you? Those sources you rely on only show that she exists, not that she's notable. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am an editor on Wikipedia, in case you didn't know. The very fact that she appears in multiple reliable secondary sources means she is notable and passes WP:GNG. The sources don't merely show that she exists, they show her wrestling internationally, challenging for championships and winning championships. What were you expecting, a source to explicitly say "Kellie Skater is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia"? starship.paint "YES!" 06:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleting the AfD via G5 would have been appropriate before the discussion started, once it's started, it becomes less so. This discussion highlights that reason, for even though the existence of WP:SPA activity on the AfD is clear, it seems that even after negating the reasonable suspects, there's rough consensus to delete. slakr\ talk / 11:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rionne McAvoy[edit]

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

Fails the notability test in most if not all relevant respects. Reads like a fan page and has done nothing notable. 203.12.30.74 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC) -- completed at IP request at WT:AFD by GB fan 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of 3 AFDs actually set up by a non-registered user, then "helped" by editor GB now. The other 2 AFDs seemed to me to have misleading nominations. So I say Keep, as, one, it is not nominated by a registered user, and I don't see who has any responsibility here, as GB fan disavows it. And the article looks reasonable and has sources; the nomination seems low effort and vague. "Reads like a fan page" is a reason for tagging or editing, not for deletion. Why should we take this seriously? --doncram 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no requirement for AFDs to be created by a registered user. The responsibility for the AFD goes to 203.12.30.74 who nominated it but did not have the technical ability to create this page. GB fan 00:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete "Reads like a fan page" may have led to the notability tagging, Doncram, and this was unanswered as far as I can tell for some time. The chance has been given to rewrite and it hasn't. Not notable per WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER even with the unsourced claims to working in the film industry. Promotion is, while notable, not one of the bigger Japanese promotions. BerleT (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per my comments on the Kellie Skater AfD. BerleT (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Very badly fails the notability test. Martial arts career totally unsourced with one claim tagged already, film career almost non existant by notability standards and wrestling career has barely begun and at present there appears no chance of improving on that. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed the case. However, this still appears to be a reasonable AfD, and the outcome of closing this would inevitably be to immediately open another one, so I suggest we let it run. The closing administrator can judge any issues that occur. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the delete votes are suspicious, at the very least. For an account (Dragonfire X) to return to activity after 4 years away from Wikipedia and immediately gravitate to this trio of Australian wrestling deletion discussions (User:Justa Punk's m.o.) sounds like a WP:DUCK to me. I also notice that BerleT spends a disproportionately large time on Australian wrestling deletion discussions.
  • GaryColemanFan is in violation of WP:POINT with these off topic comments and behaving in a paranoid manner. He should be ignored here and on all other relevant AfD's as his evidence is at best extremely circumstantial, and in the case of the IP's completely wrong. He has form for this and I abandoned my account a long time ago as a result. I'm only editing now because I just happened to notice that he was still at it when looking at the AfD for Carl Katter as I know him well, and I looked at his contributions. No doubt he'll come back with the obvious paranoid counter to prove I was right to just delete stuff as it's what he wants! Oh and this is my last edit because I'm not going to say anymore. Let's see what happens. (And if you want to block me for being a sock, you're an idiot. If you want to block me as a meat puppet, I'll take that only because I am in effect supporting Justa Punk even though I haven't been asked to) 1.124.170.156 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear notable for his martial arts, wrestling, or film work.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This guy is trained by Tajiri, just won a championship at Korakuen Hall and wrestled Matt Hardy in a singles match, yet you haters are saying he has done nothing in the wrestling world? He is a full time wrestler in Japan. Is it something against Australian wrestlers? Don't you have better things to do with your time than sit on here and worry about who is worth being on here? (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) — Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment There is definitely a group (or just Justapunk and his puppets) here that goes against Australian professional wrestling articles and I've been one of its biggest opponents, BUT McAvoy is nowhere near as notable as guys like Shane Haste and Mikey Nicholls. Being trained by Tajiri means nothing in terms of McAvoy's notability nor does wrestling Matt Hardy or being a "full time wrestler". There are thousands of "full time wrestlers" or wrestlers who have wrestled Matt Hardy out there who don't have (and shouldn't have) articles. Also, the title McAvoy won is not exactly a GHC or IWGP title, it's some little indy title no one has ever heard of. Maybe McAvoy will explode in a year or two, but I honestly don't think he's notable at the moment. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of people on Wikipedia who don't meet my definition of 'notable' too. And you are Welcome to your opinion but last time I checked meeting whatever definition you have as being notable isn't required to be a Wikipedia entry....... And I'm pretty sure he'd be more than happy to show you his 'credentials' if you wanted to meet him in the ring or dojo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanek (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Deanek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Delete He's not notable as a martial artist or filmmaker. I'm certainly no expert on Australian pro wrestling, but even there the notability claims appear weak. None of the 3 keep votes are very convincing since two appear to be merely procedural in nature. The other invokes notability because of his trainer and/or opponent--both of which fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG on all counts. These AfDs may not have been made by good faith editors, but this is a case where that doesn't really matter as that isn't a good policy-based argument.LM2000 (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable martial artist/film maker. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non Notable 203.17.215.22 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Last post "Non Notable" again from Australia. While he may not be notable worldwide, he is certainly notable in Japan. He has had his story featured in the most famous pro wrestling magazine weekly pro wrestling, and after joining the Fujiwara group, and have been given his last name by Fujiwara himself, how can you say he is not notable? He is part of pro wrestling royalty after Fujiwara took him under his wing. This guy is more notable in Japan than so many other people who has the wikipedia themselves. I cannot understand you people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Yoshiaki1964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I struck your keep vote. You are welcome to comment as much as you want, but please vote only once. The question is whether or not this individual is notable, not whether there are less notable people on WP (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Who "took him under his wing" is also not an indication of notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I trust this will not be closed until the sockpuppet investigation has shed more light on which votes are legitimate. Justa Punk has a history of stacking votes with puppets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica1000 04:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Repasy[edit]

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

Only one article in a notable third party source, and that was her local paper, the OC Register. The link to the Orlando Sentinel was simply a reprint of that article. No other non-trivial WP:RS coverage (two articles in obscure limited-circulation magazines and a paragraph on HGTV's site). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Repasy was on an E! channel Style Network TV show and a 15-minute interview on HGTV's "Country Style" show, accompanied by an article on its site about her. Romantic Homes Magazine is a nationally distributed publication, as are Romantic Country Magazine and Today's Vintage Magazine. Hard-copy magazine articles of all kinds are not typically available for free online, because of magazine subscriptions. Copies of the magazine covers and articles are on Repasy's website and found and used as a source since the magazines do not share articles online. Those can also be found on Google doc files. The OC Register article appears to have gone across the wire, because it was picked up by at least one other newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel, which is also a notable third-party newspaper. The combined third-party sources cited make this pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that AuthorAuthor is talking about the subject being on E!/Style when the network was concerned with interior decorating and fashion and not the reality-centric lineup it was before it converted to Esquire Network (same as HGTV); this should be noted by those searching in the nomination. I have no opinion otherwise about keep/deletion at this time. Nate • (chatter) 17:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She seems to be a big name in the Shabby Chic design world. I see her mentioned on a lot of shabby chic blogs and quite a few vendors sell her items. She's also been featured several times on television. I think she meets notability requirements. Bali88 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The OC Register article about Repasy was published by The Chicago Tribune here, The Augusta Journal here, the Toledo Blade here, and the Daily Journal in northeast Mississippi here (in addition to the Orlando Sentinel), confirming that the article went out on the AP wire and ran in more newspapers than just her local paper. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is also cited in a book which I included under External references. It can be moved to References. She is also listed as a notable artist in the books Artists of the American West and Women Artists. A Google books search shows 3 pages of books she is cited in. Added to the other citations, that is grounds for passing notability. Bloggirl (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Apple[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - did manage two top tier fights but both were losses. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has three top tier fights two in Strikeforce and one in WEC. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while he does pass WP:NMMA, I only found a few reliable sources on him from Mixed Martial Arts.com, FCFighter.com but not what I would consider enough to be "significant coverage" LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He passes WP:NMMA, but barely. Lost all 3 fights--2 of which were for Strikeforce Challengers (which was just for "up and coming" fighters).Mdtemp (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems unlikely this person will achieve much more but that's beside the point. Does meet our MMA guidelines. Mkdwtalk 06:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 5 Seconds of Summer. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hemmings[edit]

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

The band itself is probably notable, but all the sources about him I can find relate to the band. Even the article is mainly a band history. GedUK  12:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shift K3Y[edit]

Shift K3Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is there sufficient evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hitting #3 in the UK singles chart meets WP:MUSBIO criterion #2. There's media coverage in mainstream sources.[17][18][19][20] Article is over-dependent on sources that don't meet WP:RS but could be improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above comments. Notable musician Guyb123321 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above, reached number 3 on the UK official chart is definitely notable, sources available. CanadaOlympic989 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daddis Fight Camps[edit]

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

Non-notable group of training clubs. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Halstead[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, fails WP:NBOX - no major title bouts. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Laos–Pakistan relations was speedy deleted by User:Malik Shabazz per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement" and no consensus for Burma–Pakistan relations. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 04:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laos–Pakistan relations[edit]

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

Non-notable bi-lateral relations page. Minimal content. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for deletion for the same reason:

Burma–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Laos-Pakistan relations: not notable. The article is vague and unreferenced, and Foreign_relations_of_Laos#Pakistan contains only trivia. I can't find any relevant sources that go beyond the existence of embassies etc. Burma-Pakistan might have off-line sources, since they did border until the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, so I have no opinion on that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first is nonsense but the second has the potential to contain some useful and interesting (and well-sourced) history, given the history. There's more modern interaction too, like this. We also have Burmese people in Pakistan and Pakistanis in Burma suggesting more substantive cultural ties. So the second should stay. But the first can absolutely go. Stalwart111 12:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As may be, but the article makes no pretense of covering such. When you get down to it, it makes the bare statement that they share a border and have established, friendly diplomatic relations. The first fact is not even true any more. GoldenRing (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are not decided entirely by the article's content. The underlying notability of the topic -- whether or not it's represented in the reliable sources presented -- is given much more weight.--~TPW 16:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, and I might agree in this case, if I thought there was any chance of the article improving. Note that both were created by the same editor, along with a swag of other similar bilateral relations articles, all of which are currently up for deletion on a range of notability or copyright violation grounds. At any rate, the place for this sort of thing is in Foreign relations of Burma#Pakistan - from which several portions of this article seem to have been copy-pasted. GoldenRing (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not wrong, but I suppose the argument is that if we delete the silly ones (basically, the rest of them) then other editors will spend time fixing the one article in this "set" that might be worth keeping. I added a few sources - there were significant diplomatic issues as recently as 2012 - so hopefully that helps. I don't think your initial impression (or nomination) was wrong, but as TPW points out, notability is based on available sources and potential content, not what the article looks like now. Stalwart111 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apache (video game)[edit]

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

Tagged for lack of references & notability since 2010. Cant find any solid mentions. TheLongTone (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Very difficult to track down any information on this one. Seems like it may have slipped into the murky depths of history.... NickCT (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NVG. Harsh (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom Calvin (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2014 (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) 13:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Team17. Game does not appear to have been released as a standalone but packaged in Alien Breed 2 and Body Blows Galactic. There might be some coverage in old Amiga mags, but I couldn't even find a mention when checking the aforementioned articles' offline refs. However, as a potential search term, redirects are cheap. czar ♔ 09:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe that disambiguates make for useful search terms, the existing entry at Apache (disambiguation), modified to move the wikilink to Team17, will suffice for navigational aid. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Edinburgh. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duddingston Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school, including a nursery. We don't generally have articles for such schools, unless they are especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect as above: Duddingston is an ancient and historical area, but this isn't an old school. Run-of-the-mill, treat as per usual consensus. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EXNESS Group[edit]

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

Cross-wiki spamming. (ja, zh, de, pl, pt, etc.) Mys_721tx (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage in reliable sources appears to be routine and trivial, and therefore not enough to establish notability. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable minor company in New Zealand (Russian owned 60%) NealeFamily (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article content is purely promotional, no notability under corporate guidelines; References are largely non-mainstream advertorial masquerading as coverage of the company and fail WP:RS.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett Sorko[edit]

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

Musician and internet personality whose article is sourced exclusively to blogs, primary sources, dead links and other non-encyclopedic "references", with not a single reliable source in the bunch to attest that he actually passes WP:NMUSIC in any way whatsoever. The only claim of notability that actually even exists at all here is "got X number of hits for a YouTube video", which as always is not a claim of notability in and of itself if the reliable sources are lacking. In addition there's a possibility of WP:COI here, as the article's creator has no history of ever contributing to Wikipedia at all before or since this article.

  • Delete unless the sourcing and notability claim can be beefed up much better than this. As usual with "notable YouTubers", however, I won't hold my breath. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A few local news sources picked this up, but nothing more than that. Moswento talky 08:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Gonzalez (baseball)[edit]

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

Minor league baseball player, having never played a game and now released. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, or the baseball specific notability guidelines. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - This article was previously nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfredo Gonzalez (baseball player) with a decision to keep. BRMo (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the previous keeps in that AfD cited CBPL as meeting baseball notability guideline, which I assume was the case back then in 2009, but CBPL is not currently in WP:NBASEBALL. Looks like it'll come down to whether WP:GNG is met.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for picking up the old AfD (which I had nominated). I have added the link to the top of this page. I withdrew my nomination based on the CPBL, but as noted above that is not part of the revised baseball notability guidelines. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought CPBL was kept in NBASEBALL with MLB, NPB and KBO? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't involved in the discussion, but what is listed there now is:All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as part of that discussion, we decided to drop the CPBL as it was thought to be not of the same quality as the other leagues. It is interesting to note that he was actually called up to the Majors at one point, though he did not appear in a game. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Being called up to the majors is a cool milestone, but the real question is whether the coverage of his career enough to satisfy WP:WHYN. Some players never get called up but have coverage, and some players could conceivably have been called up with little press.—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm going to take the same position that I did in the 2009 AfD. (In that AfD, I didn't base my opinion on his play for the CPBL, because I didn't view it as a top tier league.) My reasoning is that with 62 games pitched in AAA over three seasons, and with having been called up by the Dodgers (though not making it into a game), he is right on that boundary between those who made it into the majors and those who didn't. The article isn't long, but there are a couple of short, well-referenced paragraphs containing info that can't simply be culled from bb-ref. Once I regain my access to the LA Times archives (my access is temporarily cut off until I go renew my library card in person), I'll run a search to see if I can locate some other info that isn't available on the public web. I wouldn't be too disappointed if the decision is to delete, but I favor keeping the article. BRMo (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but only because he was once called up to the majors. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment being called up to the majors has never (to my knowledge) been a criterion for notability per wp:athlete or the baseball specific guidelines, it has always been having played at least one game. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we all agree that being called up to the majors doesn't satisfy the criteria being "presumed notable" under WP:BASE/N, and we're discussing notability under the general notability guidelines. I think the fact that he was called up to the majors is one of the things we might consider in determining whether the player received enough coverage from reliable sources (including both the sources cited in the article and others that may not be available on the public web) to satisfy the general notability guideline. BRMo (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I just wanted it stated what that criteria actually is. What are the sources that help pass the GNG? I generally don't consider MLB.com, or a teams website to classify as independent enough, and the Taipai Times is passing mention that he was playing. I can't read the Sports Illustrated article at this time, although the title doesn't reference him.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles on MLB.com are written by professional reporters and each article includes a note saying that they are not subject to approval by MLB or the teams. To me the coverage seems similar to what's available from newspaper sites (with the advantage that they don't lock their archives behind a pay wall), so I've always considered them to be reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't question their reliability, I just don't consider them independent enough for establishing notability, as it is MLB posting articles about MLB or MiLB (irrespective of who actually wrote the article). That is just they way I view it, I know others have differing opinions. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the record, I do view articles on MLB.com like they are essentially newspapers covering the team, but don't think that in this case, MLB.com offers anything more than trivial mentions. Go Phightins! 20:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh ... um - probably delete - While there are many articles, none are feature stories, as far as I can tell. For example, Building the Bavasi way features two sentences on him. Spring Training Notes mentions him amidst a list of other players, with no expounding upon the list whatsoever. Even Notes: Brown headed to DL comments very briefly on him; certainly not enough to establish GNG. To me, these seem like a bunch of trivial mentions, and since he never played in a league that would satisfy WP:BASEBALL/N, I cannot really in good faith support keeping the article. However, my vote to delete is rather weak. Go Phightins! 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence presented that WP:GNG is met. Specifically, WP:WHYN advises that we need significant coverage so a stand-alone article can be filled, and independent sources are needed for neutral coverage and evidence that non-affiliated sources find the subject significant enough to devote resources to cover. This article would likely be limited to simple promotion/demotion announcements through the minor league system and stats—not very encyclopedia IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, playing in the minor leagues or in the independent leagues does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Truong[edit]

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

Autobiography, dubious notability, even more dubious references. I've removed a spam link to his e-company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of them are Self-publishing sources. Notability not found A.Minkowiski (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the only reliable source provided is this one. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much notability, no real heavy impacts on the fashion industry in any way. Staglit (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep whilst there are sources, most of these are fashion related sources, but there is some coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant notability, even as a student designer, which seems to be his present status. The existence of sources obvious based primarily or entirely upon press releases is not a justification for notability. Sources must be independent, and anything based on a press release is esactly the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response DGG, what is "obvious" about the sources all being based on press releases? When I said they existed due to good PR, I meant that they were probably written due to a PR agent persuading these publications to cover his work, or asking reporters to cover it. I did consider them carefully and sceptically, and ignored a LOT of the obvious press-release stuff in between the other articles, and it does seem that ongoing coverage is there, in a wide variety of sources (albeit mostly Australian media). Several of the articles I linked to above are attributed clearly to third party authors/journalists (Rachel Farah, Lauren Darragh, Melanie Gardiner, etc...) and from what I can see they do not parrot/rehash each other's text, but actually offer different copies/texts. I was prepared to believe this should be deleted, and indeed, when I started my comment, was thinking I would be saying "delete", but changed my mind after looking at the sources. Yes, it's not the strongest stuff, but it was enough for me to see a case for keeping. Mabalu (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 11:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of RTC Transit routes[edit]

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

WP:NOT the place to host a list of current bus routes, that's what the company website does. A list of non notable routes does not a notable subject make. Fram (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:NOTDIR. Bus routes are ephemeral and are properly the domain of transit system websites. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are you planning on nominating everything in Category:Lists of bus routes? If not, why is this one being singled out? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Having one giant discussion for all of them would be unwieldy, and there may be differences in notability. Having separate discussions for all of them at the same time would overwhelm AfD. So I picked two, one recent that brought this to my attention, and one other. Fram (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification I have brought up the same issue with List of ABQ RIDE Transit routes, and your point is also being discussed there. ®amos 16:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep many, many other bus systems have articles like these. I think one of the large bus systems in a major city is significant enough to have its own article. Staglit (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this is a county wide transit system so the city portion is really a small subset of the routes. However it also covers the Las Vegas Strip and the airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think one of the large bus systems in a major city is significant enough to have its own article." Yes, that's why we have RTC Transit, which is not (and will not be) up for deletion. The deletion discussion is for the separate sprawling list of their routes though. Fram (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are OK with merging the list back into the article? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not OK with that, as I don't think it improves that article in any way; but I can't stop it from happening. Fram (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a reason to keep lists of bus routes at all, as I explained above. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDIR as per WP:NOTDIR discourages lists of "indiscriminate" content. This list is very discriminate as being specifically routes in a specific transit system and is acceptable per WP:LIST. --Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of 24-hour pharmacies in Las Vegas would be discriminate and useful to some people but it is not what Wikipedia is for.--Charles (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oakshade: yes, we can make many verifiable lists of non notable but related things. WP:NOTDIR is, contrary to what you claim, not about "indiscriminate", that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the section about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". But NOTDIR is the section on "Wikipedia is not a directory". That a list doesn't violate one aspect of WP:NOT is irrelevant (certainly when that section isn't even the deletion argument), you should try to refute the argument that it violates NOTDIR instead. Fram (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of 24-hour pharmacies isn't as notable as bus routes. We're not making articles for each individual bus route here. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same reason a local fast food restaurant isn't notable. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what makes a local bus route more notable? They are all local services.--Charles (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One individual route is rarely ever notable, and nobody is suggesting that any route here is. This and the others that Fram wants to delete are lists of these routes. In smaller articles (Huntington Area Rapid Transit, Fredericksburg Regional Transit if it's ever written, ABQ RIDE, etcetera), these routes can be added as a section, but this one is far too large not to have the bus route list split off. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's good arguments to be made on both sides here, but Wikipedia is, indeed, not a directory, and it is not a travel guide. The list of routes does not appear to pass WP:GNG; sources report on the company, but not its routes. Whether or not the lists of routes are suitable as WP:SPINOUTs of the transit system articles (i.e. "this would normally be in the main article, but it would be too long there") is a good question, but for bus (and, for that matter, air) routes, I would be inclined to argue no, if only because they can (as has been mentioned) be altered at any time. Now, perhaps this is the sort of article that should be part of Wikipedia, and I can see that argument, but that, IMHO, would require a change to WP:NOT, and until that is done this is a delete candidate per "not a travel guide". - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not find some historical information and change the focus of the list? Many bus routes have been essentially unchanged for a surprisingly long time, even in newer cities such as Vegas and Orlando. --NE2 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify so that this isn't a travel guide. The "places of interest" column is problematic, but the list of bus routes format is not. Having a paragraph before each group of numbers would contribute significantly to making this more encyclopediac. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment unfortunately, your suggestion of getting rid of the places of interest would satisfy the WP:NOTTRAVEL section, but adding paragraphs about the route would violate it again. then there is still the argument of WP:NOTDIR. The argument rages on! ®amos likes messages! 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not about places of interest, but about the geographic orientation of the routes, their history, etc - and it should be limited to related groups of buses rather than individual routes. Something like "the 600 series routes were added as part of the XYZ program in 2001, with an expansion of service to Podunk in 2005. The routes run primarily on east-west boulevards in the northern part of the city." List of MBTA bus routes, one of my pet projects, is a good example - it provides a useful explanation of some of the stranger routes, and traces the evolution of others from streetcar lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, I'm on your side, I personally think these lists are relevant to the article at hand, lest we go through all of Wikipedia with a tine tooth comb. I'm only concerned because I'm watching this same argument on several fronts (See List of ABQ RIDE Transit routes). I do like how your article is set up, and I applaud you for your work. ®amos likes messages! 22:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just wish the nominee and his supporters understood this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDIR. I have reread that based on the discussion here and this type of list does not appear to be discouraged. Then we have the issue of what to do with the content. Some suggest removing it, it appears that this is due to the fact that moving it back to the main article would overload that. If we want to remove this type of information from every transit article, then that is a subject for and RFC to change policy and guidelines. There is a distinction between WP:TRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR, but the former especially, is very subjective. Clearly if we listed every stop, or the travel times between points that would violate WP:TRAVEL. But it does not appear that the list in its current form does. I think many of the points above are about ways to improve the article. Those should be remembered by those who work on the article in the future. Which reminds me that AfD is not for cleanup. That is what the reason to delete by some here appears to be. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOTDIR, some arguments assigned low weight for reasons covered at WP:OTHERSTUFF j⚛e deckertalk 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of ABQ RIDE Transit routes[edit]

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

WP:NOT the place to host a list of current busroutes, that's what the bus company web site is for. The routes aren't notable, the company is (and has an unchallenged article). Not everything that is verifiable belongs on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, This article is in accordance with WP:BUSROUTE, which in and of itself a conflicting policy. This list does not list all bus stops, only major hubs in the city, or have less than 20 routes. Taking the WP:NOTDIR to the letter would involve getting rid of all such lists, as well as related maps (a visual directory of the route), associated stations (those not meeting notability standards). This argument is not necessarily in favor for discriminatory keeping of my article, but noting that there is a double standard with conflicting policies. ®amos 14:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is certainly possible to write an article on a bus service which talks about its history and other information which isn't immediately and better provided from their website. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Again, the question is, if we are not going to keep transit lists, why are some transit systems, and I quote from above: "The List of bus routes in London should be exempted for a while.", being exempted. Because of London's transport history, a more accurate article could be something like "History of bus service in London" (or something to that effect), where notable routes that have importance outside the transit industry can be written. Just because people took the time to write an article on every bus route does not grant exemption (although I do applaud them for their work). And to state for the record again, I'm not in favor of keeping or deleting this article, but more interested in the consistency & special treatment of articles. ®amos 13:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR - Anyone wanting this info should visit the operators website .... We're an encyclopedia not a travel guide. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ditto for all the above if that is under discussion. Those very few routes that really are notable can have articles and be linked to operators' articles or organisations such as Transport for London. There are Wikia wikis where these type of lists can be maintained by those interested.--Charles (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ABQ RIDE. Granted it will increase the size of that article, but not as severely as List of RTC Transit routes to RTC Transit. I'm not saying every bus system needs a separate bus route article, but it seems unfair to single out Metropolitan areas like Las Vegas and Albuquerque. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If we're on the subject of WP:NOTDIR, what does that do for sections like this: Web_conferencing#Software_and_service_providers? It is essentially the same thing. Im just saying, the group effort here on Wikipedia is Information, standardization & consistency, and I'm all for it. If that means article has to go, then maybe its time to establish a task force for such issues as these. I'd be more than willing to contribute my time for this. ®amos 22:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Park United FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete club playing at best third tier state level is not notable. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor club playing well down the pyramid even at state level. No indication the club has ever taken part in any national competition. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think they've even been at the top at state level which would also be a saving possibility. Not notable. Dragonfire X (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curses in Islam[edit]

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

The article is a result of original research, as it is a synthesis of unrelated ideas and the creator appears to have tried to make some central point which is not being made in said sources. Of the three sources, one is used to cite the fact that "curse" is a word in Arabic, literally citing the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, which proves that Arabs have a word for "curse" in their language but making no comment on this supposed topic. The other two sources simply mention some treaty between Muhammad and the Arabian Christians in which no cursing was involved anyway. There are also tons of lengthy quotes from the Qur'an directly. This is just an instance of the article's creator (long since retired) trying to make some sort of a point with random, unrelated "sources." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

George Anastassiou[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 re-direct. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood poverty[edit]

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

It's written like an essay, and probably is nothing we can't include in the Poverty article. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a better idea than deletion. Is it acceptable to change the article into a redirect and then speedy close this AfD? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kroombit Tops National Park. j⚛e deckertalk 23:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Betsy[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:GNG: non-notable crash of a military aircraft. No Wikinotable people involved, no evidence of changes in procedures or policies, no WP:PERSISTENCE. The fact the wreck still exists does not confer notability, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is written about in the gladstone observer 2014, by tourism and events QLD, in the NT News (3 Sep 1994), by the local council, in the park's management plan, in The Canberra Times (31 August 1994), in the book "The hidden chapters : untold stories of Australians at war in the Pacific - Robert Piper"....and I'm bored typing. Keep - it is clearly written about sufficiently for an article. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be enough reliable sources. The wreckage has become an attraction within the park. If deleted it could become a section within the Kroombit Tops National Park article. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Kroombit Tops National Park. Just an aircraft wreck. Yes, it's been written about in local media. So what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability in the original accident and its just an artifact in a park and not really notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citations do not make a topic notable, only verifiable. The WikiProject aircraft long ago decided that individual aircraft and their histories are not notable as such, it is only the wider context that can bring notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and very few of those citations are actually for this Beautiful Betsy. Moswento talky 13:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Book on Networks[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There isn't enough coverage out there to show that this book passes notability guidelines. The award is very minor, as it's for a recently launched organization/event and I can't see where that event passes notability guidelines either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Don't Delete This book is an independent and in depth look at a key sector of information technology. A number of other lesser books also have articles, even those that have not won any awards. A notable book and an article with no issues suggests keeping the article. Moreover this book is available for sale on amazon.com and link for this book is [21]• Shahzad91 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The four Amazon reviews it has gathered in its four weeks in print are WP:UGC; the World Reading Day listing is not notable in itself. No evidence found of notability for this book, published this month on CreateSpace. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A recently self-published book that hasn't attracted enough media attention to sufficiently support a claim to notability. Well done for the award, but that's not enough. Moswento talky 08:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Recommended for Deletion: Book has more than one thousands fans on facebook in two month [visit this link]• Shahzad91 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.143.224 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. by RHaworth as WP:CSD#G7. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Reading Day[edit]

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

I came across this via the AfD for a related article. Despite the claims of it being global, I can't really find where this event is notable at this point in time. It might become notable in the future, but there really isn't anything out there about it at this point in time. There are some articles about this in Chinese papers, but I can't entirely tell if they're talking about the same exact event or if it's just similar events by the same name. This article from 2009 shows it being held in April and previous versions of the page seems to assert that this particular version of the event started in 2012. I don't think that this specific version is the same as the one being held in China. Even if it was, the coverage is still incredibly light- too light to really justify this having an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not much I can find about the so-called world reading day except this [22]. If its a global event, as it claims to be, then it must have sources; but it doesn't. Harsh (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Don't Delete World Reading Day is active on twitter with over 3,000 followers and over 13,000 tweets. Link is; [23] There is an article from 2012 giving further information about this event which can be found at; [http://www.wnd.com/markets/news/read/22333840/promoting_the_gift_of_reading_with_world_reading_day]Google search results indicate that this event is gaining in profile each year. I would suggest retaining the article.User talk:Shahzad91 — Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that WP:POPULARITY doesn't give notability. It makes it more likely that it'll gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee. As far as future coverage goes, we can't keep articles based on future notability- we have to have coverage in the here and now. As far as the source goes, it looks like it's a reprint of a press release, which is considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source regardless of where it's posted and primary sources cannot give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Chinese sources that I came across were actually referring to the definitely notable World Book Day, rather than this apparently non-notable World Reading Day. I couldn't find any sources for this event. It certainly hasn't attracted any attention in the UK press. Moswento talky 08:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - After a quick search for sources, I found far more than enough. But then, like the nominator, I notice some dates said April and some said October. The website for the organization/event that is the subject of this article is quite clear that it's every October. Of the list of a dozen or so sources that I found, only the mediocre sources below pertain to the October event. A little more research and I found the "World Reading Day" in April is a translation or another name of World Book Day, April 23.
  • From what I understand about World Book Day it is a separate event that has no ties to the World Reading Day event, so anything that mentions April should be seen as sourcing for WBD and not for WRD. What makes it sort of difficult is that the WBD event does sometimes call itself "World Reading Day" so we should look at any news source to see if they mention a date or an organizer. If they don't mention that it's in October (or imply that it is in October) or say that it's being held by the people doing the October WRD, we need to assume that it's about the non-involved event. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the nominator withdrew in their keep !vote below in the discussion, and the notions regarding source availability in the remaining delete !vote have been countered with the provision of additional sources in the discussion. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Hotel (Prague)[edit]

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

No indication that the topic meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Importance is not really asserted. C679 12:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Template:Four Seasons Hotels there are 33 hotels in this chain that have Wikipedia pages, and the random sample I checked don't have much more than this one, not to mention dozens, if not hundreds, of similar articles about hotels in other chains. It would be odd, then, to single out this one. GoldenRing (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you commented on that, since a previous batch AfD which included the article for discussion here had the problem that too many were grouped together. C679 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that nom. I suppose it's a difficult one to draw a line on. Some hotels are clearly notable, but which ones is a difficult and sometimes subjective question. I'd say, for instance, that the Ritz, the Midland, the Dorchester, Claridge's, the Savoy and perhaps even Barribault's, despite not existing, would be some notable London hotels; the difficulty is where exactly to draw the line from there down. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears to be a largish (141 room) five-star hotel, no doubt reviewed in many guidebooks. I added a Fodors source and some other. --doncram 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite my comment above (I was not aware of the history pointed out). I don't think a one-paragraph review in a guidebook should be enough to establish notability; WP:ORG states that consideration should be given to "whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" - there is no indication that this hotel has any particular significance. Also that, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization," and that such depth of coverage should be considered when assessing notability; it is hard to see how a one-paragraph review "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub" about a hotel. If such reviews are going to establish notability then we've got a lot of work - London alone has over 700 hotels, and I'm guessing most of them have got a review somewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A large five-star hotel will always have a higher than usual amount of media coverage. Some examples from the UK press: Independent on Sunday (2004); The Times (2001), The Independent (2002)... This Google Books page also indicates repeated coverage in Mladá fronta DNES. Moswento talky 09:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nominator, changing !vote as I feel the sources proposed by Moswento satisfy GNG. I have added a couple of those to the article and another one, too. C679 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator has withdrawn. I'd do a non admin closure, but I don't think I've got the points on the board to get away with that. Dragonfire X (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is eligible for speedy keep, unless GoldenRing changes his vote. Speedy keep is only for when the nominator withdraws and there are no other delete votes. So - no you wouldn't "get away with that"! Moswento talky 13:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Oraá[edit]

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

Having minused the soapboxing, all that remains is a sentence; while that statement would pass an A7 challenge, it fails GNG. Launchballer 16:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable athlete. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Olympic competitors are presumed notable. Her status as an Olympian means it is almost certain that sources exist, although they are probably offline Spanish sources that I don't have access to. Moswento talky 09:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Source shows her competing at the Olympics and that shows notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Model Railways Club[edit]

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

Non-notable club. A local railroad hobby club with 30 members. No independent coverage to be found anywhere. Claims of being the "first such club in the Middle East" are not verified. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added a few sources now. Though it's still uncertain if the article meets basic notability guidelines. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've actually deleted two of the sources which Shalom11111 added as they had nothing to do with this club at all. This source talks about a model railroad set up at the Jerusalem rail station as part of an historic exhibit, but makes no mention of the IMRC; while this source is a YouTube video about a model railroad club in Haifa. This second source is interesting for one thing: it belies this article's claim that the IMRC (located in Netzer Sereni, not in Haifa) is the "only model railroad club in the middle east". And because that claim is suspect, so is the third source that Shalom11111 added, this blog on the website of the magazine Eretz (not to be confused with the major daily Haaretz), which echoes that claim of uniqueness. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No real sources are forthcoming, no credible claim to notability. Moswento talky 09:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have been convinced, WikiDan61 is right. As it stands now, the article should be deleted. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vamp Nail Polish[edit]

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

nail polish color is notable? this is written like an advertisement and poorly sourced. no primary sources available LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if lack of notability is a concern, what one would need to establish an article's notability is in-depth coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. Primary sources can be used at times, but unlike secondary sources they do not add to notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak delete There doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable-source, in-depth coverage (just articles along the lines of "10 nail varnishes you should own"). It might be better to add something to Chanel#Products or (to cover rival products) Nail polish#Nail polish in fashion: I don't suggest merging because of the tone/quality of this article. We do have articles on makeup brands e.g. see in Category:Personal care brands, but it's unusual to have one on a specific range or single product. But if it was re-written in a more encyclopedic style with better references, I'd say keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been greatly improved since I made that comment. Article now demonstrates notability, and I have changed my vote. Well done to the contributors. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the GNG. I've just now added two sources which are articles entirely about this exact nail polish. There are more which I'll be adding momentarily, but this is already enough for GNG, especially given that they're from five years apart, showing continuing in-depth coverage.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the references have a link, how are they verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incredibly condescending first of all. Second, I was always told that we cannot use references that require a subscription because how else would users be able to access it? I deleted one source, not all of them. That was what the question was for. So instead of trying to belittle me, you could have just said just take a look at SOURCEACCESS. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we can use references that require a subscription to view. If you can find an equivalent reference that doesn't require one, it's generally better because more people can view it, but there is no prohibition against using sources that you must pay to access. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. I thought I was being kind by ignoring the fact that you didn't actually give a valid deletion rationale or, evidently, practice WP:BEFORE.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated above that how is nail polish color notable, which by Wiki stands is questioning WP:N. Before you edited it, it was and still is written like an advertisement and was poorly sourced. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not think notability is determined through the state of the article, it's determined (among other things) on whether there is significant coverage on the subject which I didn't find any, good that you found it so easily. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When this AFD was started the article was generally weak, particularly so on referencing,[24] but since then it has been well referenced and written in a more objective tone. Lack of primary sources is never a problem in itself (indeed it is argued that primary sources can sometimes be problematic[25] ) and NYT references are not precluded by being behind a paywall.[26] I would favour merging with a broader article such as Chanel cosmetics or Fashion nail polish but AFD should not mandate such an editorial decision and any merge would not involve deleting the present material. In striking his remarks, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has apologised for his unkind remarks,[27] but at the same time he has greatly improved the article. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn per Thincat and alf laylah wa laylah LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you're withdrawing the nomination? Bali88 (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Michael Wong[edit]

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

NOT NEWS.-- and Promotional, for both the person, and a cause. Whether an adequate article could be written about the academic career under WP:PROF is uncertain--I would normally rewriter to see, but I am not comfortable discarding the bulk of the article rather than deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if this person turns out to be notable, there is nothing in the current article that would be worth salvaging... --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is plagued with peacock language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Melbourne. This level of violence towards the Public hospital doctor is a big community concern here in Australia. This is appropriate news information content for Wilkepaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.251 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is primarily about the stabbing event and it's too soon to tell whether that will have the lasting notability needed to make this an encyclopedic subject and not just a news subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I work in the health sector in Melbourne Australia and am new to contributing in Wikipedia. I am surprised to see the above comments on the lack newsworthiness on Dr Wong's story and the suggestions of deletion. Dr Wong's attack has raised concerns on the safety of health workers in Australia. On a larger scale, this story has also highlighted the increasing level of violence in our community. Currently there is no specific security measure for the majority of health workers in Australia. It is therefore of great interest to all health workers and the larger community the outcome of this attacker's court proceedings and the potential response from the government, as well as Dr Wong's view on the attack and his recovery. I do not know Dr Wong personally and thus have sought information on his story in Wikipedia. I thank the contributors for the information on Dr Wong's Wikipedia entry. It is an important story for thousands of health workers in Melbourne, if not around the world. I can easily find extensive Wikipedia entries on celebrities or entertainers. If these celebrity entries were considered far more important than Dr Wong's story, I am afraid Wikipedia will end up being no more than a second-rated tabloid. MichelleDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleDG (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MichelleDG, nobody ghere says the attack is not newsworthy. But WP is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. Unless an event has lasting influence, it is not encyclopedic. And for this event, it's just too soon to know whether years from now people will still talk about it, so it's too early for an article here, too. --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am surprised that others consider newspaper articles and encyclopedia entries are mutually exclusive. By definition of the Oxford English Dictionary, an encyclopedia is a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. Many subjects are originated from unusual occurrence in human history. For example, the terror attack on 9/11 highlighted the dangers of Islamic extremists, the lack of airline security, etc. The fact that Dr Wong was attacked in the hospital foyer similarly highlighted the lack of security in hospitals, as well as the dangers of mentally ill people and prescribed medications. MichelleDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleDG (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — MichelleDG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see any lasting value at the moment. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The tone of this article is pretty bloody awful, and it clearly needs, er, major surgery to correct it if it passes triage. It is possible that a senior consultant surgeon, a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, etc, would meet WP:PROF, however there is no evidence of that here. In the absence of evidence, the default assumption must be that this mustn't be the case. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legs (film)[edit]

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

Utterly unnoticed TV movie. Rotten Tomatoes has zero reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not completely unnoticed. Some articles from Google's (much less comprehensive than it used to be) newspaper archive: [28] (AP, carried by multiple papers in the archive); [29] (Eugene Register Guard "from Wire Service Reports"); [30] (a different AP story); [31] (brief preview); [32] (brief preview). --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
writer/director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actress:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actress:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep and allow improvement of this stub over time and through editorial effort. The article may have been itself ignored but neglect is not a valid deletion rationale (if asserted), and as Arxiloxos points out in polite contradiction to the nom's statement, this 1983 project did receive notice some 30 years ago. Rotten Tomatoes' failings do not set our notability standard and we do not expect any film to remain forever in the headlines. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-and tons of older films wont have RT reviews. While its not the most known film, this seems to be able to keep. Wgolf (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination'. Looks like this one has "legs". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bopanna Pattada[edit]

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

No sign of notability apart from a few trivial mentions in a couple of newspapers. Most of the article seems to have been written by the subject himself. —indopug (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Connolly-Burnham[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Found nothing to indicate notability, Fails WP:GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find sources which would establish notability under GNG. Currently only sourced to an unreliable database. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systems Division[edit]

Systems Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All partial matches. MOS:D: Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title. Use list articles for lists of related topics if needed.

  • All the articles for this disambiguation list have descriptors in the page name that fully match "Systems Division", so claiming all partial matches is inaccurate (and not related to the "Do not include [if] not ambiguous" policy. 30 SW (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a reason to just remove the red entries, not delete the clearly valid disambiguation page with numerous blue entries. The non-red entries aren't "merely [there] because Title is part of the name"--they're there because there are articles for different topics with descriptors that fully match Title: "Systems Division". 30 SW (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All named entries that are listed are indeed ambiguous--they're all Systems Divisions. Not sure why Epicgenious would post the quote to imply they are not. Likewise, the entries are not "a list… of related topics" -- they page names all include the full name "Systems Division", but are for entirely different entities. (Which is what disambiguation is for.) 30 SW (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are all partial matches, as the nominator points out. They also break the parsing of the names which are all "(Blah Systems) Division", not "Blah (Systems Division)". Dingo1729 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:30 SW, please see MOS:D#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. Boleyn (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Boleyn, the listed topics are against MOS:D. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anto (musician)[edit]

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

I am concerned that this does not meet the criteria for inclusion, but I'm not sure so I'd rather open it to community discussion than PROD'd it or tag it for CSD. The only apparent claim to notability involves a band called Summerline which at the moment I can only find Facebook, Youtube and Myspace references to. He seems to have two self-released EPs in his solo portfolio, but again only links to an official website that I can't seem to find any content on, and facebook/myspace/youtube content. Thus I can't find any indication of third party review or attention which would warrant inclusion. But as I say, I'm not 100% sure. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in independent sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time.  Gongshow   talk 09:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My searches led me to the same conclusions as Gongshow. Not (yet) notable. Moswento talky 14:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molecule (Brand)[edit]

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

An article which does not display notability, does not have any sources or references (only a link to an official website) and it looks a little like an ad. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find evidence of notability for the brand or its company Molecule Labs. They work in a very very niche field, and are unlikely to attract substantial media coverage. There are some mentions in motor-racing publications, and some coverage that looks like press releases about them being chosen as an official supplier to racing organizations, etc, but I'm afraid we would need better sources to keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ankapur Chicken Curry (ACC)[edit]

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

Reads very much like an advertisement, and doesn't cite any reliable sources. I was unable to find sources either, other than this video. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hits in Newsbank or Gale or.... Evidently this is a non-notable kind of chicken curry. Perhaps there are non-English sources, but unless those are brought forth it seems that this must go.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It exists, but not finding any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:N for a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - More promo than anything, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, and very little encyclopedic content. Reads more like an advert than anything else. OakleighPark 08:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 General Motors LS engine. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet small-block engine table[edit]

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

Article is a duplication of information found on General Motors LS engine and also contains non-OEM engine information. VX1NG (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Gagnani[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Does not have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Appeared in a couple of television serials. Harsh (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only WP:RS I could find are a few mentions in Times of India. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topkek[edit]

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

PROD removed by ip with edit summary 'deleted trash'. No reasonable claim that these muffins are notable. TheLongTone (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Difficult to find references for this. NickCT (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In WP there are over 400 articles tagged for dessert stub. What is wrong with this particular dish ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, the fact that other articles exist is not an argument for keeping another:see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Secondly, this is not a dessert or type of food: it is a proprietry brand of cake. Even searching with the brand (ETI topkek) doesnt throw up anything. Asserion of notability is some dumb internet notoriety.TheLongTone (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mentions in databases. No mentions in gbooks. Non-notable biscuit. The fact that it's big on 4chan ain't helping me believe it exists even, but it's certainly not notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cutler[edit]

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

+This article cites two sources: the subject's own book, and an interview with the subject. The tone of the article is largely negative and it is dominated by discussion of a single event, for which the subject is apparently blamed, but we have never had any reliable source for that. He's stated to be a tour manager and author, but the only book he seems to have written is an autobiography, which doesn't make him an author as such. So this is basically a WP:BLP1E with grossly inadequate sourcing and no good sources at all for the link between the subject and the one (negative) event that dominates the article. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: His book seems to have gained him some media attention, and continues to do so a few years after it was published. Not really a case of WP:BLP1E, as sources discuss his notability both in terms of the ill-fated concert and his work with the Rolling Stones in general and his autobiographical reflections on both of those events. The first few pages of Google bring up pieces in The Globe and Mail (2010), ABC Brisbane (2008), Vice (2014), Metroactive (2013)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moswento (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alavi[edit]

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

I have just noticed this article after I received an echo for Russ Chimes. I am not disputing whether or not Alavi needs an article - he passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2 - but I am disputing whether or not we need this one per WP:TNT. This one is very horribly written - I have already banished a diatribe of 

this

from the article and I really went into one on the talk page regarding its referencing. Does the fact that Alavi has had some poxy #79 hit on the Dutch Singles Chart really necessitate us lugging this shit-tip around? Launchballer 09:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. AFD is not cleanup, barring exceptional cases. This article needs work, but I don't see any reason it should be considered too bad to allow normal editorial processes to improve. Nothing in the article stands out as a BLP violation, and the nominator agrees the subject meets the notability threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with Squeamish Ossifrage; change all the uses of "Patrick" to "Alavi" per WP:SURNAME (which I've done) and (perhaps thanks to cleanup efforts by other editors during the AfD) it now reads as a reasonably objective and factual piece. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable, and the article is not so bad that it needs to be nuked and started again. Thanks to Arxiloxos and others for cleanup so far. Moswento talky 14:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Batuello[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENT: one notable role. Fails WP:GNG insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources (sources cited are trivial mentions). Prod removed claiming lack of notability is not clear. SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Naked Brothers Band, where Batuello is already mentioned in the "Casting" section. Not enough to suggest he is independently notable (at least not yet...) The most in depth source I could find was this, where we learn he likes mint chocolate chip ice cream. Moswento talky 08:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above; plausible search term. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to show that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT at this time.  Gongshow   talk 09:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Mehta[edit]

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

Not notable. Reference links not reliable. Self-promotion page Harsh (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TINO Methodology[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There is a claim of notability, but not evidence. The article has a "history" of the concept, but no details or description. (This could be fixed, if it is not proprietary.) [I'm guessing the category is "O" (product). Could be "S" (Society topics) or "T" (Technology).] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dear Arthur and Ging287, thank you for your response to the TINO methodology article. I understand your questions about the notability. I would like to repeat that the methodology has not been publicly presented until last year. Within one year media all over the world have been writing about it and TEDx has asked for a presentation about the methodology. In addition, this page is not used as any kind of promotion. The founder of the methodology Haim Dror does not do any kind of marketing, which he also describes on the website of his company (www.humints.com).The reason why I created an article is to make people familiar with this new type of innovation strategy, just like there are pages about Blue Ocean Strategy and crowd-sourcing. I would be very happy to write more details about the method if you advice me to do so. Also, if you advice me to invite other people to edit the page (also people who have edited other Wikipedia articles), please let me know. There are already many people around the world who worked with the method and would be happy to contribute to this article. Again, I would be very happy to hear your advice and i hope this article can stay online. I believe the public should be able to read about it, especially because TINO is about the potential of every person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayajil (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absent some indication that it's been discussed in depth in WP:RS or that it's made some significant impact, I'm not seeing notability here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milton and the Devils Party[edit]

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

Not a notable band per WP:BAND. No coverage provided to satisfy the GNG, and I don't see much in-depth that's reliable, besides some blogs. What Is All This Sweet Work Worth? is stated to have been published on FDR, which according to AllMusic is Facedown Records--but whether that's our Facedown Records is anyone's guess, since the band does indie pop and that label does Christian hardcore (whatever that is). So, no, not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I could also only find a few reviews on comparatively minor blogs, and a few pieces in the Widener Magazine. Maybe they'll make it one day, but they're not there yet. Moswento talky 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Google search only returns social network and uploaded videos first. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 13:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bell (Ulster writer)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (authors) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - just another non-notable practicioner of the writing trade, with no evidence of actual notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JustGarciaHill.org[edit]

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

This may not be notable per General notability guidelines. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It needs more sourcing, but I did find where the two non-primary sources are from places that would be considered reliable. One is from Science (journal), which is apparently fairly particular about publishing articles, and the other is from The Scientist, which also looks to be pretty reliable as well. We do need more coverage, but this makes me a little optimistic about finding such coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this will likely need people from the science WP to come in, as they'd likely have better access to sources. I'm finding some hits under "Just Garcia Hill" and other similar name variations, and I am finding a hit here but I can't actually check to see how it's mentioned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unified for Uganda[edit]

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

Appears to be a non notable charitable organization. Only source is the organizations website. Does not appear to be mentioned in reliable sources. Safiel (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found a few local sources, but not enough to pass notability guidelines. Moswento talky 07:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Gislason[edit]

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

Patently non-notable subject, ex-CEO of a non-notable company. I'd love to speedy delete it but it's been here so long I'm wondering whether there's something I'm missing! Fails WP:GNG dismally. Sionk (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems to me very likely that there are non-digital sources for someone like this. I have stubified the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems counterproductive to delete 95% of the article before the AfD is concluded. Do you have any evidence of offline sources? Sionk (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough and reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Online sources are lacking, and there's nothing in the article that leads me to think there will be (m)any offline sources either. Moswento talky 14:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Broshuis[edit]

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

Broshuis is not notable as a baseball player and I'm not sure if his off-field work is enough for his article to pass WP:GNG. For what it's worth, it appears that the article was created by a single-purpose account, Gbro43, that may be connected to the subject. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable individual.. And the screen name of the original page author leads me to believe that Broshuis (or someone representing him) set this page up as self promotion. Spanneraol (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to look a little more, but I am leaning keep on this one. His minor league career by itself does not seem to rise to meet notability, but he received significant coverage in at least one reliable source (one that is available on Google) as an amateur.[33] [34] [35]. That in itself is of course not enough, especially since it is one source, not multiple sources. And he has received some significant coverage for his post-baseball career [36], [37], [38] and small bits here and here. So I see him close to meeting WP:GNG without even counting his minor league career. And while the coverage a minor leaguer typically gets is not enough by itself to meet notability, he certainly would have gotten some coverage as a minor league player with some possibility of attaining the majors, and doesn't need much more coverage, if any, to meet WP:GNG. And it appears that he at least received some coverage in the 2006 Baseball America Prospect Handbook [39]. So I am thinking that he probably meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alan Browne[edit]

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

Minor actor with no significant roles in films, and only one minor role for 28 episodes of a TV soap opera. Even that role is not verifiable by any reliable sources, as it's only mentioned on IMDb. No mention of this actor in any other publications that I could find. Rockypedia (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as per WP:ENT. IMDb source not enough to keep it from deletion. Harsh (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I would disagree that he had "top billing" in Psycho II - it appears to be a minor role even if the iMDB entry is legit.
Regardless, there's nothing to support the contention that he had significant roles in anything else, including Santa Barbara. I was under the impression that iMDB is not considered a reliable source, and as such, the burden of proof is not such that one would have to demonstrate that the entry is bogus - if there's no reliable sources available, then the subject, by definition, isn't notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. That's why I nominated it in the first place. Rockypedia (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whatever doubt there may be about consensus, this is a massive copyvio of http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcim/article/view/5666/10661 -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internetization[edit]

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

Obscure neologism, not notable Bhny (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure the professor finds it notable, but we need third party citations. There's almost nothing on Google or Google Scholar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I see a number of references on Google books, this is used in and cited beyond one author. I am not sure if the term is used consistently enough to merit notability, but I cannot agree with deletion just because it's "obscure" or because there's "almost nothing" (I see usage wide enough to merit better analysis from the nom than just four words). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the Google books results (283) and about half the mentions are in scare quotes ( "Internetization" ), I guess implying that it's not a real word, just "internet" with a clumsy suffix. Anyway 283 results is something, but the usage, as you say, is inconsistent and mostly doesn't seem to derive from the coining by our professor. I'm still in favor of deleting since the article is about a particular coining that isn't notable. Bhny (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep found a lot of information on Google, including a journal entry explaining its relevance [[40]] Adamh4 (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the journal entry fails to show how this isn't just a neologism that happens to have been picked up by a few users. The references in the article help to show that this is simply a term used by this particular creator and maybe a few others, but not a notable term in itself. There is not sufficient coverage of the term itself to satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducknish (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 April 2014
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Google Scholar shows 510 uses of the term. The problem with the article is that in its current form it mentions primarily one scholar when many have utilized/ worked with this term. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The more I look at this article, the less I see there. This is not an encyclopedic article, but rather an essay only marginally on-topic. The topic is, in my opinion, worthy of an article, but this is not it... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some of this is covered under The_Internet#Social_impact; what isn't could be merged there. Those who think the secondary sources are of value could copy and add those to The Internet. The term seems too obscure to meet WP:Notability. Meclee (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ♔ 03:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Fetishism[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK. User appears to have forked Ethnic_pornography#Racial_fetishism It also seems to be ripe with original research as well. as well as WP:SYNTH. Thanks. Ging287 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject clearly goes well beyond pornography so complaining about a fork of Ethnic pornography is misplaced. The article references a range of sources about the article subject, many of which are about dating preferences and other topics that have nothing to do with pornography. Although sections might be considered original research, there's plenty of cited material and concerns can be fixed by editing/tagging: this is a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you would look at the references, you would see that the majority of the sources are only tangentially related to the subject. For example, the original author cited an online dating study on race, which did not even mention fetishism. This is highly evident of WP:NOR, especially WP:SYN. Tutelary (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good deal of reference coverage of concept. — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Tutelary (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that there are WP:SYNTH issues, but the topic is more notable than just pornographic fetishism. I'll add this article to my long to-do list. I suggest we give it some time to improve and then, if necessary, discuss a merge proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.T. Project 3D Transportation System[edit]

S.A.T. Project 3D Transportation System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some very limited references available on Google Books (I noted them on the article's talk page), no reliable sources from a regular Google search. The article creator, Alejo19 (talk · contribs), seems to have a conflict of interest, based on the "own work" tag on the articles' images. Vectro (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fireflight. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glam-rök[edit]

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

Non-notable album by a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The album is the first release by the band and lead to their being signed to a major record label (which in turn lead to their fame). Stylistically the album is different than later releases and is notable by being produced by their own guitarist. Taran13 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a criteria at WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find sources to support this album's notability. Moswento talky 07:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing GNG for albums. A redirect left to Fireflight would also be fine. Carrite (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_April_23&oldid=1142629967"