Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 April	4 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brynn Tyler[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability rules for porn bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another pointless porn star article. Every source is a press release. Yawn. --YasminPerry (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Struck as returning blocked user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aldéo Saulnier[edit]

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

Smalltown mayor (pop 2K), whose article makes no substantive claim of notability beyond asserting that he's a mayor and was an unsuccessful candidate in a provincial election. Mayors are not normally considered to pass WP:POLITICIAN unless the town or city that they're the mayor of is significantly larger than this — and even then, the article has to say more than just "Person is a mayor" — and unelected candidates in provincial or federal elections are not notable just for being candidates either. Delete unless somebody can come up with a stronger claim of notability than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayor of small town who lost in a race for a higher-level office, with no indication that there has been substantial coverage or anything to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Gene. This is a run of the mill local official. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as run of the mill local politician. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:01, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Syre[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read the talk page? The discussion could have been elaborated upon before nominating this for deletion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More aspersions Erpert? Do you actually have any sources to back up your assertions on the talkpage? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean, "more"? That's the first thing I said. And to answer second your question...yes, because no one has commented on the talk page (btw, you don't get to wikihound me either). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Erpert. I read the nonsense you posted on the talk page. You said, entirely without evidence, that "she is also notable outside of pornography due to her being a professional model", even though being a "professional model" does not satisfy notability standards, and that she was notable "outside pornography" because of "her involvement in alt porn", which is so mid-bogglingly obtuse (and remarkably silly) as to require no further refutation. As for being "the only active pornographic actress on Wikipedia to publicly identify as lesbian", you provide no sourcing for the claim; being the only person "on Wikipedia" to meet a criterion is not in any way an indication of notability; and the underlying "identification" is standard porn industry kayfabe, belied by the fact that Syre says different things to different interviewers for use in different market slots -- as here [1] (NSFW), where in a more recent interview Syre declines to make that identification, and discusses her most recent boyfriend. More generally, saying "I made these claims without any evidence so you have to refute them" counts for exactly nothing in deletion discussions, as do your incessant aspersions, insinuations, and innuendo. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails porn bio notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require must more stringent sourcing then available here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. RS coverage, even if you count the Playboy article (which I think is kayfabe), is not enough to pass GNG. A little better sourced than most porn stars but still not notable • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:26, 7 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) 01:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilah Kletenik[edit]

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

This article does not meet, in my view, the notability guidelines for people. It is true that the subject has won some minor awards, but not notable ones. The articles and citations do not appear to be significant nor are they focused on Gilah Kletenic. If anything, the focus of the articles are on the role of women in spiritual leadership in Orthodox Judaism, a subject already covered in the wikipedia article on Orthodox_Jewish_feminism. Moogla (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best she gets passing mention in secondary sources. No indication that se gets the type of coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kletenik is a notable figure in reshaping the landscape of the Jewish community and the Orthodox community in particular. Her notability has less to do with the awards she has received and more to do with the groundbreaking work she has done. Kletenik is among the first women to function as clergy in the Orthodox community, she serves a congregation with over a thousand members, is associated with a prominent Jewish school. Her reach and influence in the community far exceed those of many others who appear on Wikipedia. I wonder about the proposal for deletion: is it curious that the proposal emerged from someone who has not been active on Wikipedia for 4 years now? Does this raise any concerns about the integrity of the suggestion? To seek to improve the page is one thing, to seek to remove it is quite another. Anyone who investigates the matter will find that Kletenik's notability within the landscape of Jewish life in America today is incontrovertible. (Note: I am the creator of this page, and a new editor.) Proustache (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Proustache (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The many references on Kletenik's page indicate that she meets GNG. A variety of independent news sources - The New York Times, The Jewish Sound, The Jewish Week, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post -- have written about her and her work. Additionally, Kletenik has received independent recognition from a variety of organizations in the Jewish community, -- The Wexner Foundation, The Covenant Foundation -- this suggests that her achievements are sufficiently notable so as to earn that recognition. Also, she has worked and continues to work at a number of Jewish institutions that are change makers in the community -- Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, Ramaz School, JOFA, Yeshivat Chovivei Torah, Mechon Hadar. These groups are regularly in the news especially due to the kinds of issues about women and modernity, that Kletenik herself epitomizes. Also, these independent recognitions have happened over the course of several years and for various different reasons, thus "this was not a mere short-term interest." Finally, as the references on the page indicate, the evidence in favor of Kletenik's notability is "verifiable, objective evidence," is clearly not the "result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." The claim against Kletenik's notability does not stand -- she clearly meets the GNG. Polymath49 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced, even at time of nomination, to meet the GNG. I added a couple more just now; there are others, but notability is clear.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on a cursory glance at a few of the sources. There's mention in a NY Times feature, a bio in a prominent weekly, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of WP:V and WP:RS provided in the article. IZAK (talk) 05:04, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slawomir Kostrzewa[edit]

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

Notable for one event only. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only discussion of Kostrzewa I can find consists of quoting this single pronouncement about lego and then mocking him. He's not notable, therefore, even as a critic of lego. However, it's possible that there are sources in Polish which, if someone brings them forth, may convince me to change my opinion on notability.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He apparently got in the press once for some ill-advised comments, or perhaps comments taken out of context. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to try to add him to some worth-while categories, but then I realized that the one source article cared so little about him, that they never told us what religion he is. I would assume he is Roman Catholic, but he might be part of the Polish National Catholic Church, a small independent movement in Poland, and there are some other possibilities that I am not sure the source article ruled out. Basically he was a person attacked for comments he made, that very well may have been taken out of context. I have seen the media smear enough other people out of context, that I would not trust one article written with the intent to mock to get the issue right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 8 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. retracting my nomination. hope it's OK that I"m closing this out. SarahStierch (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Public School[edit]

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

May fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG SarahStierch (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hyland[edit]

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

PROD contested. Concern was article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what do I need to fix for my article to not be deleted. I thought I fixed the issues? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL @Gamemaster eleven: read Your First Article for more info. JMHamo (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think It meets all the criteria in the General notability guideline, how does it not??? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NFOOTBALL... He's not played senior first team football for a team in a fully professional league JMHamo (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will fix that Right Now, I understand what I need to do now. Gamemaster eleven (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I fix what Was requested??? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello is any one going to respond? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG with no coverage at all in reliable sources as far as I can see. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL with no appearances in a fully pro league - claim in the article that he will definitely play in 8 day's time is unsupported crystal balling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Chris, Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Pure WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well I guess while your at it go ahead and delete my other article Andrew Stone (footballer) it problaby violates this stuff to I don't even care just delete it!!! Gamemaster eleven (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I think it's snowing in here. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC) struck delete in view of Nfitz's comment below. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is unnecessary, and an absolute waste of everyone's time. WP:CRYSTAL says expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. It's almost certain (barring tragedy) that Kyle Hyland will be playing for Indy Eleven early in the season, as is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to their (now completed) pre-season. He started in their line-up in their final pre-season game [2] after the AFD was created. No, this doesn't make him notable, but an application of WP:COMMONSENSE rather than losing perspective and being too wrapped up in the rules would show that it does the project no harm, to leave the article alone for a few weeks, to see if the almost certain actually occurs. If something tragic happens, it's easy enough to delete the article at that time. However if the article is deleted, what invariably happens is that someone comes along within hours of the match, before there is a change to restore the article, and spends time rewriting it from scratch, rather than using their time better elsewhere. At a bare minimum we should Hold on until the team announces the starting line-up for the first match of the season, in only a few days. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no indication from any reliable source that he is bound to play, this is merely your subjective assumption. As has been noted in many AfDs previously, your "he's not notable now, but let's see if he continues to be non-notable before deleting" is inherently flawed, primrily because it is an admission, as you say explicitly above, that the subject is not notable, but this somehows leads to a "keep" !vote. Current consensus is that no article should exist except in extreme cases for footballers who have not yet played either a game in an FPL or senior international football. The cost of recreating articles is deemed to be more than outweighed by the benefit of not having hundreds of youth team player articles which we are assured are for players who will begin playing at a notable level any minute now, but who never do. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely saying hold on until the season starts, in only 5 days. There's no rush to delete this article before then. There are no firm rules that say this article needs to be deleted before we see happens, and there is WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then if he doesn't play then the article hangs around. WP:NORUSH is an essay, and is overridden by the long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY, that you actually need to have played at least one game in order to be notable. The correct procedure, and one which the vast majority of editors adhere to is to wait until an individual is notable before starting articles, not anticipate notability. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that is the correct procedure. But if the article exists, there's no point deleting it within hours of the season starting. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be no compelling reason to hasten to delete this so that it can quite possibly be re-created in a few days. Northern Antarctica ₵ 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz and Northern Antarctica. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This policy working is getting ridiculous, with all the fpl stuff thrown around. The bottom line is that he was signed by a team in a fully professional league even if he hasn't actually played. With the sourcing he has, he is notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a routine source, he hasn't received any significant coverage nor played in a fully pro league match. So therefore he's not notable. – Michael (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The season starts tomorrow. Why are we still having this discussion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask you the same thing since you guys aren't relying on past consensus regarding non notable footballers. Saying that "he'll make his debut tomorrow". Do we know for sure he'll make his debut tomorrow? No. Do we know for sure he'll play at all? No. If he makes his debut tomorrow, then I'll drop my nomination, but Wikipedia does not operate in the process of "he will be notable soon". – Michael (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. There's a test called WP:CRYSTAL that stops the creation of articles which are pure guessary, but something like this, where it's almost certain we'll be recreating the article shortly, passes. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Until he actually plays, he still fails the guidelines. – Michael (talk) 23:10, 11 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sativa Rose[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without policy/guideline based explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for this type of actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without non-trivial RS coverage. My own search for sources mainly got cast listings. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require better sourcing then this.n Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:40, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Product Manager[edit]

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

non notable certification, does not pass WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for this particular certification, no reliable secondary sources I can see.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:38, 29 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 21:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 8 hits on Newsbank, which is weird, because I thought there'd be a lot that weren't about this specific certification. However, it's uniquely named, it turns out. 6 of them are passing mentions, as in "X is a CPM." One is a press release from the certifying agency announcing the existence of the certification, and the last is a 2010 article from The Hindu about something else entirely in which the entire discussion of this certification is: " 'It is great to see so much interest for Certified Product Manager certification in India where product managers will help catalyse the transformation from building innovation to productising innovation,' said Paula Gray, co-founder, AIPMM." So, a quote from the co-founder of the certifying agency is all we have. It's not enough to meet the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:53, 5 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) 01:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albino Blacksheep[edit]

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

No claim of notability under WP:GNG TheMesquito (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any news on this? TheMesquito (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! This website is LEGEND! Highway 231 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article at AfD. Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 21:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I strongly suspect the sources exist. The "French military victories" Google bomb got some early attention (snippet in PC Magazine). In fact, there are lots of blurb-ish mentions (including this Routledge-published book, here, and so on), but I suspect there's more out there for a website that was fairly influential in the contemporary web. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The site's importance has waned over the years but it's significant in the history of internet culture (and the spread thereof). A quick look around yields: Google Bombing from a Time Perspective, WSJ - Time Waster: A Dance Like None Other. Not enough on their own, but I'm confident the sources exist. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:46, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Clifton B. Cates "I Will Hold" Award for Leadership[edit]

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

Dubious notability, no references, seems to be plenty of pov regarding the General Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability of award not shown. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 21:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable award. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:04, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Box[edit]

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

Contested A7 speedy, article does partially read like an advert (needs cleanup) but sources are somewhat press-release ish/ leave the notability question up for debate. Tawker (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly on the references provided there is no significant coverage of the company: the posters have attracted a bit of coverage in specialist sources but this would argue for the notability of the graphic designers rather than the agency. Company name does make searching difficult.TheLongTone (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This seems more like a corporate resume rather than an article about the company. No valid sources cited, and even the invalid ones are about pages for what seem to be the artists. Ultimately, we would need to see more widespread adoption and coverage of the company itself as well as non-press release in order to verify the article and approve any changes. Mystipedian (talk) 17:27, 10 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 The Power of Love (Sam Bailey album). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Love Tour[edit]

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

per WP:CRYSTALBALL, this is simply a list of speculative dates, which, even if confirmed by an official source, have not happened and may not happen. If not deleted, this article should be merged to Sam Bailey as a brief mention of the upcoming tour, with official link or reference if possible. If there is reliable coverage after the tour starts, then by all means include it, and maybe then it might warrant a separate article. Wikipedia is not the venue to create buzz on upcoming events. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - if not into the artist's page, then into The Power of Love (Sam Bailey album) under a "Promotion" section, a la Bangerz#Promotion. Perhaps a standalone article will be warranted in the future, like when the tour starts in ten months, assuming there's significant coverage for it at that time. For now, it seems too soon for this to meet WP:NCONCERT TOUR. Gongshow talk 23:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gongshow -Iago Qnsi 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - To The Power of Love under a promotion section. Make the table collapsable. — ₳aron 19:18, 11 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. Mike V • Talk 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1645 in the Papal States[edit]

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

No reference and too short to understand the subject. Lets see what others think. Should we keep this or delete. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially an empty article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above; listing one pope isn't enough content. Also nominating the following article which has the same issues:

Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- also 1816 in the Papal States, the only other annual category. Neither does more than name the current Pope, which can easily be discovered from other sources. I would suggest that if there are events worthy of mention, they would be much better included in the article on the Pope then in office. I regard these annual articles (and categories) as mere clutter, certainly when they refer to relatiely distant periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some one has complained that I was commenting on an empty article. When I did so, it was nearly but not quite empty. It is now slightly fuller, but I still regard it as largely empty. If we are going to have articles of this kind, I would prefer 1640s in the Papal States or Papal States in pontificate of Pope Joe VI (an intentionally random name). However, since such a series of articles is related to the head of the Catholic Church, it is important that the articles should relate to events concerned with the Papal States, as opposed to acts of the pope as head of the Catholic Church. Thus the appointment of an archbishop of Brussels as a cardinal might involve a cerimony held in Rome, but it is hardly an act of the monarch of the Papal States. I still say Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is plenty that can be added to the article and the suggestion that it should be deleted because nobody has bothered is a bit silly. I've spent plenty of time working in this particular subject area, within this date range in particular and let me tell you, plenty happened there during that year and in the years either side. I spent 2 minutes adding content and the article now has 7 times as many entries. That said, I don't think articles like these serve much of a purpose. All of the events in question are covered extensively in other articles and so probably don't need to be repeated here. But that's an argument against these sorts of articles in general. In 1644 (one year earlier) the papal states had two popes, 2 consistories, a conclave and ended a 4-year war. There would be plenty for a 1644 in the Papal States, I can guarantee it. Stalwart111 23:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting this should be kept, nor am I suggesting we should start creating other XXXX in the Papal States articles just because we can. But if we are going to do away with them completely (by deleting the only two that exist) it should be for better reasons than "they are empty" given that's a matter of a lack of interest rather than a lack of content. Stalwart111 02:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say lack of interest, since the articles do exist. But after all these years it is as reasonable to presume that the lack of content is due to, well, a lack of content. It seems altogether likely that the Papal States were not such busy places that a year-by-year chronology is a necessary approach. In particular it is make-work duplication to lay such a history of the papacy itself into such articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lack of something because in a couple of minutes I was able to fill it out fairly easily and, as suggested above, this is probably one of the least busy years of the 1640s for the Papal States. It fell right in between the two Wars of Castro and was a period of general stability (for a couple of years) between the excesses of Pope Urban VIII and those of Pope Innocent X (when he finally, effectively, took control in around 1647). But it was also the final few years of the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War, both of which involved the Papal States. I don't disagree with the "make-work duplication" aspect but that should be our reason for deletion, not a lack of content. Because there is certainly no lack of content. Stalwart111 13:30, 28 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 21:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy both, with Comment. Rather than have two stubs of apparently arbitrary dates, why not first make the article: History of the Papal States or even a list-style Timeline of the Papal States? It would be a more useful resource to readers, and would likely facilitate more rapid expansion and development (i.e. the visibility of any gaps would be more apparent to historians whose expertise is not 1645). To me, centralized coverage is better than scattered stubs (this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary), and specific years should only be split off of the article if and when they become too long to dwell in a single article. So I'm recommending delete or userfy for now, then add/restore content later.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say speedy abdicate both because of A1, per nom. This is not my last name (talk) 12:30, 4 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church Marangadu[edit]

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

poorly reference article for a subject that seems to lack notability – I can't find anything about this church. The article itself resembles a directory for the church and its clerics. We know they all work there because it says so in their Facebook pages and other self-published sources! Ohc ^¡digame! 12:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This has the feel of a parish website being hosted by WP, rather than an ISP. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 27 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, all sources are from the church itself, some hints of promotional language (is called "our Parish" at one spot in the article) -Iago Qnsi 06:18, 4 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understand (software)[edit]

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

not notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(software) Ysangkok (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search for Scitools Understand turned up blogs and forum posts but did not reveal any RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 03:36, 29 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 21:11, 3 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifford Wine Agency[edit]

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

They have some mere mentions in press, but it's mainly either press releases or related to something they have sponsored. It looks like the products they distribute, one which ~~has its own WP article~~ redirects back to the distributor, are more notable than Lifford is. But, perhaps others are able to find something I overlooked. SarahStierch (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the Plantatree brand (which doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, it's just a redirect back to this one) as being notable. Even if it was, notability is not inherited. I'm not seeing any significant independent coverage of this, just directory listings, some profiles in trade publications, and local coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very difficult to find any kind of significant coverage with mostly directory listings and one or two line mentions in news press articles. There seems to be nothing available to expand the article much less establish notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 16:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:41, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirnaxi Karelia[edit]

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

Person appears to not be notable, and this enitre article may constitute a hoax. The claim of nomination and win for Filmfare Award for Best Actress is not supported by the article, nor by IMDB or Indocine. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contemplate speedy. The Filmfare award is the only claim to notability here, and it's clearly a false one. No list of Filmfare's awards include any mention of Hirnaxi Karelia, nor the film Fight for Love. Indeed, I can't find any firm evidence that such a film exists. Much of the rest of the article consists of minute details of the subject's personal life. If this article represents a real person (with merely a fabricated award), then there are substantial BLP concerns about the remaining content (although neither the English nor Gujarati name is particularly productive in Google). Presuming the outcome here, the deleting admin should zap the other copies scattered about the project: Hirnaxi Karelia filmography, List of awards and nominations received by Hirnaxi Karelia, and the fake article acting as Hikarelia1347's user page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – if the only claim to notability is a hoax, the outcome should be easy to arrive at. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:43, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Media Centre[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced since 2009, this article does not meet WP:ORG. A search of Google News, Google Books and High Beam yielded zero secondary sources. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete via CSD A7 -Iago Qnsi 06:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 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. Given the re-creation history, the age of the subject, and possible WP:BLP concerns, I'm going to salt this. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Lawston[edit]

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

I see no evidence of this actress meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. She only had two supporting roles and three single-episode guest appearances, no awards or nominations for these roles, no social media pages (e.g. Facebook or Twitter) to show any fan base, no contributions to the entertainment industry, and no significant coverage in any major entertainment news articles except for brief mentions that mainly focus on the films she was in or listings on movie websites like Rotten Tomatoes that have listings for virtually every actor in the world. 173.3.52.81 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nom. ansh666 22:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - without any future planned roles convert (not delete) into a redirect to Flightplan (only major role) to keep the article/history should she continue her acting career.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We avoid articles for child actors who only had a few roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 1 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, Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Agree with Loriendrew as she may take up more roles or may still acquire fanbase (although unlikely). User talk: BenoitHoog 13:43 04 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. We don't need to provide a teenager's personal information (like her high school) on Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 22:55, 11 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. First, let's dispense with the obligatory, but somewhat pointless, vote counting. I came up with 12 delete, 14 keep. snottywong's tool came up with 12 & 12, so at least we're in rough agreement on the raw numbers.

Breaking down the arguments, I got (the numbers in parentheses are my count of how many people raised a particular point, and may not add up to the raw totals):

Delete:

NPOV (3)
OR/SYN (2)
RS (2)
per <somebody else> (7)

Keep:

sources include major news outlets (4)
fix problems by editing, not deletion (3)
meets GNG (2)
WP is not censored (1)
not OR, since most items already have articles (1)
per <somebody else> (1)

It's obvious that there's no consensus to delete. The only real question is whether there's any consensus at all. The raw numbers suggest No Consensus, but overall the Keep arguments impresses me as better grounded in policy, and the Delete camp included a large number of per somebody else comments which, while valid, don't add a lot to the discussion. So, I'm going to call this a weak consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamic terrorist attacks[edit]

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

Reason

This article is primarily original research, particularly of the WP:SYN variety. It is a compilation of incidents, which some editors have put together based on their assumptions of whether the perpetrators were Muslim (no reliable source states that they are), and based on their judgement of whether the incident qualifies as "Islamic terrorism". This list is then used to imply the editors' unsourced conclusion in the lead that "Muslims seem to be sympathetic to the ideals of Islamic revival through Jihad, lest they must also give a thought to thousands of people that are killed every year by these Jihadists. The following is a list of acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends. The total number of deaths as a result of the acts of terrorism listed on this page (from 1980–present) is over 20,000."

Please note that the judgement used by editors for even parsing the data for "Islamic terrorism" is incorrect. Any form of Political violence where the perpetrator "could be" Muslim is listed, regardless of the confirmation of the identity of the perpetrator, the motive, or whether the target was a civilian or military target. Hence, not only is the article original research, the research is actually largely flawed and incorrect.

Even ignoring the flawed data, structure, and conclusion, the article should not exist at all since no such list is supplied by any reliable source and since, as the Terrorism page has noted, the topic is largely undefined.Poyani (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV essay. I'll illustrate this with a parallel example. Tim McVeigh was Catholic. Various acts of terrorism against abortion clinics have been made by Christians. Ergo, a perfect starting point for List of Christian terrorist attacks... Carrite (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect what is important here is not whether the perpetrator happened to be Religion X. But rather whether they performed the act in the name of Religion X (or, more accurately, their understanding of what Religion X calls for). A far better example on the Christian side than McVeigh, therefore, would for example be this fellow. And yes -- there's no question, given that we do have an article entitled Christian terrorism -- the notion is not antithetical to the Project. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, which was closed a Speedy Keep, has some highly relevant discussion which applies here as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article violates one of our fundamentals, a neutral point of view. This list focuses on negative incidents by extremist elements of a religion with no way to provide balance. Where is the information about Muslim groups fighting against extremists and terrorism? This list is not encyclopedic. While many of the sources reliably link an incident to a particular Islamic extremist group, creating a list of "Islamic terrorist attacks" is no more suitable than the example given by Carrite. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 19:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, this is an opinion piece lacking in neutrality and verifiability. And I don't even need to read the rather astounding lede to know that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Carrite — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources Cited in List of Islamic terrorist attacks include the most reliable and trusted news sources around the world like CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera ,The New York Times, Reuters etc and can be verified any time for full information about the terror attack, it's perpetrators, no of people dead, injured etc.

All these acts are committed by Islamic fundamentalists (a.k.a fundamental Muslims ) for achieving Islamic goals that range from political to Religious.
The daily incidents of mass murdering and bombing of innocent civilians for perceived political or Islamic reasons carried out by Islamic fundamentalist organizations like Al-Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Ansar al-Islam, Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, Army of Islam, Boko Haram, Taliban, Egyptian Islamic Jihad,Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jemaah Islamiyah, Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Indian Mujahideen, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan etc constitute as Islamic terror attacks, when they kill people en mass for there Islamic values then it ought be called as Islamic terrorism.
This Article does not violate any fundamentals of Wikipedia and maintains strict neutral point of view on all incidents listed.
As regards to information about Muslim groups fighting against extremists and terrorism ,well it's extremist Muslim groups that are causing Terrorism and the groups that are fighting this include organizations like NATO, Consilium(within Europe), US department of state(in US) among many others.
If one regards that Terrorism is largely undefined then this list of daily mass murders carried out by fundamental Islamic groups can be listed as List of Attacks by Fundamental Islamic Organizations
This list includes deadly terror attacks on targets ranging from civilian to military carried out by Fundamental Islamic Groups and not by people perceived to be Muslims, also this article does not list the religion of the perpetrators of these terror attacks as Muslim or christian or Atheist.

Note: This article is titled as List of Islamic terrorist attacks and not as List of Muslim Terror attacks --- Rim sim (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rim Sim, you must not be looking at the same article as me. Can you show a single reliable source which indicates, lets say, any of the first three incidents listed, are acts of "Islamic terrorism" as you defined above, i.e. "mass murdering and bombing of innocent civilians for perceived political or Islamic reasons carried out by Islamic fundamentalist"? The first three incidents listed are the 1980 Misgav Am hostage crisis, the 1980 Belgium granade attack, and the 1981 Vienna synagogue attack. The wikipedia article for each attack explains it was done by Arab nationalists and mercenaries (such as Abu Nidal Organization) and not Muslim fundamentalists. Can you show a reliable source where it says the religion of the attackers? Poyani (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Dear sympathisers -we have never said that these acts are committed by muslims, it's Islamic fundamentalists.

For clear understanding of Arab nationalists, Muslim fundamentalists read this wonderful book Islam:TheArabImperialism(book available online) written by Anwar Shaikh a Muslim, your will understand what has happened for the past 1400 years in the name of Islam, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jihad, Arab Nationalism ,Muslim fundamentalism etc

one can be sympathetic to certain groups of people out of fear of reprisal from them ,but sympathies misplaced could lead to disasters.

Rim sim (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "one can be sympathetic to certain groups of people out of fear of reprisal from them ,but sympathies misplaced could lead to disasters."
I concurr. Wikipedia is under pressure from different lobbies or propaganda groups that want to use the encyclopaedia not to improve the access to knowledge but to orientate this knowledge for political reasons. We may fear they retaliate in outing us, harassing us on WP:AN/I or in the articles that we edit.
But at the end, it remains that all these articles with "List of [political violence] by [my enemies]" do not increase knowledge but just carry a political message. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment -- Lists like this one are a one-stop info shop for researchers looking for historical info about the subject (in this case, Islamic terrorist attacks), and are therefore valuable for at least this reason. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto -- you might want to consider whether, as you put it, "Wikipedia is under pressure from different lobbies or propaganda groups that want to" delete facts, that are reported in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to all of Above This segment of the conversation alone is enough to show the absurdity of this page. The fact that this AfD is being turned into a conspiracy theory about how Muslims are trying to take over the world just makes my head spin. Let me sum up my argument above as follows: This page starts with the attack "1980 Misgav Am hostage crisis". If you have a single reliable source which states this is a "Islamic" terrorist attack (i.e. carried out by "Islamic Fundamentalists" as Rim Sim described above, then leave it. If not, then cross it off the list. If you repeat the same step over the entire page you will cross off 95% of the attacks listed here. If you are seriously concerned that a secret cabal of Islamists is trying to take over he world, please feel free to make plenty of websites for yourselves and discuss it in blogs, but keep it off of Wikipedia. Should you want to write a book on that topic I have a catchy title for you. Consider "The Protocols of the Elders of Islam" Poyani (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per Carrite. I'll also add, without details for obvious reasons, that there's as good or even better sourcing for both "List of terrorist attacks by the Democratic Party" and "List of terrorist attacks by the Republican Party" than there is for this. In fact, there's a better LISTN argument for those than for this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: If the Category:Islamic terrorism can include all the incident articles in it, a list of these article can very well be present on Wikipedia. Whether the intro or any other paragraphs are presenting some sort of synthesis, is a different issue best handled by deletion of those claims. am amazed on how some long standing editors and some admins have voted for deletion of the article. Are we censoring here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm amazed that a long-standing editor is essentially arguing per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but perhaps we'll just continue to be mutually amazed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does my comment relate with OS? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma made more than one point. And as OTHERSTUFF states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is indeed in need of work. It is a list; it seems that it must be inherently a synthesis of similar items in accord to the main article on the topic: Islamic terrorism. That not all items on the list satisfy the criterion isn't reason to delete the list but to improve it. Of course, that would take considerable effort and debate on the talk page should be directed to that effort. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Dismiss RfD With Prejudice The article is a LIST of terrorist attacks that for the most part ALREADY HAVE articles of their own in Wikipedia, and as such inherently CANNOT be original research since each attack must be verified with reliable sources in order to merit an article in the first place. In fact, the ONLY part of the article that can even REMOTELY be construed as "original research" is the unsourced statement regarding "Islamic revival through jihad", which I personally deleted just the other day -- so Poyani's claim regarding original research in the article is entirely without merit. Furthermore, Poyani's claim that "no such list is supplied by any reliable source" is a FLAT-OUT LIE, because EVERY attack in this list HAS in fact been cited in reliable sources. And finally, Poyani's claim that "the topic is largely undefined" is an inherently fallacious argument -- it's tantamount to saying that since terrorism is not precisely defined, there's no such thing, which is self-evidently false! Therefore, not only do I recommend that this RfD be dismissed as entirely without merit, but that User:Poyani's clearly false allegations in this RfD, along with the user's self-declared political prejudices (on the article's talk page, the user claimed that making a list of Islamic terrorist attacks is inherently racist) be taken into account if said user ever submits any similar RfD regarding a politically sensitive article in the future -- I believe the legal term is "dismiss with prejudice". 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any false allegations. Please assume good faith. I have certainly not attacked anyone else personally here. Your logic that "the article is a LIST of terrorist attacks that for the most part ALREADY HAVE articles of their own in Wikipedia, and as such inherently CANNOT be original research" is false. Just because an attack has occurred and is notable does not automatically make it an "Islamic terrorist attack". Most of the listed attacks have absolutely no reliable source describing them as "Islamic" attacks. The notion that they are "Islamic" terrorist attacks is just pure OR. Poyani (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable subject for Wikipedia, there is no WP:SYN here. A Google search brings over 15 million results for this, and there are dozens of similar articles on Wikipedia (such as Christian terrorism for example, which has coverage on past Christian terrorist attacks too). If anything, the only thing that should be done is perhaps choosing a different title for the article, or adding this template on top, if we decide (with consensus) that it's needed:

{{Unconfirmed}} - Shalom11111 (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the POV pushing isn't grounds for deleting an article, the fact that the article isn't a valid topic is. It's simply OR based on the opinion of the editors. I can also look up any terrorist incident involving white guys and then create an article called "List of white guy terrorist attacks" (don't worry I'm a white guy, I figured that would be a non-offensive analogy) but that doesn't mean correlation is causation. Delete as synthesis, whether it was intentional or not. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the topic not valid? Do you mean we should delete Islamic terrorism as well? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Dharma said. Furthermore, we are talking about retaining the article, and editing the article so only properly sourced (non-OR) material is in the list. There's no synth, if the RS defines it as such a form of terrorism. Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not for cleanup. Nom complains that this is "primarily" OR. Well -- the part that isn't OR certainly belongs, and this article therefore certainly belongs, albeit (though it is not an AfD concern) cleaned up. Also -- per my above comments, and the comments in the speedy-keep-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The bulk of this article is a list of attacks verified through reliable sources, which CANNOT be OR (a list is a compilation, not a synthesis) -- so the only place where it can contain OR is in the lead section, which makes up only a tiny portion of the article. And in fact I've gone through it and personally fixed what little OR there was. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. if there is a problem with the lead, fix it. The definition is at Islamic terrorism. Your reason for deletion can also be applied to any other terrorism or label related list. And there's 50+ of them - All pages with titles containing terrorist,List. So why has this page been nominated, but no others..?--Loomspicker (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Rim Sim. - 46.19.86.37 (talk)
Keep I am sure here and now the list has problems and it can be, in general, a can of worms. But as far as we keep it down to notable attacks that multiple reliable sources have linked to Islamic terrorism, then it is perfectly fine, and such a list can be done. Therefore the fact that some editors use OR or synthesis to put stuff in the list is a problem that is not intrinsic to the topic. Such issues can be fixed by editing, and as such are no reason to delete.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cyclopia, this is a very reasonable and level-headed approach to the problem. What I think you are failing to take into consideration is that if we were to delete every item listed which no RS describes as "Islamic terrorism" then we would be deleting nearly every item on the list. There are maybe a handful of attacks listed which actually qualify as "Islamic terrorism". Those who made this page have coupled those with every terrorist attack conducted in the Lebanese Civil War (by any faction), as well as the Arab Israeli conflict, the Iranian civil war, Kurdish uprising, Iraq war + Iraqi civil war, Syrian civil war, etc). They have justified the list on the basis that the Iranians+Arabs+Kurds+Iraqis+Syrians+Lebanese are probably Muslim. That would be the equivalent of making a similar list for "Christian terrorist attacks" and listing everything from the Oklahoma City Bombing to every attack in the Latin American civil wars of the 1980s. Poyani (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are maybe a handful of attacks listed which actually qualify as "Islamic terrorism". - As long as they are more than one, the list makes sense. You're piling up justifications to keep the list, since you keep talking of issues that can be dealt by editing. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So any set of events or items which includes more than one member deserves an article in Wikipedia? There is no list of Islamic terrorist attacks in any RS. Poyani (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a baseless statement that is not policy based whatsoever, Poyani. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles on all kinds of different lists that do not have any RS with a list on the subject. Take a look at Category:Lists, and read Help:List and WP:L to learn more. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shalom11111. I understand your perspective. I was just responding to the previous argument. If you want a policy based reason for why we should delete take a look at WP:Terrorist. It is clear cut. There is a reason WP:Terrorist exists and that is because the word "Terrorist" and "Terrorism" are largely undefined. It says the same in the article for Terrorism. Generally speaking any entity which opposes the violence of another entity calls them "Terrorists". Professional organizations (such as most reliable sources) actually go to great lengths to avoid using the term at all. The word "Islamic terrorist" is even worse. To the users who created this page, any act of violence where the perpetrators can be assumed to be Muslim (such as cricket hooligans) is "Islamic terrorism". They have created this page using NOTHING but their own original research. None of the reliable sources listed describe any of the acts of violence as both "Islamic" or "Muslim" and most are not described as "terrorism". The synthesis was the lead which has now been deleted, but the page is still at best POV Essay + Original Research. Poyani (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it. --Metron (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nom and the argument offered by Carrite.--Muzammil (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- this list contains most trusted and reliable news sources from CNN, BBC to ,Al jazeera , RT (TV network) etc and every terror incident listed can be verified from their archives. Rim sim (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this list contains reliable sourcing and notable attacks. end of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable incidents, sourced to reliable sources, what's the problem? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can any of the people who keep claiming this article is based on reliable sources show a single reliable source which identifies the perpetrators of the first three listed incidents as "Islamic terrorism"? The first three incidents listed are the 1980 Misgav Am hostage crisis, the 1980 Belgium granade attack, and the 1981 Vienna synagogue attack. If you are going to claim that these are "Islamic" terrorist attacks, then at least present 1 (just one) single source which clearly identifies the perpetrators as Muslim. If you cannot find it, then please refrain from claiming this article is not primarily based on (erroneous) original research. Of the hundreds of attacks listed, there are maybe a dozen which would actually qualify as "Islamic terrorism" (i.e. carried out to further an Islamist goal)with actually cited reliable sources Poyani (talk)

This is entirely irrelevant. AfD is not cleanup. If you think some or most of the entries are not well sourced, feel free to remove them. What can be fixed by editing, we do not delete. The point here is that such a list can be compiled, and as such the entry does not need deletion. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "reliable sources" is what those who oppose deletion have brought up. It was not my reason from the AfD. I am just pointing out that even the extremely weak defense being used for keeping, i.e. "it has good RS" is actually false. There are many reasons to delete and literally no valid reasons to keep. Poyani (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cyclopia. He hit the nail on the head. If we have RSs that support entries for inclusion in the list, the list is appropriate. If, as Poyani charges, some entries do not belong on the list -- that is not a discussion to be had at AfD. That is a discussion for the article talkpage, on an article that has (appropriately) been kept. And, as 10 of the last 12 editors have !voted keep, after the issues had been more fully surfaced, I think a considered examination of the issues leads to a keep conclusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not charge that "some" entries do not belong on the list. I charge that "nearly all" entries do not belong on the list. If you prefer, I can edit the article right now and leave ONLY items which specifically cite "Islamic terrorism" in their listed RS, so you can make an informed decision on the subject. I had already started this process before I brought forward the AfD. Literally ZERO of the items in the first section (1980 - 1989) had any RS which defined them as "Islamic terrorism". I did not go further because I suspected it is the same right through. If you wish that I proceed with this feel free to ask. Poyani (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poyani, you have a few misunderstanding, see my response to you below. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Delete~~ I don't know the convention given that I am the initiator of this request for deletion. For obvious reasons my position is Strong Delete. Poyani (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I just quickly went through all of the listed items and their listed references. Literally ZERO of them have an RS which describe the attack as "Islamic terrorism". As it stands, the notion that any of the items listed is "Islamic terrorism" is not only completely OR, but also a very clear violation of WP:Terrorist. Poyani (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact words "Islamic terrorism" don't have to be written in a given source, as long as there's an established connection between the terror act and Islamic fundamentalism/Jihadist/Muslim extremism motives, especially if these terms are "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," as Wikipedia's policy on WP:TERRORIST states. The article is currently undergoing massive deletions, while there's actually a lot to expand and add to it. As 'Dharmadhyaksha' rightly said, if the Category:Islamic terrorism can include all the incident articles in it, a list of these article can very well be present on Wikipedia. That is obviously the case for the vast majority of the events there. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In over 95% of the listed RS the words "Islam", "Muslim" or "Islamic" do not appear at all. Furthermore, in a large number of these the attacks are NOT described as "terrorism". When you consider the intersection of the two, there are literally zero articles with RS. So which editors are going to make the judgement call as to which attacks qualify as Islamic and which qualify as terrorism (and how is that not Original Research)? Is supporters of the Pakistan cricket team attacking the bus carrying Sri Lankan cricket players (which is one of the attacks listed) and act of terrorism? Is the mercenary group Abu Nidal assassinating people for pay (which is an item listed) an "Islamic" attack? Those are the easy ones. What about the harder ones, such as middle eastern civil wars where dictators are often fighting groups which use Islam in their recruitment and propaganda? What are the guidelines for attacks for which no one has taken responsibility but for which an entity (for political reasons) blame Islamists (such as the Argentina bombings which the Americans claim were carried by Hezbollah which Hezbollah denies, which is listed)? Or for another example see below from Huldra. Who is making all these judgement calls and given that the words "terrorism" and "Islam" "don't have to be in a written source" how is this not Original Research? And even further, how does this not violate the Manual of Style specifically WP:TERRORIST? Poyani (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not exceptional, period. According to your logic, all the categories and subcategories (and even a few articles) in Category:Religious terrorism should be deleted as well. But they currently exist, for a variety of (justified) reasons, just like this article does. If they are deleted, I personally probably wouldn't object deleting this one also. The article is notable, and the issues you raised regarding the article's actual content should be discussed on its talk page. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and additionally, just one example: the Sharm/Sinai bombing which the Egyptian government said were made by Islamist. (Such claims of course brought lots of American money to the Egyptian military).... Independent analysers said they were made by Sinai beduin, who had been economically marginalised by the government, and who were not profiting from tourism. In other words, "Islamist terrorist" can also be used as very convenient scapegoats by governments that are not always known to tell the truth. Huldra (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm just an another person who is amazed to see these experienced editors !voting "delete" here. The list simply meets general notability guideline (150+ RS, how much more do you assume it would be needing to reach GNG?) and the list includes notable attacks that they do have a standalone article itself and are attributed to reliable sources. Visit the article page to confirm. The nominator argues WP:OR#Synthesis as a reason of deletion (I do not see any other blue links there), which does not match any of the reasons of deletion laid by Wikipedia deletion policy. Well, we have a WP:DUCKSEASON here. Many long standing editors and administrators did follow the same, "as per nominator" (WP:SYN and neutrality is disputed). While, "inappropriate-title" as a reason of deletion was entertaining. Almost all keep reasons here, are WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:PERNOM, WP:MAJORITY or simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Neutrality is disputed", "at some instance verifiability fails" and "contains OR" are not reasons for deletion. The article, if includes such, requires discussion on the article's talk page, if needed a RfC, therefore clean-up not deletion!! WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Wikipedia is NOT censored. The article meets GNG and should be kept. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Poyani. Even if such lists do not bring anything but controversies they are accepted on wikipedia. Anyway, in the current case, there is no source (secondary and even not primary) to assess these attacks were performed by Islamists. Even more, the huge majority of the ones that are/were introduced were simply not. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:59, 12 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. Or rather, consensus to not delete, but disagreement about whether or not to merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014. Sandstein 07:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for pimp[edit]

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

The article is made of non-notable event doesn't deserve an article in addition to consisting of a very offensive insult in Arabic + the article is made up from social networks links and other third-party websites. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 18:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, dear Amr Tarek, The topic has been reported by reputable sources like BBC and Aljazeera. Moreover it is an ongoing trend in the Egyptian community worldwide. Please refer to replies to your argument on the talk page Talk:Vote for pimp--M. Hassan talk here 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi or delete~~ - However, i object any decision taken on the pretext that the word is "offensive", because it is backed by sources. I wouldn't be surprised if there were hashtags describing Morsi as a "pimp" too, and Egyptians widely use "sheep" (Khirfan in Arabic) to describe supporters/followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, but we never created articles about those. There were also some viral pro-Sisi hashtags dominating the internet in the past few months "I will vote for Sisi" or "Complete your good deed" but no one created articles about that either. If this is about a hashtag, then it's certainly not the kind that deserves its own article, and if it's about "vote for the pimp" in general, then it's a POVish article using some peacock terms that rely on Twitter mostly. With all due respect to the editors involved, the article makes it appear as if it's something immense and of high notability among Egyptians in the streets, but unfortunately it's nowhere near that. In addition, Al Jazeera is not the kind of source that should be frequently used to document current Egypt-related events on Wikipedia along with Al Arabiya, since both strongly support a different side of the conflict respectively. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see the topic dependency on Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as it is an event that happened and continues to gain momentum. Please do watch this video report to understand the topic further http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c-UtZDIGyI It is about a political trend on social media and on the streets. --M. Hassan talk here 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there has been substantive coverage (not passing mentions) in reliable sources of this particular hashtag then it is a valid topic for an article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a new article called Derogatory terminology in Egypt that would possibly include all similar terms (political and non-political). Or simply merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014. I was pretty swayed by some entries arguing that the article is backed by some reputable sources, so it would be (in a way) wrong to eliminate its content from Wikipedia just like that. But there is already a fair mention of the subject in Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the 2014 presidential election article. We should also note that it is a POV-driven article created (after previous deletion) by a sock credited with extensive POV-pushing. Also, per Origamite below, a social media phenomenon that is temporary is not notable to have an article of its own and it is certainly not encyclopedic. I hope this non-OR proposal satisfies both sides. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The hashtag has garnered cult like following the like of Gangnam style and Harlem Shake with very large interested population and pervasive adoption. It is sufficiently noteworthy as a phenomenon that it was reported on by the BBC, Aljazeera, Huffington Post, etc. Part of why it represents a noteworthy phenomenon is that rarely ever does a country-specific, politics specific, and non-English speaking market hashtag become one of the top 5 used/trending hashtags on Twitter. I realize that the hashtag uses vulgar language, but Wikipedia has entries for many English vulgar terms and expressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.208.197.156 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — 37.208.197.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oppose deletion, and Oppose Merge, The hashtag is not pointing to El-Sisi, people (specially supporter of coup and Sisi) started to implicitly interpret the hashtag as an insult to the coup leader. Opposing also the merge, as the phrase is not related only to El-Sisi, the reader should know the roots of the word "Pimp" in Egyptian culture. Andri Kuawko (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Blocked sock of Hans Franssen‎ Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014: Content is well sourced and the hashtag is sweeping social media websites like Facebook and Twitter in Egypt. (Yes, I am Egyptian.) --Meno25 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ATTACKPAGE The Fact that the article was created by a POV pushing sockpuppet should also be taken into account here. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion or Merge: @Darkness, although you are right but the content and references are still valid. the user could be blocked but the article should remain as it describes a fact. I agree with the logic of @mohamedhp and @Andri Kuawko. they are completely correct and right. Solomon Bedren (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Obvious sock is obvious, already at SPI Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems temporary. It is a hashtag. Notability is not temporary, and like I said, this is. Origamite^{Please complain here} 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014: Content is well-sourced, but the biggest claim to fame seems to be the hashtag and hence the temporary fame. Coderzombie (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Please do check YouTube search query for the term, it is no longer just a hashtag it is an event in the Egyptian history. Again please review the article sources and edits and how it is being reported.--M. Hassan talk here 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines Thanks for the note about the double vote. I changed it to Comment.--M. Hassan talk here 15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Egyptian presidential election, 2014: Doesn't appear to have enough notability to stand on its own. It's only an event in Egyptian history due to its relation to the election. Greedo 8 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article is becoming a slogan of corrupted people that are trying to reach the presidency. The freedom of speech in Egypt is more and more decreasing after the coup. I believe the article should remain as is.Obvious sock is obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ATTACKPAGE.--Faris El-Gwely (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable given the interest it has been warranting alone. Criticism is a fact of politics and should not be censored.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 17:11, 11 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Threshold[edit]

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

Supported only by rumor and speculation (violation of WP:CRYSTAL). Redirect to main Windows article undone by a single editor who contends it to be "useless" because this speculated release is not covered in the target and because the redirect was not discussed, and considered the reversion vandalism. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Existing sources make no secret of this being entirely speculations, with words such as "Rumoured", "may think we know", "mythical", etc. Paul Thurrott's Supersite is especially an unreliable as a primary source, although it is a worthy secondary source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:07, 10 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. Mystipedian (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man: Rise of Technovore[edit]

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

Delete as Not notable. Article has no major news outlet coverage and is solely based on animation/comic book sources, even the article at "The Asahi Shimbun from the website of Anime Anime Japan Ltd." thus isn't the direct source. Thus failing notability as the nutshell indicates: "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, ..." Iron Man: Rise of Technovore had a section at Marvel Anime which was removed to the article despite point out that it was not notable in the discussion Spshu (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented at Talk:Marvel Anime in the discussion to split Iron Man: Rise of Technovore. As I mentioned there, Rottentomotoes.com lists reviews for Iron Man: Rise of Technovore [3], which I think constitute significant coverage. Someone else there also linked to the following news coverage: Wired, Crunchyroll, Comic Book Resources, Comics Alliance, MTV. In total, the coverage seems to me to easily pass the notability guidelines. Spshu expressed opinions in the split discussion that reviews don't count as significant coverage and that sources focused on comic books and animation don't allow something to pass the notability guidelines (even if they are reliable). I think both those notions are completely unsupported by the notability guidelines and by past precedent at AFD, and that Spshu's opinions on what should be considered notable are not at all in line with how Wikipedia actually works. Calathan (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews are not allowed unless "1. The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Also, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', ..." Only one might fit the criteria, but no review is even used by the article. Secondly, other sources are trivial coverage as they cover the trivial area of "geekdom" as they are biased towards that field. Past precedents that occurred contrary to the WP:N should not be kept. Installing some other standard with out changing the guidelines makes it a "dog law" thus isn't fair to the parties involved. --Spshu (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There are already 4 RS news sites being used in the article. I'm not sure what the nominator thinks "major news outlets" need to be, but in the field this article is in, Asahi Shimbun, IGN, ANN and Wired are all established and reliable websites for coverage in this field. Clearly it has wide coverage in reliable sources and is therefore notable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note WP:NNC indicates that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." So being just a reliable source does not meet the notability criteria. Specialized news sites are not the world at large and thus give routine coverage. Asahi Shumbun is not the original source as point out but Anime Anime Japan Ltd. Noted at WP:N: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Spshu (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This was already discussed at length (Talk:Marvel Anime) and enough reliable sources were presented. Raamin (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why it was force here. You didn't have a consensus there at the talk page with 3 supporting your position (Calathan, Raamin, 174.93.163.194), 2 giving nonsense reasons (google hits, Rob Sinden & existing wlink/other article, Rtkat3) and 2 supporting keeping at Marvel Anime (Lord Sjones23, Spshu). There isn't enough main stream coverage, not just reliable sources. Spshu (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSources establish that it exists, but not that it is notable.TheLongTone (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover a subject, like this case, show notability. Raamin (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not. No in depth coverage, no actual reviews of content: simply a number of reiterations of a pre-release PR drive. Essentially just listings &c. Read the notability guidelines more carefully.TheLongTone (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No in depth coverage? Then what are these, [4], [5], [6], [7]? Pre-release PR?? Raamin (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calathan. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:15, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson D.Powell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jefferson D.Powell

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable article, subject fails WP:NBOX. No evidence of a professional career. HOT WUK (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable boxer.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete His "career" appears to have been 3 amateur boxing bouts and the article has no sources that actually mention him. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable, especially if sources don't actually mention Powell. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:46, 7 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. Per discussion and original CSD request, closing Tawker (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Micozzi[edit]

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

Contested A7 CSD - subject does appear to be quite wealthy / has made considerable donations to PAC's. No references cited. Tawker (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual. Article originally contained a few "references" that were either dead links or unrelated to article subject. Google search fails to provide any substance to claim the individual was on the Forbes Richest list. The only articles available are a few related to the Micozzi Company buying buildings, nothing of substance about the company. reddogsix (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reddogsix -Iago Qnsi 06:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:15, 4 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. Tawker (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Disk Wars: The Avengers[edit]

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

Not notable. Article is based on primary sources and a non-signification source, thus is not notable. Editors that is reversing a redirect instead of working in user or other draft space falsely claims that because an anime series is currently broadcasting it is notable, which is not a proper gauge of notability either under WP:MOVIE, WP:NMEDIA or WP:NOTE. Given, his adamant stance for a claim of notability, he wanted this brought up at AfD. Spshu (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The television series is already airing on one of Japan's major TV networks (TV Tokyo) and has enough coverage (in Japanese and English) to be considered notable: Oricon, animeanime, animeanime, Animate, Animate, Dengeki, Yahoo Japan, IGN, Anime News Network, Comics Alliance, Crunchyroll etc. Raamin (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Non significant"? I can only assume you mean the ANN source? That is absolutely 100% significant and is RS. I don't consider it's current airing as evidence of notability by itself, but between Oricon, ANN, IGN and Yahoo Japan News there is adequate coverage. I expect some more soon given that it only aired yesterday.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note WP:NNC indicates that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." Noted at WP:N: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." So being just a reliable source does not meet the notability criteria. Specialized news sites are not the world at large and thus give routine coverage. Spshu (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in this case you seem to be arguing that four pretty big sites of differing interests isn't enough coverage. That might apply if there were only one or two sources, but the combination of number and the sites in question is more than adequate. Oricon and YJN carry substantial clout in supporting notability, IGN and ANN only serve to deepen that, which certainly suggests notability is a very real possiblity. If only ANN or IGN were talking about it alone, I could get behind your thinking more. As the article stood when you nominated it, I can see the point you were making. Raamin's links are rather more supportive of notability. However I'd like to see more if possible. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More: Hollywood Reporter, ICv2, Akiba Souken, Cinematoday, Dogatch, Presepe. Raamin (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All provided examples are reliable news sources that explicitly cover the subject matter; they all support the notability of this title. Raamin (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim that what so ever as my previous post indicated (with bold added). Stating stuff over and over doesn't make it true. And I have been unable to confirm what sources you do have that they even significantly cover Disk Wars or not, some seem to cover more the band making the music. The source of Yahoo Japan article is not Y!Japan but CD Journal in any regards. Spshu (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying BBC or CNN can't be used to source news because they repeat a story from somewhere else. Or you know, just about how every single news organisation works. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At WP, we are suppose to be using the originating source if possible. Yahoo isn't just a news organization and probably doesn't confirms its stories from other parties. Spshu (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Spshu can cite notability rules that "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation," but those rules then define that insufficient coverage as "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories." None of the sources cited so far by Raamin are directories, databases, ads, or announcements, and by my experience on AfD, minor stories are generally regarded as couple sentence or one paragraph long pieces, not the multi-paragraph articles cited here. It is true that a lot of these pieces can serve as PR, but they are not merely reprints of a press announcement, but reported pieces. Clearly and unambiguously passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His original reason was "Disk Wars: The Avengers is, like any other television anime series that has aired or is airing, noatable(sic) ..." Nor did he indicate that he had any more sources than what was in the article, he just indicated he wanted me to take it to AfD. What was in the article was an two primary sources (Disney Japan & Marvel) and an Anime News Network article. Wikipedia:Notability: "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." Specialized news sites are not the "world at large". Spshu (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a television series airs on a major TV station, we could assume that there exist enough reliable sources about it; this is generally true. And all these sources don't need to be present in the article from the beginning. Raamin (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One issue before taking any article to AfD is this: as WP:NRVE states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Just because there are insufficient sources cited at one point in time does not mean the article necessarily must be deleted. As WP:BEFORE states, it is the responsibility of the person nominating to check themselves for sources before nominating. Finally, I fear your definition of "world at large" is not the one I've seen used at AfD. Having significant articles in multiple languages in reliable sources like Hollywood Reporter, Oricon, CD Journal, etc. is the world at large (see WP:GNG). By your definition, a special scientific concept could not have an article on Wikipedia cause only science journals cover it. This resembles the WP:ITSLOCAL argument that should be avoided. Michitaro (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out that Raamin requested (so he is a nominator too & failed to indicate any other sources) that it be brought here based on WP:ITEXISTS and Assertion of notability (basically). As he did not offer any additional sources and that the article with its reliance primary sources would stand up to the test. If he point out that he had more sources or not indicate for me to take it to AfD, I would have suggested to take it to sandbox or find a place where as a section, he could incubate the article. Barring that just a notability tag (it is just silly that editors go bonks over to the point of edit warring). At this point, It's in the news seems to be the supporting factor for the keep faction, which isn't necessarily valid. Claims that Oricon and CD Journal necessarily are notable source defies "Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline." per WP:TRIVCOV. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you seem to be misinterpreting AfD guidelines. First, WP:INTHENEWS merely states that not every event that reaches the papers deserve an article--though some in fact do. Wikipedia is not a news service. However, we are not discussing something in the news or an event, but a TV show that a durable object and thus is in a different category. I don't believe anyone, including myself, is making an "in the news" argument. Second, WP:TRIVCOV is reminding us that there must be significant not trivial coverage. But almost none of the articles cited here are trivial coverage: the show is mentioned in the title and is discussed in a significant portion of the articles. You are wrong to say they articles' main purpose is to cover a different subject. Note, however, what WP:TRIVCOV also says: "the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view." That's the point: is there enough to write a decent article? In this case, there is. Michitaro (talk) 01:04, 10 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. While there are more people on the keep side, lots of them are weak to very weak side. Consensus is the sources are a little on the light side at this time, so userfication over outright deletion is the path to take, as mentioned this subject may gain some legs in the future. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tabletop Simulator[edit]

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

This product appears to fail notability. It is not even out of beta yet! It should not be part of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Origamite (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being out of beta isn't a criteria for deletion. It has notable media coverage (in the References). For example, Duke Nukem Forever took a couple of millennia to get out and it had significant coverage before it was released. I think it meets the notability criteria. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Duke Nukem was an addition to an already established, major franchise. This is not; the developer has under 5k google results and this appears to be their only game. I know WP:BIG, but there is a limit. Origamite (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose; wait for other editors to chime in. You may want to post a notice on the Video game WikiProject talk page to get more input. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems well sourced, out of beta isn't a reason for deletion (as far as I know, Fruit Ninja Frenzy will always be in beta, for example), and will continue to expand as the game gets more coverage. It's not WP:TOOSOON, even if it's an early date for the article to be created in relation to the game. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I personally would have not created the article until more sources came out- the only additional source I'm seeing in addition to the RPS one is from Boing Boing, and that's not a lot. But this game does appear on track for release, and when that happens we can anticipate reviews (going through Steam will help). It might not get a lot of reviews, at which point we can review the deletion but the vector this is on presently says that we will get some, so better to let it stay and consider the AFD again after release. There is some crystal-balling in this reasoning so hence why this is a weak keep. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources available now aren't great, but they're not nothing, and we may as well keep the page so we don't almost inevitably have to recreate it later (WP:SNOWBALL). Tezero (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep The sources are the main problem. Rilech (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only good sources are the Rock Paper Shotgun link and this Entertainment Buddha article, but it's so likely to have more coverage in such a short time that I think WP:SNOWBALL can overrule WP:CRYSTALBALL. -Iago Qnsi 06:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so should we slap some templates on until it actually comes out, at which point we find new sources? Also, I was looking at arguments to avoid and I realized that I started this mainly with a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree with you guys now, and I do think we need more sources. Origamite (talk) 10:34, 4 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) 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources cover this in depth at all other that WP:NOTNEWS style "look at this thing" announcements. - hahnch e n 16:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I first found this when the main writer of the article, User:Chris walkerntm spammed it across board game pages. Can someone make sure I didn't miss any? Origamite (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:WhatLinksHere/Tabletop_Simulator. - hahnchen 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I missed Patience Solitaire and Computer Chess. Origamite (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There is one reliable source covering this: two paragraphs posted on RPS. I don't believe the Entertainment Buddha source is reliable. For one, it's written by a 2010 college grad who up until a year ago had only worked retail and appears to have no other experience in the gaming industry before being made Managing Editor of the website. Does anyone seriously believe this is a reliable source? Because I'd like to hear your reasoning. People in this AfD say "the sources available" or "seems well sourced". I don't consider one short RPS article to be "notable media coverage in the references". GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. If this article is kept due to having only two paragraphs on RPS, I think that would be a very low bar for inclusion, and I don't think we need to ignore all rules every time RPS posts two paragraphs on their website. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the game is released, and if it receives more coverage, anyone is free to review the game again and possibly create an article for it. But I don't think that not being released yet should somehow works in the game's favor by granting it a stay of execution. That it might receive coverage in the future is an argument that can literally be applied to everything in the universe. The article is being nominated for deletion today, and if the topic is not notable today then it should be delete. Unless anyone has actual evidence to support the assertion that it will receive reviews and coverage in the future, then I don't see any reason to believe it will. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could move it into the author's userspace. Origamite (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace or userfy. It technically doesn't pass the GNG right now. I know it feels futile because it will (easily) when it's released, but right now, the single RS coverage is coming from the RPS article. The WP:VG/RS search showed nothing else of note. It's not worth deleting as non-notable since it's on track to be notable, but it is worth perhaps taking it out of mainspace so it isn't confused for a full-fledged article (but even then, whatever). czar ♔ 02:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple 3rd party RSes covering it in depth. It meets GNG. It's obviously at the lowest end of the notability spectrum, but it meets Wikipedia's minimum requirements (which is sufficient for a "keep" !vote right there) and presumably there will be more coverage once it's released. -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Ah strike that. Czar is right: only 1 RS. I misread the second ref. -Thibbs (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above, while there are "sources", there's not multiple examples from reliable secondary sources, as needed by the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:30, 11 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 15:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fish (baseball)[edit]

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

Non notable minor league player, released by the Braves and no longer active. Prod removed by article creator. Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very confused. I removed the prod bit I am not the article's creator - the nominator - User:Spanneraol created this article. I created the page over 2 years as a redirect to an article he was mentioned it (rightly or wrongly - I no longer can remember the circumstances). Spanneraol changed this from a redirect to an article, then within seconds of doing so, nominated the page for deletion. I tried to return it to a redirect to 2012 Braves season (it is irrelevant whether he no longer plays for them) (which it had been until Spanneraol's edits), and recommended RfD, as it was looking at deleting a redirect. This was repeatedly reverted back to an article - for no reason I can think of, as Spanneraol clearly did not want it to be an article, neither did I or anyone else! If he is non-notable, redlinks to him should be removed and the title should be redirected to a valid target or deleted. It's madness that we're discussing deleting an article - this was a redirect for over two years, and was then created as an article, and nominated for deletion by article's creator within one minute of this change. Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Spanneraol removed Robert Fish from Atlanta Braves minor league players, since he is not still with the organization. He then copied the text he had deleted from the Braves minor league players page and pasted it onto the Robert Fish page, which was no longer a plausible redirect to the Braves minor league players page. He then PRODed the Robert Fish article, with the text being used as evidence that the subject was not notable. At least, that might be the explanation for all of this. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boleyn appears to be correct, from the page history. Origamite (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You created the redirect.. The guy is no longer with the Braves so the practice is to unmerge from the minor league page and then to delete the article. He never actually played for the Braves, just their minor league affiliate so redirecting to the 2012 Braves doesn't make any sense. Would have been far easier as a prod but you removed it to make things more difficult.Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor leaguer. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He had a chance at notability as a Rule 5 pick, but it just didn't happen. He's not notable as he did not reach MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the (possibly unintended) implication here that not reaching the majors inherently makes him non-notable, as minor leaguers can be notable. But I agree that in this case there is no indication of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above comments just show why AfD was the wrong venue, commenting on notability of an article no one wanted, rather than the redirect. Boleyn (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this wrong? When he was a member of the Braves organization, there was a plausible reason to keep this information through a redirect on an appropriate page. Now he's released, so there's no place to redirect to, meaning it absolutely has to stand on its own through notability guidelines, which this fails. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose it could have gone to redirects for discussion, but I agree that AfD is preferable in this case since it gets more attention. But it shouldn't really matter. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G7 per nom. This is not my last name (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 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 Boomerang (UK & Ireland)#Boomerang programmes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Boomerang (UK & Ireland)[edit]

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

Article consists solely of non-verifiable program guide. Content violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as there are no sources to indicate historical significance and does not meet WP:GNG. Article has had the unsourced notification tag in place for almost two years, and almost 500 edits have been made since the tag was placed without a single source being added. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC) I would support a redirect to Boomerang (UK & Ireland)#Boomerang programmes --Ahecht (TALK[reply]
PAGE) 00:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not met given that it is unsourced. Spshu (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boomerang (UK & Ireland)#Boomerang programmes Archive channel with no original content; one paragraph in the main article (as is already a part of it) should cover it. Nate • (chatter) 17:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boomerang (UK & Ireland)#Boomerang programmes. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boomerang (UK & Ireland)#Boomerang programmes. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:07, 7 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 to delete the list with no prejudice to the possibility of an article on food trucks in New York City. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Food Trucks in New York City[edit]

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

WP is not a directory and I'm not sure if this meets guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article on Food trucks in New York City would be okay. I think a list article of notable food trucks would be okay (not sure why it should be limited to NYC, but that would probably be okay too). An article on NYC's food trucks that listed the notable ones would also be okay. I think this article is problematic as it violates policies against directory type information. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and re-purpose at Food trucks in New York City. Great idea. The list fails but a new article (with a list of notable examples) would work. Stalwart111 11:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about these individual food trucks, and as noted, we are not the yellow pages. FTiNYC is certainly a suitable topic if someone were so included, but not so much a list of each.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that it is essentially a list of external links demonstrate it violates WP:NOTDIR, and is in fact a textbook example of why that policy exists. Point 3 of that policy clearly and flatly says this list is outside of policy. Candleabracadabra's idea is fine if the individual companies are verifiable and pass WP:CORP, but that isn't what this list is about. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Dennis says, this is a beautiful example of what WP:NOTDIR wants to avoid. --Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above. Randykitty, if you ever want to move up on the ranks, your good calls need to accompanied by flawless punctuation. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mies, you delicious hunk of a man, I just love the fact that you borked the template when making that comment. Not to mention grammar. :) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please people, stay serious! We're talking food trucks here, some even selling Belgian "Wafels" and "Dinges". Let's give this the attention that it deserves! --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic. Yes it should be renamed to not use all initial capital letters, and it should be developed. By all means make suggestions at its Talk page. But I have edited the article to include 3 NYC food trucks / food truck companies that already have articles, and added links into this list. So I also removed most of the negative tags (about no links in, no links out, and more), and may continue a bit more. Not all items in a list need be individually wikipedia notable, so I am inclined to keep all the originally tabulated food trucks (which I agree are not proven to be individually notable). --doncram 03:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course all the items in a list need to be notable. Otherwise, it is a directory listing, and Wikipedia is not a directory. If we didn't have to demonstrate notability, every list would be a slugfest for adding things. Just imagine List of people if notability didn't have to be proven. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I recall reading explicitly that individual items in a list do not need to be notable, and it's even permissible for none of them to be. (Found one example: WP:CSC, #2) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand corrected, but I don't think this really falls into those exceptions. If most were notable except two and you wanted to include them for completeness (like MOS specifically states), then fine, but that is not the case. Same for the other criteria. Converting to a list of notable companies is one thing, but when the vast majority are not, that is exactly what WP:NOTDIR is about. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - By the way, i tend to agree with Candleabracadabra's suggestion far above that the article could be moved to "Food trucks in New York City", and I also could agree with comments here that it could include a list of just the individually notable ones. But note those are refinements of the article to be addressed in editing, at its Talk page, etc., and I think there are no remaining good reasons to delete the article. There are plenty of hits on searches for "food trucks in New York City", including this list of top 10 NYC food trucks per USA Today (which i note includes one of the 3 having articles and some not listed yet). Food trucks apparently are cool now, it is timely to cover them more. I saw mention of a new association of food trucks in New York City, and some big assembly event of theirs coming up soon, not sure if it is some kind of protest or if it is a celebration. I think there are plenty of sources on this topic, food trucks in New York City. A list of example food trucks can be in a section and can be split out later if necessary; the better article title omits "List of", I think now. --do ncr am 02:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article on Food trucks in New York City per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Article is no longer just a directory. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A better purpose of FTiNYC is an article on the concept of food truck in the city, rather than a listing of the trucks. It is still a directory, but with the websites as references rather than in the list. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is kind of my point. It would require a complete rewrite and rename to be acceptable, which means a completely different article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And note that some of the "references" are to a Facebook page... --Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Candleabracadabra I have reverted your move of the page for two reasons:

It is effectively still a list
Moving pages mid AfD occasionally (in my experience) mucks up the closing (when delete is the outcome as this is looking to be).

As I, Dennis, and others have said, FTiNYC is a reasonable subject if you are talking about the general concept of food trucks, not just listing a bunch of food trucks in the city. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments have suggested the article could be reworked. Obviously if you revert those changes and it simply remains a list article then it should be deleted (as I've noted above), but as an article on Food trucks in New York it is clearly notable (as I and other have noted above). So please restore the improvements and let's move forward. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have (again) moved it back to the proper title: it's a list, obviously. Once it has become something else, it could be move to another title. As far as I can see, hardly any improvements have been made to the list and, except for the moves, nothing has been reverted. --Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted any changes, just the page move. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:48, 11 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. The most common arguments for delete were WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but the strongest argument was that while this is tied to a reliable source, it's a single source, and thus puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single source's point of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictatorships[edit]

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

Violates WP:OR and WP:POV. List of dictators had been deleted for multiple times, as well as those lists in Dictators and Dictatorships. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: the corresponding articles on Chinese Wikipedia created by the same user are either deleted or nominated for afd. The user is currently blocked on Chinese Wikipedia.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a pretty map, but GIGO. First off, the word "dictatorship" is tendentious and undefinable. Are we talking about a unitary leader? A clique or junta? A single-party state? A bourgeois state with a rigged political system offering a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich every four years, thereby empowering a single ruler to spy and launch wars and govern by executive orders? Not so easy, eh? And: the concept "dictatorship" — which is really out of vogue among serious academic historians and political scientists alike and has been for several decades — overlooks the very real decision-making processes and lower level authorities in even political systems topped by a unitary leader, such as, for example, the Soviet Union in the 1930s or North Korea today. There are a multiplicity of political actors exerting very real power in even the most tightly cloistered one party state. Essentially, this is a POV essay pushing the notion of a dichotomous world in which "we're good" and "they're bad." As such, it is a violation of the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per Carrite. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While I am sympathetic to Carrite's personal political views (as I am myself left-libertarian who criticizes the pitfalls of states), this deletion discussion should not be about exchanging persoal political views among editors.
- I agree that definition of dictatorship and its selection is understandably challenging for academic researchers, and a job that should never be done among Wikipedians per WP:NOR.
- However, I will remind @Carrite: and @Parsecboy: that no value judgement is made by editors (currently mainly me in this article) to present major findings from the political science literature. I did not and will not argue that these two datasets are the most authoritative, but rather asks other editors to consider WP:SUBSTANTIATE by adding more datasets and/or comments on the reliability and validity of these regime-classifying schemes and the datasets they produced, if these critical comments are also well-sourced and published in reliable sources. So clearly, there is no WP:NOR for this article. As for potential violation of WP:NPOV, this alone should not suffice for an Afd.
- Carrite said, 'the concept "dictatorship" — which is really out of vogue among serious academic historians and political scientists alike and has been for several decades'. May I ask if recent "vogueness" among academic research a criteria for Afd? Please try Google scholar dictatorship [8](not sure if your localized version will produce the same results). I see the "Democracy and dictatorship revisited", the same author who produced the DD index published in 2010 with at least 548 citations. I am not sure how can one measure academic vogueness even I use scientometrics and webometrics concepts and tools for my research on Baidu Baike and Chinese Wikipedia, but I believe that this provides enough evidence for the academic attention on the dataset, along with it, on the concept and measurement of dictatorship, as being done by democracy index, Polity data series, etc.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 03:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to other editors: See m:User:Hanteng/personal_attacks_by_some_Chinese_Wikipedians, I am currently blocked in Chinese Wikipedia not for any subjects on Dictators and Dictatorships, as Jsjsjs1111 implied in this Afd. You are warmly reminded that Jsjsjs1111 was previously checked (and confirmed) by CheckUser to have registered an account with the same derogatory name that was used to attack me personally (one other Chinese Wikipedian was blocked and another was warned). Normally this deletion discussion should not discuss this. However, I am afraid that the way Jsjsjs1111 proposed this Afd has misrepresented some important facts, and thus the clarificatoins made here. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are blocked on Chinese Wikipedia because of edit warring on multiple articles, including those about Dictatorships. The admin did mention it in block log saying that you are blocked because of both violating WP:3RR and "long time edit warring", the latter which covers dictatorships-related articles. So please don't lie. And as for so-called "personal attacks" on you, it's unrelated to this afd.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction of Jsjsjs1111's above false statement. The fact is what I am currently blocked by zh:User:乌拉跨氪 (the same administrator who blocked me on Human Rights and Weiquan templates) in Chinese Wikipedia is specifically on 3RR：联合国地理方案. I beg the others either to contiunue the discussion without considering Jsjsjs1111 false statement or read m:User:Hanteng/personal_attacks_by_some_Chinese_Wikipedians to see how a Chinese news organization Southern Weekly's investigative report provides important contexts for Jsjsjs1111 and other Chinese Wikipedians' actions here and in Chinese Wikipedia. See also my Wikimania 2014 submission here: Paid contributions in the Chinese context of monitoring and guiding online public opinion--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can ask the admininstrator 乌拉跨氪 if you don't agree with me. In fact you are blocked for two reasons: one is "long-time edit warring" (长期编辑战), the other is 3RR on zh:联合国地理方案. And please refrain from conjuring allegations against me or other editors, it's unrelated to this discussion. If you continue to do so I'll seek help from WP:ANI--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to administrators: User:hanteng has been canvassing on multiple user talk pages of those people who said "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators asking them to vote "keep" here: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notify some of the discussants because they are either indefinitely blocked [15][16] or inactive[17][18] when I first quickly sent out the messages. I guess good will from Jsjsjs1111 is lacking towards me. I also sent a couple of the same messages to those that I have missed . --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 09:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DD index and other dictatorship research: garbage or not?: The DD index may be garbage in User:Carrite 's eyes, but not only it is published [19] in a peer-review journal and cited more than 500 times since its publication in 2010 [20]. (More see User_talk:Hanteng#GIGO.2C_exactly and User_talk:Carrite#but GIGO)--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 09:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was lobbied to participate as a result of participating in a previous AFD. The problem is of how one defines what is a dictatorship. Another problem is that some of the countries concerned maintain a facade of democracy, so that there is a grey area, where it is a POV issue whether it is a dictatorship or not. The present article is a list of counties quoting an index that is not expalined in that article, from one (probably academic) source, and for 2008, not 2014. If kept it should be List of 2008 dictatorships. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is a dictatorship? Is it a grey area? Is it tendentious and undefinable? Awesome questions to chat about at the pub, but not here as editors. Here we should just stick to what reliable sources state about the issue. Now, since it seems that there are indeed reliable peer-reviewed sources in the political science area that do such a classification, we can and ought report that. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree with Js. Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:OR and WP:POV. Wikipedia should not be used to give highlight to the results of one or several scholars, especially when it comes to political problems that involve actual ideological controversies. There is no clear and universal criterion of dictatorship. Thus Wikipedia should not accept one as orthodox and make a list from it. --Snorri (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion. WP:EDIT does not allow labeling certain topics as "too difficult to write, intrisically POV, cannot be ever made neutral etc." How can we have a list of titles used by dictators, if we cannot know who is a dictator and who is not? Note that list of dictators was finally deleted after a really under-participated AfD and before that because a certain leftwing troll admin (now banned) had a crusade to whitewash WP with his POV. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (content deleted) so I strongly support him. Wikipedia should not be used to give highlight to the results of one or several scholars, no matter how many times the source has been cited or how popular it is. Wikipedia also should not be used to give a list in grey area, although I can't see anyone mentioned any citation that mostly contradicts to those listed in the article. And if there is, this article still should be deleted rather than list various opinions. I consider an article's neutrality according to handsome Wikipedia editors like (content deleted) rather than reliable sources, so it's a very tendentious article. --The Master (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- sarcasm won't help achieve consensus. --Snorri (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider this as WP:STALK.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm very sorry if it created irritation, annoyance or distress to you, so I removed the content about you. I was just intend to express my real feeling.--The Master (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use some cleaning up, and when that happens, it could be a very useful article. Adamh4 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the point is that the question of "what is a dictatorship" is an inherently subjective one. And, if we look at the contents of the article, we see that even in cases where we restrict ourselves to published sources, there can be disagreement (see, for example, the entry for Botswana). A more accurate title for the article as it currently says might be "List of dictatorships according to a couple of think tanks", because there are no agreed criteria for what is and is not a dictatorship. As such, I think the current article under its current title is misleading and should go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete largely per Carrite and Lankiveil. The cited groups are not fringe groups, but their opinions do not necessarily reflect the broad scholarly consensus either. Some of the entries may be controversial (e.g. labelling Russia as a "dictatorship" which has elections and opposition represented in the Duma, even though there are severe limitations in the freedom of media and speech as well as an awfully powerful president). It is far from clear that all countries can be classified as either being a "democracy" or a "dictatorship", and by presenting the issue as if it were like that, we are giving implicit endorsement of that view, in violation of WP:NPOV. List of freedom indices broadly overlaps this subject and is a better way of doing this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the title, I expected to find original research, but the list is sourced to two apparently reliable political science databases and is transparent about its inclusion criteria. Evidently, what constitutes a dictatorship is a controversial issue, but that alone is not a reason not to have a list or an article about it - it's why we rely on reliable sources rather than our own opinions. As such, I see no policy-based reason to delete the list. Sandstein 07:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to DD index or List of regimes — The WP:NPOV policy violation becomes more apparent when you look at List of regimes (latest as of this post), which is the non-selective version. This article is a culled, otherwise WP:A10 version of that. The WP:OR policy violation stems from the Polity data series in no way using the term "dictatorship;" it simply ranks on a sectioned, continuous scale from autocracy to anocracy to democracy. The only thing that makes the assertion of "dictatorship" is DD index. So, by combining "autocracy" with "dictatorship" to round to "dictatorship," the list is asserting and advancing a conclusion for the reader and using the assertion of "autocracy" as a way of backing up the assertion of "dictatorship." To take it even further, because that assertion of "dictatorship" rests solely on DD index, we then have on our hands something between a WP:POVFORK and WP:UNDUE, especially when taken in concert with List of freedom indices. --slakr^\ talk / 04:16, 15 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). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Bangalore[edit]

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

part of already existing article Bangalore Shrikanthv (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "Withdrawn by the nominator" Shrikanthv (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bangalore article. Iniciativass (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need such separate articles for major cities. Let it stay and keep its summary in the city page.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bangalore has the largest number of engineering institutes in India and many law management schools, therefore a separate article is needed. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncletomwood. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

part of already existing article Bangalore — so what? --Tito☸Dutta 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, "part of some other article" — does not make any sense. Are you proposing merge or deletion? Is it a redundant article? If you are proposing deletion, how does it meet WP:AFD criteria? --Tito☸Dutta 15:35, 8 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) 18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PickUp 101[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

M.Jormungand (talk · contribs) tried to nominate this for deletion, but just appended the 2007 AFD instead of making a new one. Their rationale is below:

I have re-nominated this page for deletion, as in my view no substantial edits were made to improve this article since it was last nominated in 2012. It remains poorly sourced, says nothing special about the company (in particular I agree with the "salsa likening" put forth by Brianyoumans and has hints of promotional writing.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both 2007 and 2012 AFDs closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG as not being the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, independently-published sources of presumed reliability. Company also does not meet the Special Notabiity low bar for corporate and commercial entities. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:12, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky Land[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this song, only recorded a few days ago. Only source is Colwell's own Facebook page. Not every song is notable, and there is no indication at all why this unreleased one would be an exception. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches like these suggest that even a redirect probably isn't necessary. I can not find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time. Gongshow talk 17:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, doesn't even have any references. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:12, 10 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) 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swine (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. No in-depth coverage independent of Artpop. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – Per nom, and there were two live performances that does not warrant enough material for a separate article. It charted on two charts, the first in a minor market, and the second a minor chart of a major market. Essentially easily sourced in Artpop. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tending towards Keep following the immense development and content added by Another Believer it does pass notability based on the third party sources talking about its performance. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep – The article passes WP:NOTABILITY now and can be kept as a standalone article. Thanks to @Another Believer: for making this happen. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources required to have a separate article per WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 07:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. The song clearly meets notability criteria. The article just needs to be expanded further. Also, this can always just be redirected, so no need to waste time at AfD. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless in-depth coverage on the song can be found from reliable sources that is not from album reviews or from Gaga herself speaking on the matter, it fails notability. It could be redirected, but per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG it is not notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redirect clearly serves a function and is helpful to the encyclopedia. I have redirected both Sexxx Dreams and Swine, for now. I still believe these are notable and just need further expansion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are not notable unless they have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that aren't album reviews or Gaga herself talking about them per WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, well, agree to disagree. Either way, I think the redirect serves a purpose. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Artpop. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep. Article has been heavily expanded, and I assume it will continue to grow. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a reason for your vote, as votes without reasons essentially carry no weight. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, not counting those specifically about her recent SXSW performance and not counting many other track-by-track reviews for Artpop:

Extended content

http://www.idolator.com/7490285/lady-gaga-swine-stream (review: "It’s a sonic onslaught of synth washes, a ground-churning bass line, jittery keyboards, hiccuping vocal samples and crescendos leading to drops in all the expected places. But amidst the EDM overload, Gaga manages to humanize things with one of her raspier, rawer vocal performances. And, for a dubstep song, it’s got a remarkably huge “Swiiine” refrain hidden in there.")
http://www.theweek.co.uk/music/54881/lady-gaga-sneak-peek-whos-new-track-swine-about
http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/08/30/lady-gaga-manicure-swine-comeback/
~~http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2405302/Lady-Gaga-previews-brand-new-track-Swine-goes-berserk-rehearsal.html~~
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5679850/lady-gaga-teases-new-song-swine-watch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rock-genius/10-reasons-why-lady-gagas_b_4271037.html "a powerful, albeit somewhat troubling, anthem for survivors of sexual abuse while continuing the chronicling of her battles with the Fame Monster"
http://www.alterthepress.com/2013/08/lady-gaga-teases-new-single-swine.html (just a teaser)
http://www.muumuse.com/2013/09/lady-gaga-itunes-festival-swinefest-artpop-haters.html/
http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/08/watch-lady-gaga-perform-new-artpop-song-swine/ (iTunes Festival)
http://www.newnownext.com/lady-gaga-debuts-sex-dreams-swine-at-itunes-festival-watch/09/2013/ (iTunes Festival)
http://www.digitalspy.com/music/thesound/a511912/lady-gaga-at-itunes-festival-track-by-track-review.html#~oAoOJbq2SoS1oe (iTunes Festival; "The evening reached the peak of bonkersness with 'Swine', where Gaga - sans wig - sang while her dancers wore pig masks and sprayed the crowd with paint. Fortunately, beneath the madness seemed to be quite a good song that we can only describe as an angst raveathon."
~~http://popcrush.com/lady-gaga-swine/~~
http://popdust.com/2013/10/11/lady-gagas-artpop-reviewed-swine/
http://www.spin.com/articles/lady-gaga-swine-stream-artpop/

--Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN has repeatedly declared Daily Mail unreliable, and also determined that PopCrush has no evidence of credibility or viable credentials. Those two therefore are automatically discounted. Huffington Post and Muumuse are also automatically discounted as they are album reviews, even if not track-by-track. Idolator, Consequence of Sound, The Week, and Billboard just have medium-level coverage. Spin, Popdust, and Alter The Press! have brief (low-level) coverage. Digital Spy, Entertainment Weekly, and NewNowNext only discuss the song briefly, and are not even dedicated to that particular track. Sorry but those aren't enough to supply an article for the song. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out the two sources you said were unreliable per WP:RSN, but the others still count toward establishing notability, even if in small increments. They still contain blurbs that could be used in the expansion of this article. I am just including them here for future reference. The article has already been redirected. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They mean nothing when there's no in-depth coverage (not counting Gaga herself speaking on the song, album reviews, performance reviews unless performance is just of song itself). You shouldn't have done the redirect before this discussion was closed, though. A discussion must last for a minimum of 168 hours (7 days) before action is taken and discussion is closed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still disagree about the content in the above sources, but I do apologize if I should not have redirected the article on my own. I have seen AfD discussions closed as the result of an article creator redirecting the article, so I thought that was appropriate. I've expanded the article just a bit, and there remains much more to be done. I assume not, but on the off chance any one is interested in helping to expand this article, rather than delete it, you are welcome to assist. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it would be nice to have the history saved incase the song ever establishes enough notability to have an article re-created. Gloss • talk 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I would support keeping the article as well. If the discussion ended in a delete decision, I'd then say it should simply be turned into a redirect. Gloss • talk 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case my vote hadn't already been counted, Redirect to Artpop or Delete. A redirect is plausible, but it's definitely too soon for this to have its own article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You just "voted" twice. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's so, my error. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Gaga's performance of the song at SXSW generated a lot of media controversy, surely there must be more than enough information to warrant its own article. Giacobbe ^talk 23:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Gaga's performance of the song at SXSW generated a lot of media controversy, surely there must be more than enough information to warrant its own article. --190.122.44.6 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 190.122.44.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. STATic message me! 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG to me, which is more important than WP:NSONGS. Last I heard, we didn't require tons of sources. Actually, more than three was enough to establish notability. → Call me Hahc21 22:01, 6 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 Computer wallpaper. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile wallpaper[edit]

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

Essentially the same concept as Computer wallpaper (move to "Wallpaper (computing)"?), with cruft about screen resolutions ViperSnake151 Talk 05:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Computer wallpaper. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 06:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Computer wallpaper.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Computer wallpaper. Iniciativass (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Computer wallpaper. Computer wallpaper already contains some info about mobile wallpapers, and the resolution stuff isn't really necessary (though it could always be merged and removed later). -Iago Qnsi 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 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 Artpop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexxx Dreams[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate in being notable in its own right. Does not meet the WP:GNG and seems to fail WP:NSONGS. Making a single chart appearance on a component chart in a minor country, does not add to its notability much at all. STATic message me! 05:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Does multiple live performance of the song and controversy of lyrics assert notability? If not then Delete. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You thought differently not that long ago. There is plenty of material for a Wikipedia article. -Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was likely since he was in the middle of searching for information and found no in-depth coverage, am I correct @IndianBio:? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and I had initially even copied it to my sandbox, I removed it from there also. There is simply nothing that warranties a concrete major article, independent, like "Artpop". —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seeing the massive development and content addition, I believe this article passes GNG and can be kept. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Artpop or Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, no in-depth coverage independent of Artpop. The only chart included is just a download chart, anyway. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article blatantly fails WP:NSONG and so should be deleted. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 05:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No stand-alone coverage of the song, and placing on a download chart does not assert notability. Holiday56 (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would be careful to call South Korea a minor country! Samsung, which currently has a lot of technological influence, is a South Korean company. With regards to the entry could it be moved? It was produced after all by Lady Gaga.User talk: Ctfn 14:12 03 April 2014 (BST). — Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not convinced about the utility of the article as it does not have any added value. User talk:BenoitHoog 15:15 03 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. I don't understand why stubs for notable subjects are considered worthy of deletion. Basic research reveals that the song clearly meets notability criteria. The article just needs to be expanded further. Also, this can always just be redirected, so no need to waste time at AfD. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless in-depth coverage on the song can be found from reliable sources that is not from album reviews or from Gaga herself speaking on the matter, it fails notability. It could be redirected, but per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG it is not notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject is notable and the redirect serves a function and helps to improve Wikipedia. Song titles often redirect to album articles, and certainly songs that have charted and direct readers to highly successful (commercial) albums should be should exist. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry but no, it isn't notable- too little information available to expand beyond stub. Charting doesn't always automatically make a song notable, particularly when the source talking about its charting only does so briefly, is from a download chart, and has low positioning. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, well, agree to disagree. Either way, I think the redirect serves a purpose. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Artpop. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a reason for your vote, as votes without reasons essentially carry no weight. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Extended content

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuAlDSBLF9M ArtRave
http://www.ryanseacrest.com/2013/11/12/lady-gaga-talks-artpop-sex-dreams-sleep-issues-relationship-with-taylor-kinney/
http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2013/nov/04/lady-gaga-10-things-learned-artpop (described as a "Vanity 6-esque strut")
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/anyone-else-bummed-out-by-lady-gagas-em-artpop-em/281335/ ("'Sexxx Dreams' doses Prince's 'Little Red Corvette' with some dread and Gaga using lust as therapy: 'I just want this to be perfect / because I’m broken.'")
http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2013/11/11/lady-gaga-artpop-review-art/ (as part of track-by-track review)
http://getoutmag.com/choreography-concept-by-yanis-marshall-sexxx-dreams-lady-gaga-directed-fernando-de-azevedo/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/arts/music/on-stage-lady-gagas-artistry-endures.html?_r=0 (a bit of detail about Roseland performance)
http://www.muumuse.com/2013/08/lady-gaga-sex-dreams-artpop-rehearsal-itunes-festival.html/
http://vimeo.com/79536070
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/lady-gaga-reveals-weird-sex-2672693
http://www.contactmusic.com/story/lady-gaga-s-weird-sex-dreams_3932351
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713411/lady-gaga-itunes-festival-performance.jhtml (iTunes Festival)
http://www.nme.com/news/lady-gaga/72375
http://www.popjustice.com/briefing/why-the-next-lady-gaga-single-shouldnt-be-the-one-she-might-want-it-to-be/119452/
http://www.gigwise.com/news/83914/Lady-Gaga-unveils-'Sex-Dreams'-ahead-of-iTunes-festival-gig
http://www.sugarscape.com/main-topics/music/960922/rihanna-team-lady-gaga-new-track-sex-dreams (Rihanna?)
http://www.idolator.com/7481949/lady-gaga-artpop-sex-dreams-preview

Of course, this does not include many other song reviews included in track-by-track reviews of Artpop. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror is a tabloid thus unreliable to begin with. The YouTube link is only of her performing a song, no coverage whatsoever there. No coverage in Vimeo either, which is just a lyric video. Idolator only has medium-level coverage. Popjustice and NME aren't even dedicated to the song, and only provide medium-level coverage on the song. Muumuse is also only medium-level coverage. Sugarscape has questionable reliability. Gigwise isn't loading. MTV and NY Times are only reviews on performances promoting the album, so those doesn't count. ContactMusic and Ryan Seacrest are only self-promoition, so those also don't count. MTV Buzzworthy, The Atlantic, and The Guardian are album reviews, so those don't count either. Sorry but there's not enough to supply an article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like these are used all the time to help construct articles. In that sense, they do "count". --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I meant they don't count as notable coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: I think you need to adjust your expectation from reviewers frankly. They do not and will never independently write reviews about album tracks and has never done that. However, the fact that they are talking about an album track in a review suggests that particular track is standing out to the reviewer or critic, thus asserting its notability independently. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, WP:NSONGS indicates it needs independent in-depth coverage, whether it is a review or simply talking about commercial performance or anything. So far, there are no reliable sources that give it independent in-depth coverage, which means it fails WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was a general response, nto pertaining to this article, this one still fails NSONGS. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it would be nice to have the history saved incase the song ever establishes enough notability to have an article re-created. Gloss • talk 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is plausible, but it's definitely too soon for this to have its own article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Artpop. Generally, album tracks can support standalone articles provided there is enough coverage in reliable sources. I'm not seeing that WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS have been met in this case, however. Gongshow talk 23:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artpop per WP:NSONGS. Deletion seems unnecessary in this case since there is a logical target that it can be directed/merged to. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the song is non-notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 05:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People on here is saying that it should be deleted unless it has notibility, and then someone even said that it had less notability than Artpop. I don't see how, both the song Artpop, and Sexxx Dreams both charted somewhere in the world, except the biggest things that I think make Sexxx Dreams so notable is how Sexxx Dreams was initially planned to be the albums lead single instead of Applause, plus there was several notable performances of Sexxx Dreams. Jacobjimmy2000 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained how the song is significant. The claim it was meant to be the lead single is unsourced, and just because a song is performed during a notable set, does not make the song notable. STATic message me! 05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artpop. The sources listed above are not substantial (to be honest, I find the "throw everything, no matter how brief at AFD, and see what sticks" school of sourcing unhelpful), and I don't believe the song meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep There might be a need for some copy edits and rewording, but the article seems fine to stand on its own without being redirected. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 16:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That the song has charted somewhere is generally a good reason to regard it as notable. Our job is to provide information for our readers, and in the world of pop music that means we have to be able to tell them about music they might reasonably have heard. Getting into a chart is usually a good indicator of this. RomanSpa (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NSONGS even after considering all sources mentioned above. Harsh (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (Just to be clear, and of course this is not meant to change your vote, but the sources posted above were among the first I came across to help expand the article. They don't represent all of the sources I could find on the subject.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 15 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. → Call me Hahc21 04:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyōhō Taisha-ryū[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy general notability guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources. Present references are self published. Iniciativass (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is really hard to understand how this article fits into the scheme of thing - right now I read this as an advertisement for a single modern school. I hope now that it is categorized we might get a better idea - I will reserve vote for a few days.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent sources and nothing that shows this meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the article is improved enough to indicate why it is notable I would favor deletion.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:31, 6 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, defaulted to keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Farmer[edit]

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

I see no notability, just the creation of the usual run of campaigns, and one minor award The refs are PR. Written by an acknowledged PR paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG due to the news coverage over many years. I'm not sure what's been going on here, it was well sourced last year but someone has removed the sources and biographical info at some point. I've added some of it back. Sionk (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not demonstrate notability, only that she has had 1 exhibition, gained an enterprise scheme award, started an initiative / campaign, and worked commercially as a photographer. Unsourced claims, non-notable information and unreliable references have been removed, if they were notable they would have stood the test of scrutiny. -Lopifalko (talk)

Keep Per Sionk. Her work has been printed in numerous major publications, and like many photographers, including fashion, that's primarily the case - not "exhibitions" in galleries and museums. Her books and her work has been featured in plenty of reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources include: [21][22][23][24] (mere mention but something)[25][26][27][28][29] (she has exhibited at the Fox Talbot Museum and her work has been featured in a PBS documentary[30]. Anyway, appears to pass general notability guidelines to me. If the article appears so promotional, I encourage my fellow editors to improve after disapproving! :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT per notability guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

Further evidence- Apparently she won an award (Shell Livewire, see page) but that doesn't have a source.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Pass- Underwater photography. She didn't originated it but she is well known for it and is often invited for a shoot because of it. It's her specialization.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Pass- Judging by this http://www.candice.co.uk/#!celeb-gallery/c36w with Keira Knightley and Lily Cole among the important figures she has photographed for major magazines, it's notable enough. She was also featured in a PBS program (see reflist of page).

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Pass- The Fresh 20 project with major celeb names is an evidence of this.

Unsung Artists (talk) 12:08, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Art Enterprises[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP SarahStierch (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any independent coverage at all - just directory-style listings (with two different addresses listed, one of which is apparently out of date). Fails WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto De Luca[edit]

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

The photographer (maybe) can have its own importance but this article was created together with other articles on other Wikis and other projects such as Wikiquote as part of a global promotional campaign on Wikipedia. The article was existing on 557 different projects and, on some of them, it is under deletion or it is already deleted. Possible reason WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Hypergio (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It appears to be a promotional entry. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive inter-wiki advertising. Unacceptable. --Carlomartini86^{(Knock-Knock)} 12:02, 10 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 Rai Foundation. The big issue here is lack of independent, reliable, sources; The Economist certainly fits that description, but it's only one, and only mentions Rai in passing. The consensus from the arguments presented is clearly either delete or merge, but there's debate about whether the only reasonable merge target is a viable subject itself. I'm going to call this a merge, and if anybody wants to pursue deletion of Rai Foundation, they can raise that question at another AfD. Also, it was not clear if the two articles were merged, which direction made the most sense. If somebody feels the merged article should exist under this title, instead of the other way around, that's a question for normal editorial discretion (but discuss on the article talk page and get consensus). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rai University[edit]

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

Contested A7 speedy/G11 speedy. I did a quick search on it and haven't found enough material to decide one way or another. Moving to XfD for debate/consensus. Tawker (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. It appears to be an advertisement of a private university and the university itself a non-notable, insignificant. Logical1004 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's an appalling article, but Afd is not cleanup. It appears to be an accredited, degree-awarding university. We invariably keep those. Being private is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rai Foundation. Logical1004 (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this article has little redeeming value, but the subject is notable. Perhaps the university is more notable than the foundation, if that's the case than we could merge and then move. Elassint ^Hi 17:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked on other university pages before, my only question is this: Where are the notable, third-party sources for the Rai Foundation? I'm having trouble locating anything besides the same press text. Neither of the articles seem to have enough reason to pass WP:N because it's all from primary sources. But that's not what's been nominated here, and thus I'll say Merge with Rai Foundation, with the caveat that the new article needs some SERIOUS improvement. GRUcrule (talk) 18:48, 2 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note — While looking through the two talk pages to see if there was any consensus on the merge propositions, I noticed Jimbo had made a comment on it several years back. It turns out that one of the prior versions of the page (i.e., a non-glaringly-G11 version) alludes to both positive coverage (e.g., by The Economist) as well as controversy. It's obviously since been whitewashed, but I reasoned that since a relist is probably in order anyway (consensus isn't exactly crystal-clear currently), it might be a good idea for some other people to review the older versions on the page. --slakr^\ talk / 03:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree the article is having notability issues. So we can delete both the articles or merge Rai Foundation into this one and make it a better article, if that can be done with reliable sources. But presently, I am unable to find any reliable sources. The only sources that I found were from the Rai University website. But the sole reference cna't be a basis for a whole article. There should be verifiable sources. So I would say delete both the articles. Logical1004 (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable university Uncletomwood (talk) 16:23, 5 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. With an existing category, and based on the arguments presented, this discussion favours DELETE D P 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT elected and appointed British politicians[edit]

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

Random association "List of X that are Y. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete. There is no factor that these people have in common except their (alleged, and not in all cases cited or substantiated) sexuality, and no sense or suggestion that this influences (or influenced) their actions in politics. Make no more sense than 'list of brown-haired politicians' or 'list of cycling politicians'.--Smerus (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerus. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think a case can be made that this is not an example of List of X that are Y, but rather is a matter of some scholarly study and is therefore encyclopedic. I have enormous problems with the fact that not every individual on the list has their sexual orientation sourced out. Is that a minor editing problem or a fundamental problem with this sort of list? That I can't say. It's a close call. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I believe the sourcing is a fundamental problem, but I didn't comment on that since I believe it would be wrong to say that providing sources would make it a viable article. That's aside from the minefield of WP:BLP. --Smerus (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a category for Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom — and per WP:CLN, not every category needs a matching list. Furthermore, we already have List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United Kingdom, a topic more genuinely deserving of a standalone article — but we don't need a list that would effectively just be inclusive of everybody who's already sitting in the corresponding category. This is not to minimize or discount the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia having the information — it's that we already have it in other places. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the creator of this article and I cannot understand why people want to delete it, we have articles about ethnic minority members of parliament, and female members of parliament, so why can I not create an article for LGBT members of parliament? I have put alot of time and effort into creating this article so please let me keep it as it being here doesn't affect anyone and if people wanted to see how many LGBT politicians had served then they could just look at this article! Please don't delete Brooklands263 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. People can already see about LGBT politicians, as pointed out by Bearcat, at Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Please see also Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It's a help, for your future reference, when creating articles, to check that they don't duplicate material elsewhere, and that they conform to WP standards as regards references and citations (which standards the present article does not begin to approach).--Smerus (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just fail to see why there can't be an article about it as I fail to see what the issue is here? I have referenced and used citations! Brooklands263 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't want to be boring about this, but I suggest in your own interest that if you wish to continue creating and editing WP articles you carefully study WP:CITE. If you fail to see the issue, you must try a bit harder. Just writing 'known to be gay' against people, or citing in a footnote, without reference, those who are said to be their lovers, is insufficient. Moreover, making such unsupported statements about living persons, e.g. Mark Menzies, as you have done in this article, trangresses WP:BLP and risks getting Wikipedia and yourself into trouble. If deletion were not being debated, a great part of the article would be subject to excision under the standards of WP:CITE and WP:BLP. As I trust the article will be deleted, it is too much trouble to make the very numerous individual edits which would make the article acceptable (assuming that it was agreed that it was appropriate to keep it at all). --Smerus (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Smerus and I disagree about whether a list article like this should exist, we appears to have no disagreement that a lot of the information here needs to be examined with respect to our BLP policies, starting with, but not limited to, WP:BLPCAT. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for procedural information. I note that after this article was suggested for deletion, the article's creator moved it to a new title, List of LGBT elected and appointed British politicians. Does that mean this new title has to be added to the deletion review?--Smerus (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do actually think this is a legitimate list. The sexuality of politicians is still highlighted in the media and if we have a category then there's no problem also having a list (categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, despite the efforts of some editors to claim they are). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while not a random sorting as implied by the nom, this categorization of politicians would be better served by a category than a list. See Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Then there's the sorting problem of politicians who are verifiably LGBT, as in by their own statements; politicians who have been labeled gay as an accusatory attack, which is a common practice in political propaganda; completely uncited claims (Oliver Baldwin is listed as "privately gay", what does that mean and why?); current and ongoing scandals where such a list could present a BLP problem; and, finally, the very creation of such sorting brings into question the bias of the article's creator and the potential political intent of contributors maintaining this list. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a trivial intersection, to pick a single example, this book: [31] is "analysis of the changing representation of gay politicians in UK newspapers." , while that author is the only full work I can find dedciated to the subject, there is other signficant coverage of the gay/politican/UK intersection that appears to rise to notability via WP:LISTN. The table appears to include some information which would not be available in a category, so I don't believe there's a redundancy argument, and as far as sourcing issues are involved, I believe those can and should be solved via normal editing, and quickly for BLPs. Inclusion on this list must be limited by our policies regarding sexual orientation, and this list must not include "alleged to be"s. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:09, 11 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) 01:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lloyd (special effects artist)[edit]

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

Delete, does not pass WP:CREATIVE, nomination for the award is great but winning is better. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are endless articles that have less info about people getting nominated for Oscars that only have a few films. Wgolf (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is but I haven't seen those. I'm sorry it's not personal I just happened to see this one created . Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well there are more questionable ones I see all the time, mostly Bollywood people but I have no clue what to say about them (I added this guy after seeing a link for a DAB page so I decided to do it), there are far more questionable ones, this one should count as one to stay.Wgolf (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate bollywood articles, they are some of the most heavily promotional articles onsite. Holy cow you'd think those people invented the wheel the way the articles are written! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to mark them but they always find a way to weasel around them.

Well there are tons of pages like this one but with less info, just go look under the visual effects :nominations, I tend to try to add people with more (like ILM people for example), but yeah this guy I :just did add. Wgolf (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO. Being nominated for an Academy Award would easily pass WP:GNG too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lugnuts the key to that sentence is nominated several times. This person was only nominated once and there is a lack of coverage in reliable sourcing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated for an Academy Award would easily pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear is there a specific guideline I'm not familiar with Academy awards or is this a WP:IAR rationale? I'm just not seeing the significant coverage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific guidance as such, but the Academy Awards are the highest accolade a filmmaker could ever be nominated for. Here are two similar deletions that ended in keep (note that I created both articles in the first place). Douglas Zoty and Paul Markwitz. They both follow a similar pattern. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable, minimally per Oscar nomination. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. The nomination is enough to pass additional criteria. A special effect artist may not get wide media coverages. Iniciativass (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Errr I nominated to deleted lol. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I have to admit, that did make me laugh too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golf in Thailand[edit]

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

Even one reason would be enough. But, in fact, there are two possible reasons to delete this article: WP:RS and WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Let me first quote from what User:Stalwart111 wrote about a sister article: "Sourced almost entirely to promotional websites ... this essay doesn't seem to have a lot of encyclopaedic value. ... A line or two in Tourism in Thailand should cover it but this is a ... small portion of the country's wider (and very notable) tourism industry."

And let me add: Of this article's meagre six sources, I am unconvinced that even one is reliable.

Note: Wikivoyage doesn't want this either. After seeing the equivalent page (see voy:Golf in Thailand), the community eventually decided to condense the page into a few paragraphs and to merge it into another article.

[Edit: the article was created by the paid editor User:Borndistinction, an official representative[32] of the Tourism Authority of Thailand. Based on advice I received on IRC last night, I think from User:I dream of horses, I have now presented Borndistinction with {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-advert1}} templates.]

[Edit: Nomination withdrawn. The 08:14 comment by Lugnuts convinced me that it wouldn't be so hard to clean the article up. I have now done so. It was Stalwart's insightful 07:58 comment which convinced me to withdraw my nomination.]

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 02:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 02:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tourism-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 02:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup. Use only independent references. Valid subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep requires cleanup but not a valid Afd candidate. Iniciativass (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real valid deletion rationale presented. So the article has a little spam and needs cleanup. That's not the job for AfD. Clearly a notable topic and part of a bigger series of golf in Asia. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can certainly understand the nominator's motivation here (especially given he quoted me) and while Lugnuts quite rightly points out that this is part of a larger series on Golf in Asia, it's also part of a series of hyper-promotional articles about individual aspects of Thai tourism which have since been deleted. I imagine this was just next on that list. I suppose the difference here is that while it's a part of the tourism industry (in much the same way as the now Spa in Thailand was), golf is also an international sport with international events and its a significant sport in parts of Asia, including Thailand. The article focuses on the economic impacts, especially relating to tourism, and that should be rectified. But the subject itself is probably notable when you consider the sport's popularity, land use, competitions, competitors and then economic impact (including tourism). Stalwart111 07:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, everything from the heading "Golfing destinations" down could and should be removed from the article. The rest of it is sound, albeit lacking on sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sounds about right. It's as much about adding information and sources as it is about deleting the rubbish. Stalwart111 10:20, 4 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) 01:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of subtitle editors[edit]

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

While it may be useful to have a comparison table for software used to edit subtitles, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. By definition, this is pure original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update from nominator - While I'm not sure how this really meets WP:V without running afoul of WP:OR, I do agree that there is definitely a precedent for keeping these sort of articles. (I did my own search of past AfD's, and the list below is pretty reasonably representative). That said, this probably qualifies for a snowball close. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 00:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Why is that "by definition"? This is just a table of features, without any synthesis/conclusions by wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Comparison of subtitle editors is a comparison like any other comparison page of other software in Wikipedia. I'll give a 100 examples:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These comparison lists are part of WP and provide valuable encyclopedic knowledge and need to be kept. scope_creep talk 23:32 7 April2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Policy based arguments are clearly for DELETE D P 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suey Park[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. This article was recently created because of the single notable development which concerns this person, or rather the notable response to her coining a twitter hashtag. The other claim to notability is the coining of a previous hashtag, the use of which is unquantified and primarily related to a movement rather than a single private figure who has contributed to it.

The article's basically about a recent kerfluffle which is not likely to have lasting effects, outside of perhaps a footnote as one of thousands of twitter-related media stories. Park may or may not become a notable activist in the future, however it is not Wikipedia's role to promote her fledgling career, nor to cover minor current events. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see where you may see where BLP1E applies, but there is a difference between creating a few hashtags and creating hashtags that create a discussion (as seen in #NotYourAsianSidekick) and starts similar trends. In terms of the following things that are mentioned on 1E, the following are not met in the sense that she is unnotable:

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented."

She has been mentioned in regards to the two big hashtags both before this recent event and now, and both were in depth. In terms of the second one, we cannot see the future, but merging or redirecting the information would be a bad idea because it has no good place to go. In terms of the last one, she is pretty well documented online for her actions, although it might not be a bad idea to clarify the rules for social media personalities in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is a low-profile individual.
What is a "big" hash tag? How notable was her first hashtag? Given that she has only 20k followers she is quite under the radar as far as twitter notoriety goes. Creating two trending hashtags is insufficient grounds for notability and that is all Park has contributed to the respective advocacy movements. Here we come to a common misconception: when a journalist interviews an activist about their movement they are covering the movement, not necessarily the activist herself. It's only after the latest incident that there's been any interest in Park as an individual rather than the field of advocacy she practices in. Even so the coverage is insufficient to fill out any sort of fleshed out biography, right now basically all we have are media mentions of two hashtags and unquantified claims of their trending trajectories or importance within the respective movements.
The latest incident was covered in the context of the Colbert Report, it would only make sense to cover (& merge) it in one of the Colbert Report-related articles.
With current events there is always a danger that Wikipedia content might become entwined in the spirit of recentism and alter the course of coverage or have potential consequences on the lives and careers of low-profile individuals. This is part of the spirit of our BLP policies. Right now the article boils down to two hashtags and mentions of her being harassed because of the second one. Having this be the sole content of the article may adversely impact the subject due to the prominence given to Wikipedia articles by google. The article could be misappropriated to promote unrelated causes or to harass its subject. That's actually why Colbert preferred not to mention the activist by name. There is potential harm in leaving this article as it is right now - if the recent event gains even greater coverage and prominence with respect to its subject's fate, the Colbert Show or twitter, or if its subject goes on to become a notable activist then it would have a far better basis with regard to BLP. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete C'mon guys, this is a clear WP:BLP1E and a case of WP:NOTNEWS if I ever saw one. If the subject ever actually attains any sort of real notability as an activist then fine, but right now that's not the case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anteode. I find it highly unlikely that, in the near future, the article is going to contain anything but information about her hashtags and the drama that's been generated around them. Creating a popular twitter hashtag is hardly even what I would consider a claim of significance, which is why I originally speedy-tagged it. ProtossPylon 07:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters whether you personally consider creating hashtags a claim to significance; if reliable sources like BBC, NPR, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. have taken note of those hashtags and of her as their creator, she is notable by WP:GNG standards. AlmostGrad (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Park certainly meets WP:GNG. She essentially started "hashtag activism", and irrespective of whether that kind of activism has actually contributed directly to her cause(s), she has been able to spark in-depth discussion about her activism style, racism, sexism, and the power of social media in sources like Time magazine, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, BBC, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, etc., which is a notable achievement in itself. Stephen Colbert was forced to respond to the #CancelColbert incident. All these indicate that she made an impact through her twitter activism. This is not WP:BLP1E either, since her #NotYourAsianSidekick was also covered in The Washington Post. She was prominently quoted in the BuzzFeed article about the recent twitter outrage at the University of Illinois against the Chancellor when she didn't grant a snow day, and this article led to discussion on the issues of racism and sexism in sources like Inside Higher Ed (amongst many others), and a response from the Chancellor herself.

Thus, Park is notable, and as the person who started hashtag activism and has already been able to attract attention and spark discussion several times through this new activism method, WP:BLP1E does not apply. Therefore, this article should be kept. AlmostGrad (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that she essentially started hashtag activism is unsupported by the sources and by the previous documented history of internet activism. With regard to the University of Illinois incident she was one of a half dozen students whose twitter posts were quoted in an article and had a letter to the editor published as part of another article. Neither of those mentions is a claim to notability.
The entirety of her claim to fame comes down to several twitter posts shared with a relatively small contingent of twitter users and reported on as a. part of a wider movement and b. the effect it had on a notable TV program.
Looking over your posts it appears that you attend the University of Illinois. Do you have a personal relationship with the article's subject? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution using "hashtag activism" in regards to her, as there are some good articles discussing how that term is rather demeaning. Anetode, rather than outright deletion, would you be interested in redirecting this page into something along the lines that would cover Internet activism and hashtagging? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This story, as I previously mentioned, is best suited as an example or footnote in the history of twitter/internet activism. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just because an avowed racist trends on multimedia, doesn't mean s/he necessarily meets the WP:Notability requirements. I really think something of substance (an act of creation, change, etc.) is a minimum, not just a trending. Already, her limelight seems to be fading, kept fresh only with new and shocking tweets. We don't record everything Malkin or Palin 'rage' about and they /are/ notable for other accomplishments.LeyteWolfer (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BLP1E doesn't apply here because Park is not a low-profile individual dragged into the spotlight because of some random event. All three of the conditions listed must be met for the policy to apply and that's not the case here. Furthermore, and this is the stronger argument, Park meets the GNG because she's been the subject of multiple articles at different times for different reasons. For instance while at the U of IL she was in the Chicago news for anti-Chief Illiniwek activism. I've added this to the article. The source is not just a passing mention, either, but discusses her role (and some other person's) at pretty great length. So this plus the twitter stuff seems to me to say she meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the articles written about her are online only articles and only reference her in relation to other incidents. She's not notable in of herself; only as part of other topics like twitter, etc. BlueLotusLK (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: between #notyourasiansidekick and #cancelcolbert, she's been covered by the national media for two separate events. The subject certainly qualifies as having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not events, two popular hashtags. There are many twitter users who have spawned dozens of popular hashtags which were covered by Buzzfeed and other online media aggregators, that does not necessarily make them notable. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is just a minor twitter user in an unmanageable sea of twitter users. At some point she may do something actually of note, but having hash-tags trend isn't it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. The focus of the coverage is predominately on the hashtags and the discussion on them, and not on Suey Park. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ehhhhh, I'm not seeing that much notability here. She seems like just another feminist woman that overreacted to a simple joke (and before anyone screams MISOGYNY! at me, I'm a woman myself.) She's almost guaranteed to be completely forgotten after this, thus BLP1E applies. --YasminPerry (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

~~BTW, that IP was me. --YasminPerry (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~

Returning blocked user, now blocked as a sock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hashtags get covered, but she barely does, and when she does it's just fluff. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to Hashtag acivism and expand. The causes are noteworthy. I'm not convinced, at this point, that the person is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see her notability. She created a hashtag? She received threats? She has a huge following? Many of the news articles only mention her in passing, rather than at length. Ging287 (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Marginally notable only for a single incident, so it's BLP1E. She needs to wait until her next drama-mongering incident to get an article. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's getting a fair bit of coverage in mainstream news and magazines. ScienceApe (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'DELETE It is not in anyone's interest to reward mentally unstable online trolls. This person has NO credentials. She is just an angry asian with a twitter account. If her behavior warrants a wiki page, then the cashier at my local burger king also qualifies. If everyone gets a wikipedia page, we might as well just rename wikipedia "the innernets".
Delete: Her 15 minutes are up, and she didn't deserve them in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.153.242 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentioned in passing in all of the attached references. Doesn't meet WP:Notability. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 07:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:Notability (as has already been pointed out). This individual having their own entry is beyond ridiculous. Partyclams (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete twitter activists are not inherently relevant. Northern Antarctica ₵ 22:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a couple hashtags trend wouldn't make it notable to mention on an existing person's entry, it certainly doesn't warrant one all on its own. --TheTruthiness (talk) 18:21, 11 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Good Solitaire[edit]

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

Not notable, I could not find any reliable/secondary sources about it The ChampionMan 1234 01:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 01:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 01:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a promo piece with nothing noteworthy. Iniciativass (talk) 17:07, 3 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) 14:05, 4 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) 01:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contiki Tours[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is cited only to the subject's website. Has been tagged as needing better sources since 2009. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a close call, but here are several sources I found [33] (a blog, but written by a notable travel expert, so probably reliable per WP:BLOGS), [34] (might be reliable, might not be), [35] (passing mention, but in a notable newspaper), and [36] (probably the best source; it's significant coverage and it's in another notable newspaper). --Jakob (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is an extremely well-known company in Australia, and has received significant levels of coverage. The National Library of Australia's Trove service provides an example of this [37]. Other refs: [38] and [39] (notes the reputation of this company for hard-drinking tours), and [40] has some useful NZ references. Jéské, did you actually search for references on this company before nominating it for deletion? Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't, because (a) I often do not care/know enough to, and (b ) I generally file AfDs in response to people on #wikipedia-en-help on IRC trying to use a bad article to justify their own bad article. If the sourcing for this page was better, I wouldn't have started the AfD in the first place. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE? No? WP:SK #2e then? Stalwart111 22:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - "going on Contiki" has become short-hand in Australia. The first question you ask when someone between 18 and 30 tells you they are going overseas. The company would have quite literally been the subject of dozens of feature stories in the travel sections of Australian weekend papers - I was reading one last Sunday. Stalwart111 10:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could one of you that feels the subject is so notable, actually add a reference or two to the article? I am not willing to !vote "keep" on an article that has no independent sourcing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN - I don't have time to move them in-line right now but I've added a newspaper article and two books (by the same guy). They were literally among the first couple of results under Google Books and Google News. I'll look for more later but those should be enough to prove WP:GNG can be met easily. Stalwart111 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the one reference that's actually about Contiki to an inline citation. That's a start. Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what the other two "Bogan" articles have to do with Contiki; they don't seem to mention it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Rae[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable college athlete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NTRACK or WP:GNG. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no references to verify the records. Fails GNG criteria. Iniciativass (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you guys serious? Rule Number 2 of WP:NTRACK "Finished in top 8 in notable competition" is definitely satisfied. He finished second overall at the 2013 Summer Universiade for the men's 1500 meters. This is an international competition. His 1500 meter PR is recognized by IAAF, which is a legitimate record keeper in athletics. He is not solely a college athlete, he represents Canada in the 1500 meters. If this article doesn't satisfy notability guidelines, that is suggesting that almost no middle-distance runner satisfies notability guidelines. It would be unfair to the sport to delete an article of this profile. Zastavafan76 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting the guideline. Point 2 of the guideline says that they must have "[f]inished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships." I don't think that the event in question qualifies. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. A lot of the other articles on middle distance runners probably don't deserve articles either. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misquoting the guideline at all. The difference here is that I am actually familiar with the legitimacy of competitions like the Summer Universiade in athletics. It's regularly competed by those of Olympian experience (by the way, the article in question is about a guy who beat a Russian Olympian, Yegor Nikolayev, in this Universiade). Deleting this article would be unfair because it would suggest that only Olympian track athletes have the merits to be covered on Wikipedia, but when it comes to practically any other sport (basketball, soccer, football, etc etc) you have more than enough coverage for non-Olympic (even collegiate-level athletes from these sports regularly have articles, and good luck trying to delete an article of a college basketball player playing for a March Madness team). Also, I dare to disagree that "A lot of the other articles on middle distance runners don't deserve articles either", I think that's more of a reflection of not being familiar with what qualifies someone as a legitimately accomplished runner than an actual concern of there being unnecessary articles on Wikipedia (trust me, there are many many other articles which merit your attention far more than of Jeremy Rae). Zastavafan76 (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here (in either direction). I'm fairly sure the vast majority of middle-distance runners with articles on Wikipedia do "deserve" their articles and meet GNG. At the same time, the vast majority of middle-distance runners with articles on Wikipedia have placed higher on the year-end world season lists than #109, which was Rae's 1500 ranking last year based purely on season bests (according to Tilastopaja); if Rae isn't notable, it doesn't follow they aren't.
But is Rae notable? I think so; there's coverage of him here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, though the last two are partly the same story (I'm sure there are many other copies of it out there as well) and quite a few of the others are from one publication, the Niagara Falls Review (the same thing applies there as well: there are many more stories about him in the Niagara Falls Review and I just quoted some of the best). There are also mini-articles like this; of the existing references this one has significant coverage of him but as a Notre Dame publication probably doesn't count as independent; the same goes for things like this (though a chunk of that was quoted by the completely independent all-athletics here). I'm sure a couple more references not from the Niagara Falls Review wouldn't hurt the case, but I think it's a keep.
Intuitively, I'd think the Universiade is a sufficiently significant meet to meet criterion 3 of NTRACK as a "less prestigious large scale meet" and that most (but not necessarily all) Universiade athletics medalists will meet the general notability guideline. Sideways713 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the extra references you've added here as well as for your input. Zastavafan76 (talk) 23:44, 6 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) 01:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SessiOnroad[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment in 2011. No sourcing found. Only sources on page are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. Plenty of sources to go around: [41], [42], [43]. –H T D 02:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NBAND. Not a "significant" band, but satisfies "notability" standards. Safiel (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned out every existing link in the article and substituted the links provided by Howard the Duck. The links really need to be placed inline, but somebody else can do that if they are so inclined. Safiel (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:27, 9 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. → Call me Hahc21 04:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Chan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The claim that he played in the Malaysia Super League for Kelantan FA is not supported by reliable sources; for example he does not feature at all in the squad's 2011 roster. Giant Snowman 17:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at 2011 Kelantan FA season and 2012 Kelantan FA season he never played in a match, before being released. I suspect that the caps mentioned are in fact for Kelantan FA President's Cup Team in the 2011 Malaysian President's Cup; this is a U20 amateur competition. Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY for not actually playing in a professional league. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:03, 9 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.