Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 December 28 December >

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. Davewild (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hope[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer; fails WP:CREATIVE as sources are links to her work rather than articles discussing her work. Article is more for promotional than encyclopaedic purposes. Gossipy Daily Mail article is not a WP:RS. (Previously tagged for speedy deletion by Biblioworm.) LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Borderline promotional, and I could not find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus making the article fail WP:GNG. --Biblioworm 02:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nominator and comments above. My search did not yield anything, although a rather high pageview tally (50-100 day roughly) probably a result of her dating the Australian model. Sources in article currently do not show any in-depth coverage of her.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. On the "Keep" side, we have multiple examples of coverage in the Nigerian press. I must confess to not being an expert on Nigerian newspapers, but to my eyes they appear to be reputable publications and I don't see any reason they'd not be considered as reliable sources. On the other hand, many of the "Delete" votes are not rooted in policy, including a case of "just not notable", a couple of slights against the article creator that do not address the article itself, and one that has been withdrawn and changed to neutral. Given the relative strengths of the arguments, I think this one has to be given to the "Keep" side. Note that such a decision does not preclude improvement to the neutrality and tone of the article, nor is it an endorsement of any particular revision of the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Kulture[edit]

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

After an in-depth review of this promotional article, I discovered that the subject of the article fails WP:GNG. The sources provided are not independent reliable sources but spam links. Reference 1 is a spam link whose content are If you love amazing foods and extraordinary arts, visit Terra Kulture Food Lounge. Situated in Plot 1376, Tiamiyu Savage, Off Ahmadu Bello Way, Victoria Island, Lagos. Reference 2 is another spam link, the source is not what I will consider a WP:RS, meanwhile the website included their address (Address: 65b coker road, ilupeju, lagos) and phone number Email: [email protected] Tel: 08023021821, 08033054618 an indication that the subject must have paid for the advert on that web. The google book provided is garbage, not even a mention of the subject in the book. The article serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable restaurant. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Note to closing admin: The article was recently deleted by Deb per WP:CSD#G11. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it has always looked dubious to me, as do many of the same contributor's other articles. I do not think this is a case of paid editing but it appears to be part of a promotional campaign.Deb (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
am not insinuating that the article creator here was paid, but I mean the publisher of reference 2. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you meant. I just wanted to give a view that the article creator, although editing in good faith, is trying to publicise businesses in his/her home area and does not seem to understand that this constitutes promotion. Deb (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (change: Neutral: see comments below.) Creator doesn't seem to understand WP:TRAVELGUIDE and that merely being included on travel guides does not confer notability. Sources are all promotional, and unless they come up with some others then unfortunately there's nothing that can be done.LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did come here to strike my comment. The creator has made some attempt to source the article, and it has got a number of sources that are indicative of the wider notability claimed by others here. The Kaye Whiteman book looks promising, but Google Books obviously doesn't have the full version. Promotional language can be changed - Eruditescholar can change the wording to represent why the centre is covered in the sources rather than just implying notability through the promotion of its decor. I'll have a go at cutting out some of the offending wording; then ES can use that as a skeleton to prove why the centre is notable. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made an attempt at pruning the overt promotionalism and presenting the available material in a way which might help prove notability. If the book reference that I've placed on the article talk page could be checked for what it says about Terra Kulture, we might have a viable article; getting into a print source might be harder to achieve just through routine operations, so that's interesting (although the search terms were for a 'Bagatelle' establishment - ?interpretation of that term is hard without context). But the rest of the sources were promotional (e.g. flyers for performances of works by notable writers - I don't think these make the venue automatically notable itself), so I had to be a little ruthless. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unstruck comment. As it stands, I think the article is borderline. It needs more expansion to be a truly notable article; I only removed promotional language but as has been said, I think it needs expansion from the relevant sources to definitively prove notability. I'd appreciate it if other people in the discussion did not speak for me at this point. The article is not finished to the point where I'd consider changing the vote. Since the person who struck my vote is involved in this discussion on the keep side, I find it a little presumptuous that he assumed I'd actually changed my mind and decided to Keep the article. As it happens, I will change to neutral to avoid confusion, but in future, perhaps that person would respect the nuances of other people's comments a bit better. If I'd have felt confident in striking the comment, then I would have struck it when I posted last night. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:IMPACT. The institution is notable for it's role in Nigeria and in promoting the Nigerian/African culture. Being a cultural promotion organization should have nothing to do with the article being promotional. I was not paid to edit this article. I have only tried to contribute to Wikipedia by including information for readers. After the article was deleted on the basis of being promotional in nature by Deb. I contacted him and addressed the issues warranting deletion by removing all promotional contents. Compared to other articles of the same topic, category and stub class, it is not a travel guide. The references used in citing the article are diverse of which most are reliable third party sources and not all are promotional in nature or from travel guides. Regarding the references with spam links, they will be removed. Any other suggestion towards improving the article is welcome. Eruditescholar (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two references with spam links have been removed from the article. Eruditescholar (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has not address the issue! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Wikic¤l¤gy, On what basis is the article not notable? There's no rationale behind your statement. The issue here is on finding reliable third party sources and significant coverage about the article alone in the media to establish notability. All references to travel guides have been removed from the list per WP:TRAVELGUIDE. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's important to Nigerian culture and the promotion thereof, and thus notable, there will usually be sources in mainstream newspapers, for example a major daily newspaper or its website. The interview is just someone trying to promote herself by speaking to a website; it's not the website or publication exploring her work independently of the creator. The key word here is independent - what is notable on our terms is that independent sources have covered the org without them submitting copy themselves - that is, those not controlled by the subject or written from sources they provide (such as press releases or superficial interviews with the creator). Then - and only then - will the organisation be notable by Wikipedia standards. Please read WP:Reliable sources, which tells you what counts and what doesn't count. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT source is just a passing mention as well - it doesn't confer notability simply for being mentioned; the sources need to discuss Terra Kulture in depth without being either paid to do so or just highlighting interesting places in Lagos. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding LouiseS1979's observation: Although some of the published sources especially from the newspapers might look promotional in nature. On a closer scrutiny, they really aren't. The Foreign media is generally quite different from our local media here in Nigeria! Eruditescholar (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Bazj (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikicology and Deb. Eruditescholar is not acting in good faith, and has demonstrated that they have no interest in what is best for the encyclopedia. This article is merely the latest example of that longstanding pattern. —Swpbtalk 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb. I'm really sorry but how have I not acted in good faith? Eruditescholar (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm not sure if all these people voting delete actually bothered to search for "Terra Kulture" on google, before making decisions. Well, I did and apparently, the subject is well covered in many notable news sites. There are many links talking about this firm (or whatever it is) partnering with people, or associating with something. More importantly, there are indepth articles solely talking about "Terra Kulture", which include: The Nation Newspaper, The Punch Newspaper, Pulse, This Day Newspaper, The Guardian Newspaper, CP Africa, Connect Nigeria....and many others on the web. I haven't gone through the article, so I don't know how it's written. I've also just spot checked the arguments here.....but if anything, this subject obviously doesn't fail WP:GNG, as the nominator claims! Maybe it needs to be copyedited and cleaned up, but it shouldn't be deleted as it is notable enough. You don't dispute a subject's notability based on the references present in it's article, but by making a quick search yourself. An article may be poorly written, but if it's notable! It's notable!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources you provided is only an evidence that the restaurant exist and not an evidence that it meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Nothing in all the references you provided (from A to Z) is outside the 10th years anniversary. Your reference 2 and reference 7 are almost the same content, still about the 10th years anniversary. Been published for celebrating 10th years anniversary is not enough to merit a page on wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what the topic of the articles are, or whether they are writing because of the subject's anniversary or not. What matters is that the articles "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", just as it is stipulated in the guideline. No news outlet would write about an insignificant firm celebrating ten years. Infact, this subject, as it stands fails no single criterion in WP:GNG....shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. There's also a strong indication that the firm might have over the years been covered in many journals and magazines not available online, for its ten years celebration to be covered so widely.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! non-admin close to keep it, if you are in the best position to decide which articles should be nominated for deletion. A consensus here will decide weather it is suitable for inclusion. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: per Tubers. I also think Eruditescholar has been unfairly judged here. He is only trying to improve Lagos visibility by creating articles for the most popular (and notable) destinations, he needs to be advised on how to go about it but not being discouraged for it. Terra Kulture has been well covered and notable in Nigeria for years. Darreg (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverages in multiple reliable sources outside the 10th years Anniversary should demonstrate its notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article is based on multiple, independent reliable sources. It passes GNG. It is about a significant, nationally known cultural site. There is no evidence to support allegations of paid editing or a promotional campaign. AGF. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year, Margin1522! Please don't misunderstand other editors here, I don't think its a good practice. However, If you read the previous comments of various editors carefully, you will agree that nobody accused any editor of paid editing. Per the article in question, I can't find the significant coverages in WP:RS that assert the subject notability to meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – OK, I will accept that. But I have looked at the articles created by Eruditescholar and I am not seeing any problems. We have another editor who is creating 200 articles on Michelin star restaurants in the Netherlands. Those articles have links to the official websites and the official websites have telephone numbers. That shouldn't be an issue. The only issue should be whether the subject is notable and covered by RS. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are getting it right here! The issue is not about Eruditescholar but one or more of their promotional articles. Reviewing process involve checking through the page history as well, which am sure you never did for this article before your comments. You are likely not to find any promotional tone or content in the article in its current state because it has been significantly modified. Please note that commenting at AfD involves proper analysis of the subject matter and core understanding of the basic wikipedia policy and guidelines. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Actually I did look at the history. I looked at the links from the first version and found the mention in the Google book ("cultural meeting-places") [1] that escaped the nom. I understand the feeling here, and I'm aware that many editors on Wikipedia take an extremely hard line on "promotional". But I think it's unfair to hold the author responsible for any praise of the subject that may be found on a cited webpage. We should look at the language in the article. I also think the argument for excluding 10th anniversary stories about the subject is grasping at straws. What is the policy rationale for that? – Margin1522 (talk)
Comment - I think we've been very lenient with the creator of this article so far. When does he intend to make the necessary improvements to the article by amending the (still very POV) wording of the main paragraph? Or can he not see that a statement like "Terra Kulture is a place for the lovers of African culture" is both promotionally-worded and unsupported by any independent source? Deb (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @Deb: I'm fine with objections to the wording or tone. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." WP:G11. "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." WP:ARTSPAM I think there is room for compromise here. @Wikicology: If the sources are to be believed, the art gallery has held 200 exhibitions over the past 10 years and the restaurant hosts readings by leading writers, among other related activities. It looks to me like more than a non-notable restaurant. That's my honest analysis of the subject matter. As for the core policies, see the two links above. Deletion is not the only solution. Are we any closer to consensus with the current version? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but the creator has been given rather a lot of time to make these improvements and does not appear to be doing so, or even to understand what the problem is. If one of the supporters of keeping the article would do the work for him, that might resolve the issue - otherwise I would have to assume that the article cannot be salvaged. Deb (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Deb: I did a gutting of the article last night, but one of the Keep voters moved the section above so you may not have seen it. I don't think it's notable yet - until we can find a good source, e.g. the Kaye Whiteman book to which I don't have access, but I think I helped solve the promotional language. However, if notability can't be established, then I'd still be in the Delete camp. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly agree wit Deb. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Deb: I've been offline since last year and only recently came back online to improve the article yesterday despite my busy schedule. It might seem like I abandoned the article but I have to be careful with the editing. I added more information about the center with citations and LouiseS1979 assisted with editing by rearranging, removing contents and citations already added. There's no doubt that there's a lot of reliable third-party sources about the center but having to pick and choose from diverse "promotional" and "non-promotional" sources poses a slight challenge. This is coupled with the fact that information required for the article about the center comes from these varied sources. There's surely room for improvement and any contribution towards improving the article is welcome. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eruditescholar: In that case, it might be a good idea to make sure the Kaye Whiteman source mentions the centre in the sort of detail required and work it into the article. I can't go any further with expansion without that book being established as a reliable source. Please hold off on adding any more websites repeating the glowing, promotional praise of the centre for the moment - we don't need more of those; they don't discuss the actual impact of the centre, but are simply advertising it, which was the original problem with the article. I'll leave them in, but what is needed are better sources, not more sources. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lstanley1979: In my opinion, the already existing sources should be able to support the article without the Kaye Whiteman source and other excluded sources online. I'm sure there are other reliable offline and online sources which I might have no knowledge about. I'm confident of a gradual improvement to the article as it's a work in progress.Eruditescholar (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eruditescholar:I fear you don't understand that mainspace is not the appropriate location for a "work in progress" unless it is written with the wikipedia guidelines in mind. You must observe the NPOV guideline, which is one of the 7 pillars of wikipedia and the only one which can't be changed by editor consensus.Deb (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deb: I have a good understanding of what you mean but what I am implying is that this article should demonstrate enough notability in it's current state to avoid deletion. I am well aware of many stub articles that are still in the public domain with less citations and information compared to this one. I also know some articles that were created as stubs and have progressed to B or A class in the quality scale. I'm not an advocate for stub articles but I'm just being realistic here. Eruditescholar (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruditescholar: Generally speaking, 'other stuff exists' is not a good rationale to use; if you think there are non-notable stubs out there you can always bring them here to AFD. To be frank, I'm bowing out now. This is for an uninvolved admin to decide whether or not the article satisfies notability if you are unable to improve it further - it's out of our hands. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lstanley1979: Thanks for your advice. I'm making efforts to expand the stub article and will continually make encyclopaedic contributions to improve the article Eruditescholar (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruditescholar Well, look, sincerely here: good luck. If it sticks around, I'll keep it on my watchlist. That art business source is exactly the sort of thing the article needed to give it a boost, IM still-learning O. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a chapter on the founder in the book The "Girl" Entrepreneurs [2] and is largely about Terra Kulture. Although written in the first person, still, it is significant that the editor thought she was notable enough to include. There is also a chapter on Terra Kulture in the book Women of Valour: Jewels of the future [3]. Although only snippet view, it is clearly a substantial piece and may be more acceptable as a reliable source. Those, together with the numerous passing mentions is book sources lead me to believe that this is a notable institution. SpinningSpark 20:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finding and Preserving Mutuke People Cultural Identity[edit]

Finding and Preserving Mutuke People Cultural Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous proposed deletions have been avoided by moving the topic from Mutuke Clan and Preserving Mutuke People Cultural Identity.

As I previously stated on Mutuke Clan, none of the sources mention the existence of a Mutuke people and I cannot find any information on the subject. The only thing resembling this is a personal website by the page author which clearly identifies this as his family surname (not an historical people). SFB 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find anything to show that there is actually a clan by this name. The only thing I could even find that used this name was this book, but without the entire book I can't say if this is referring to a clan or just a family- it's far from being a reliable source in this context. I can't really find anything to show that this clan exists. If it does exist, it looks like it's a fairly non-notable clan since nobody has covered it in any context and if it does exist, is probably lumped in with peoples from the surrounding area. I have a suspicion that this will likely need to be salted at some point, given that this has been created under a few different names and there have been attempts to make multiple pages for this group. I've redirected at least one of them to the article, but there may be more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best, original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is against keeping it, and there is no sourced content to merge. czar ⨹ 17:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of We Got Married (Taeun) episodes[edit]

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

This is a list of episodes of a TV variety show that feature one of the show's TV couples. It is original research/cherry-picking, is not encyclopedic, and is already covered on We Got Married (Season 4). TerryAlex (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vote to delete the said page as it does indeed repeat information already available. Mikepellerintalk 00:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- The page listed does not include the information in the article being discussed. Jwuthe2 (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right! Agree that the info on this article can be appended to the Season 4 article. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:29, 27 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tom Morris:, it's not 100% clear if the episodes listed in this article are also present in We Got Married (Season 4) because the editors who created this stuff didn't do it very well. What is clear is that this article itself should not exist and the information belongs elsewhere, as it clearly does not follow Wikipedia policy. To make it clear, this article concerns a fictional couple on a show called 'We Got Married'. This article is basically a listing of stuff that happened to & episodes featuring this couple. This is original research, cherry-picking out the moments about that couple and putting them into a Wikipedia article. It's a great example of WP:NOT. There is already an article for We Got Married, as well as one for We Got Married (Season 4), which together should contain all of the notable information that might exist in this article. A glimpse at the history of the article shows it was created by, and primarily maintained by, just one user. It probably should have been deleted shortly after creation, but it's so "niche" that I doubt any experienced editors even noticed its existence, and hence didn't even notice its AFD nomination. If it needs to be merged, then merge it, but this article itself should absolutely not exist. Please just let it die. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at User talk:Shinyang-i#Relisting. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As nominator points out, this is just trivial, for the fans only, where the content is wholly redundant to the main article for that season of the show. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:24, 27 December 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. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of We Got Married (Khuntoria) episodes[edit]

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

This is a list of episodes of a TV variety/reality show featuring a certain TV couple. It is original research, not encyclopedic, and repeats information already covered in We Got Married (Season 2) and We Got Married (Season 3)--TerryAlex (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vote to delete the said page as it does indeed repeat information already available. Mikepellerintalk 00:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no purpose other than fangirling. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:31, 23 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's really no reason to relist this, @Tom Morris:. It doesn't really even require debate, as it clearly does not follow Wikipedia policy. To make it clear, this article concerns a fictional couple on a show called 'We Got Married'. This article is basically a listing of episodes featuring this couple during the show. This is original research, cherry-picking out the moments about that couple and putting them into a Wikipedia article. It's a great example of WP:NOT. There is already an article for We Got Married, as well as one for We Got Married (Season 2), We Got Married (Season 3), and so on, which together contain all of the notable information that might exist in this article. A glimpse at the history of the article shows it was created by, and primarily maintained by, just one user. It probably should have been deleted shortly after creation, but it's so "niche" that I doubt any experienced editors even noticed its existence, and hence didn't even notice its AFD nomination. No one will cry if this goes. Please just let it die. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at User talk:Shinyang-i#Relisting. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:01, 27 December 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. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of We Got Married (YongSeo) episodes[edit]

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

This article is a list of episodes featuring a TV variety show couple. It is original research/cherry-picking, and all is already covered in We Got Married (Season 2).--TerryAlex (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vote to delete the said page as it does indeed repeat information already available. Mikepellerintalk 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No need for this list, at all whatsoever. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should not exist. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:28, 23 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's really no reason to relist this, @Tom Morris:. It doesn't really even require debate, as it clearly does not follow Wikipedia policy. To make it clear, this article concerns a fictional couple on a show called 'We Got Married'. This article is basically a listing of stuff that happened to & episodes featuring this couple during season 2 of the show. This is original research, cherry-picking out the moments about that couple and putting them into a Wikipedia article. It's a great example of WP:NOT. There is already an article for We Got Married, as well as ones for each season of 'We Got Married', which together contain all of the notable information that might exist in this article. A glimpse at the history of the article shows it was created by, and primarily maintained by, just one user. It probably should have been deleted shortly after creation, but it's so "niche" that I doubt any experienced editors even noticed its existence, and hence didn't even notice its AFD nomination. No one will cry if this goes. Please just let it die. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at User talk:Shinyang-i#Relisting. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As nominator points out, this is just trivial, for the fans only, where the content is wholly redundant to the main article for that season of the show. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:24, 27 December 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. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Married (Khuntoria) (Season 3)[edit]

We Got Married (Khuntoria) (Season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is cherry-picked original research about a TV variety show couple during one season of said variety show. All information is already present in We Got Married (Season 3). --TerryAlex (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vote to delete the said page as it does indeed repeat information already available. Mikepellerintalk 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. This should not exist. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:29, 23 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's really no reason to relist this, @Tom Morris:. It doesn't really even require debate, as it clearly does not follow Wikipedia policy. To make it clear, this article concerns a fictional couple on a show called 'We Got Married'. This article is basically a listing of stuff that happened to & episodes featuring this couple during season 3 of the show. This is original research, cherry-picking out the moments about that couple and putting them into a Wikipedia article. It's a great example of WP:NOT. There is already an article for We Got Married, as well as one for We Got Married (Season 3), which together contain all of the notable information that might exist in this article. A glimpse at the history of the article shows it was created by, and primarily maintained by, just one user. It probably should have been deleted shortly after creation, but it's so "niche" that I doubt any experienced editors even noticed its existence, and hence didn't even notice its AFD nomination. No one will cry if this goes. Please just let it die. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at User talk:Shinyang-i#Relisting. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom Morris, thank you for relisting and for your comments. Delete: trivial fan content unnecessarily forked from the main article for the third season of that show: the show has an article and so does the season. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khuntoria--this article does nothing but list some details pertaining to a couple that was on that show. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 27 December 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. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Married (Khuntoria) (Season 2)[edit]

We Got Married (Khuntoria) (Season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is cherry-picked original research regarding one TV variety show couple during one season of said show. All information is already covered in We Got Married (Season 2).--TerryAlex (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vote to delete the said page as it does indeed repeat information already available. Mikepellerintalk 00:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:30, 23 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's really no reason to relist this, @Tom Morris:. It doesn't really even require debate, as it clearly does not follow Wikipedia policy. To make it clear, this article concerns a fictional couple on a show called 'We Got Married'. This article is basically a listing of stuff that happened to & episodes featuring this couple during season 2 of the show. This is original research, cherry-picking out the moments about that couple and putting them into a Wikipedia article. It's a great example of WP:NOT. There is already an article for We Got Married, as well as one for We Got Married (Season 2), which together contain all of the notable information that might exist in this article. A glimpse at the history of the article shows it was created by, and primarily maintained by, just one user. It probably should have been deleted shortly after creation, but it's so "niche" that I doubt any experienced editors even noticed its existence, and hence didn't even notice its AFD nomination. No one will cry if this goes. Please just let it die. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded at User talk:Shinyang-i#Relisting. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khuntoria: that's the AfD for the couple which is singled out here in this article, but this article is redundant to the one on the second season of the show, linked by the nominator. So, what we have here is really just fan trivia, without secondary sourcing. To put it another way, if the couple on which this focuses is not independently notable, then this isn't either. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 27 December 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.  Sandstein  12:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the nominator. As well as being not a newspaper, WP is not a court record. We can not have an article every time someone sues someone else, no matter how notable they are. If this was part of a larger event that event would warrant an article, probably. Skylark777 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that the decision of a court is not news if it is a binding or persuasive precedent, on grounds that the precedential value of the case will presumably last forever or until the case is overruled. I have found sources that say that the decisions of district courts are of "persuasive value": [4][5]. This case is apparently taking place in the district court of the District of Columbia. James500 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Government agencies and corporations are involved in law suits all the time, and such suits receive routine coverage. I see no evidence at this time that this case is truly notable, in its early phases. The article can be recreated if the case proves to be significant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: you say “I see no evidence at this time that this case is truly notable”. Are you expressing a personal opinion or is your delete vote based on wiki-policy, and if so which. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking, Ottawahitech. We don't make deletion desisions based only on policy, but also on guidelines, respected essays, and studying common outcomes, which reflect ongoing consensus. The widely respected General notability guideline calls for "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A widely cited essay, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, describes the kind of sources that are doubtful for establishing notability and not truly "significant". These stories, in this particular case, are routine reporting of early benchmarks of a case that is not yet notable. In-depth articles by legal analysts describing this case as something unusual or significant would constitute such significant coverage, in my judgment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILL is not a helpful essay. The theory it advances is basically wrong. The specific examples it gives, where they are not wrong, are mainly excluded by various parts of WP:NOT, of which it is a misreading. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Records. James500 (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large corporations routinely sue the IRS over Freedom of information Act infractions?
  • The IRS is in the habit of contravening the Freedom of information Act?
  • Large corporations routinely claim in court that the IRS illegally withheld information?
  • The IRS routinely hires outside contractors and gives them access to taxpayers’ confidential information?
  • The IRS routinely (mis)uses taxpayer money to outsource its functions to contractors?
  • The IRS routinely audits transfer pricing cost sharing agreements?
  • The IRS frequently sues company executives when auditing the company’s tax returns? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. If, for the sake of argument, this is presently a news story, should it not in fact be transwikied to our sister project, Wikinews, using the import process? James500 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply In my opinion, Wikinews is a failed project, with an Alexa rating of #47,420 as opposed to #7 for Wikipedia. Only 80 articles were created there in 2014. It was a nice idea, but almost nobody reads it. So, it is not a realistic alternative. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is completely devoid of merit. There are more than a billion websites, so a rank of less than fifty thousand is not that bad. "Don't transwiki content to Wikinews because it has low traffic" is a self-fulfilling prophecy that will make Wikinews fail if acted on. If we were to transwiki material there regularly, the site's traffic would increase. It is fairly obvious that the relatively low traffic of some of our sister projects is at least partly due to persistent erroneous failure to transwiki content. In any event transwikiing pages within the scope of Wikinews over to Wikinews cannot reasonably be regarded as optional because failure to do so will obviously harm that project, which is still open. It cannot be regarded as defunct until it is actually closed. James500 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Ottawahitech, can you explain why this particular court case (one of hundreds that have involved Microsoft) is encyclopedic? I would expect a case entered here to be ground-breaking in its effect on the topic of the suit. LaMona (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ottawahitech's comments here regarding why this is not a run-of-the-mill case. The significant coverage in numerous reliable sources supports Ottawahitech's statements. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard and Ottawahitech. James500 (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I;m persuaded that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability here. Davewild (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 22:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lee Espinosa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; an internet search turned up no reliable sources, aside from the regular social media and fan pages. Biblioworm 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Clearly a non-notable individual. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @And Adoil Descended: I'm not sure that this article meets the CSD criteria, as it makes a very obvious claim of significance ("...who became nationally known..."). --Biblioworm 21:48, 27 December 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somoyer Konthosor[edit]

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

No sign of significance. More like Advertisement of the site. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There are no secondary sources about notability. It appears to have been written by an editor with a connection to the site. It may be notable in Bangladesh, but it's hard to tell. Another option might be to userfy it in case secondary sources can be found. I would like to see some evidence that it really has 500 staff writers. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:03, 23 December 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, Wifione Message 19:53, 27 December 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. I find the keep arguments dubious due to lack of sourcing, but there's no harm in keeping this article around until the pageant. Shii (tock) 11:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Railsback[edit]

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

Bit too much written in the will-be style, and no reliable sources presented. Maybe a case of too-soon. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a "too-soon" post. I have added legitimate References as well as Official Web links. Pageant news is slow in Kansas City and I will continue to add References as they become available. Alexis is my niece on my wife's side and I was present at the Miss Kansas USA pageant in Wichita, Kansas on 11/30/14 when she earned and was awarded her title as Miss Kansas USA 2015. Many of the photographs posted on the linked web sites were taken personally by me. Alexis is a full-time student and has contractual obligations to the Miss Kansas USA pageant so she is very busy. My niece will forward her Biography to me to post as soon as she has the time. I look forward to being present at the Miss USA 2015 pageant to support my beautiful and talented niece, Alexis Railsback. David Stoll T C 11:08, 20 December 2014 (CST)
    • None of which show independent sourcing - and the official web links are inappropriate per WP:ELOFFICIAL (and have been removed a couple of times already). As I said on your talkpage, please study the relevant policies and guidelines provided (or ask). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep normally we find that state-level pageant winners of this magnitude have enough third party reliable sources to be kept. I see no reason to make an exception here. Information is verifiable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:26, 21 December 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, Wifione Message 19:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I expect she's a very nice person, but beauty pageant winners don't strike me as particularly notable. PatGallacher (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Being a Miss USA contestant warrants their own article, as does being a Miss Universe contestant. Not "too soon" as all announced Miss USA 2015 contestants are given their own articles upon winning their state pageants. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a precedent or consensus for this? Anyway, consensus can change. PatGallacher (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of highest-grossing films in Nigeria. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 13:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highest grossing films in The Nigerian box office by Year[edit]

Highest grossing films in The Nigerian box office by Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains no references for YEARS and its terribly isolated from other wiki articles. A better article with references exist here. Darreg (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, though that probably shouldn't have happened until after this was closed. Nonetheless, the bold redirect has now been accepted and the nomination withdrawn so I'm closing this with the result recorded rather than decided (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 00:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death chair[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be an actual term, or anything WP:NOTABLE. Notability tag was recently added by Wtshymanski, I saw this and prodded it, the prod was endorsed with a prod2 by 331dot. Then an IP redirected it to Electric chair, without giving a reason. The term 'death chair' isn't mentioned in the redirect target, and El;ectric chair is not commonly known as death chair. Aditionally, this article claimed that the term is used for a wide assortment of things, not just an electric chair. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh. I redirected this to try to salvage it - after all, someone thought the term was likely enough to write an article on, and more than half of the article is about electric chairs. There's no evidence I can find for the existence of "death chairs" as an actual topic encompassing the other implements mentioned, so the claim in the article doesn't matter. I suppose there's some chance of this being used as a search term, but not much; it doesn't really matter either way. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above contanis some valid points; if the prod hadn't been removed without reason, and this had been put in the edit summary/talk page, I might not have taken it to AfD. Nomination withdrawn Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 27 December 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. Already deleted by Panyd, after author nominated it for G7. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St.Joseph's Indian Composite PU College[edit]

St.Joseph's Indian Composite PU College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

plain advertising and partly copyvio] The Banner talk 18:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no question of advertising. The article just provides an insight of what is being done in the college. COPY??? A college can offer only what courses they offer. Hence,it is same as mentioned in the college's official website! Nothing shocking.When article about college is present in Wikipedia,many people get to know clearly about the college.User:Rohith.ravichandran.1 
    • That's not how it works, User:Rohith.ravichandran.1; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines for our guidelines. First of all, yes it is promotional in tone and content, to the point where speedy deletion might be warranted. On the other hand, if the list of classes is the extent of the copyvio, that's not so bad, and if this is a "college" (it's so poorly written that it's hard to figure out what it is) it's probably automatically notable. Banner, I'll prune it some. That doesn't alleviate the lack of secondary sourcing, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Predictable: he reverted your edit. Just as he did with my efforts. The Banner talk 19:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Efforts of creating a whole new page is much tedious than removing!!!haha.... RohithRavichandran (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps CT Cooper, Kudpung, or Tedder (they run Wikiproject Schools) can put their grog and smoked turkey leg down for long enough to have a look at the newly-sanitized article and help bring it up to snuff. I believe that these three editors would benefit from a dive into the pool of Jesuit education. Semper ubi sub ubi, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be frank, after your suggestion,I realized that the article was in a promotional tone. I have tried to resolve it. Visit the page and let me know if any more necessary changes have to be made. Its better to discuss the improvements rather than performing it on the page directly.RohithRavichandran (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ehm, no. Not really. The version of Drmies, reverted by you, was much better. Your version still has the copyvio-part and a lot of completely irrelevant information and completely lacks independent sources (and even the present links to the school website are no links to the information that should be covered by the source) The Banner talk 20:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Abiding by the version of Drmies,merely makes the page just a book with 'Preface' page.Copyvio-part is retained because here,in the state of Karnataka of India, there are lot of courses and subjects offered by each and every Pre-university. It nearly ranges to 11 languages and 55 subjects. Hence, that particular portion had to be retained for sure to ensure this institute's standout difference from the other. You can cross-verify with other colleges' articles in the same province. I'll look into the sources and clean it up. RohithRavichandran (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • So? We are not here to promote a subject. We are here to give a neutral description of a subject, without fancy or nice stuff. Just the bare facts with a few pictures to support the text. The Banner talk 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also,thanks for not edit warring and fulfilling my humble request. RohithRavichandran (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe the one edit warring is you. You've been warned already for that, and I added a "promotional" warning to it. Plus, I reverted you. Believe me, The Banner and I have looked at dozens if not hundreds of those articles, and we have a pretty good idea of what the guidelines allow. Revert again and I have no doubt you will be blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 27 December 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 since nomination had been withdrawn. (non admin closure) Arfæst! 17:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian South African[edit]

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

Nothing but a dictionary definition. Prod removed. —Swpbtalk 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the article is not good,there is a source about number of Serbian community in South Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lackope (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If there are no notable Serbian South Africans or any information on the community itself then the information referencing the population total is best housed in Demographics of South Africa. If further information is added, I'm amenable to changing my view. I eat BC Fish (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some information from a sources that I found online.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As nominator, I change my position to keep as a result of the contributions by MirkoS18. —Swpbtalk 21:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (Emilia-Romagna)[edit]

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

The Democratic Party is a national party only, the page on a single regional section is not relevant for an encyclopedia Maremmano (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right! --Maremmano (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The major party of the region. We have articles about state branches of parties in the U.S., such as California Democratic Party. I see no good argument against similar articles for Italian regional party branches. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would argue keep unless someone can prove the party is actually part of the main one in an organisational sense. It is the largest party in the region and has its own leadership. JTdaleTalk~ 04:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that a regional branch of the party has its own organization, also the Democratic Party of Bologna has its organization, but is it encyclopedic? --Maremmano (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maremmano is right. I would however make a difference between regional sections and local ones. --Checco (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imperatriz (bus company)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - Having searched the Portuguese Wiki as well as "Google in Portuguese" - I literally can't find anything other than there website which is conveniently down!. Fails GNG –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their website is http://www.avimperatriz.com.br/ and is up. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 16:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 16:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since this article has apparently been around since 2006 (in which time, if it was completely made up, someone would have noticed it by now?), I think Wikipedia can afford to wait for an actual Portuguese speaker, or an expert in Brazilian bus transport, to give some idea whether or not this is a significant operator. I don't think Davey is either of those, and his record elsewhere gives me reason to believe these searches for notability aren't as rigorous as the use of words like "literally" make it sound. He said the same thing about an English bus operator called NIBs recently, yet I found a local news report in Google within a minute, and know of at least one article about it in the print media. Given that, do I believe that Davey would be able to be more thorough than that on a foreign language version of Google? I think no. As the article says, this operated runs at least four routes into Florianópolis, which is one of Brazil's state capitals, and that, for me, is good reason to think claims there is literally no coverage of it are probably incorrect. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" vote was withdrawn by the editor in the comment below at 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC) BMK (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [6][reply]
Exactly since 2006 and in that time no one's fixed the article (because I assume the lack of sources out there), As you've been told before if you're !voting Keep you should provide sources otherwise it's just baseless assertions. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You assume all sorts of things that in reality turn out to not be true. It doesn't take a genius to realise why the English version of Wikipedia might not be as good as it could be in the subject of Brazilian bus operators. Last time I looked, most of the native population had more pressing things on their mind than adding articles to English Wikipedia. Are we for example to assume that just because Transport in Brazil doesn't even contain the word "bus", that there are in-fact no bus operators in the country? Obviously not. And are we to really believe that, according to Category:Bus companies of Brazil, there are only actually four bus companies in the entire country of Brazil (including this one)? I think not. Looking closer, one of those isn't even a bus operator, and one might not be an operator but a manufacturer. The only other one that's an operator also happens to be running routes into Florianópolis, so was perhaps created by the same person. Given that, and given your history of antipathy towards this subject, isn't it more likely that what we're about to see here is not the pruning out of some non-notable companies from a well developed body of work on the subject of Brazilian bus transport, we're instead about to witness the stubbing out of the first attempts by anyone to actually document Brazilian bus operators on Wikipedia? Anyway, you were talking about the perils of making baseless assumptions.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day I nominated this as I didn't find anything in English nor Portuguese, If you can find anything please add it..... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You already know my view on appeals of that nature. Let the people who seek to pass judgement do the work to fix their own mistakes, is my motto. Add to that the fact that since I don't speak Portuguese, I wouldn't even presume to be able to find anything anyway, even if I was minded to try. If there are no notable Brazilian bus operators out there, then so be it, I guess that's just what Wikipedia will have to tell the world. It's no more or less ridiculous than some of the things it's telling the world about buses in English speaking parts of the world. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find anything that would come close to establishing notability for this org. Vrac (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which rather begs the question, what did you actually find and where did you look? (since Davey apparently found literally nothing). And did your knowledge of Spanish help, or is it sufficiently different from Portuguese (which you apparently don't speak) to be useless for such a task? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you apparently use it, is the Spanish Wikipedia coverage of Brazilian bus operators/transport as pathetic as the English version is? If not, can you give us some pointers as to which operators are notable, and should have an article here. Since it appears that if this article is deleted, and the one presumably started by the same user (JOTUR), then English Wikipedia will actually have zero articles on any Brazilian bus operators (judging by the category anyway). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. If the keep !voter above would actually post sources instead of repeated tirades, I might be willing to reconsider my position after reviewing those. --Kinu t/c 19:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any sources, and indeed I haven't even looked for any. Perhaps if you read what I wrote instead of just dismissing it as "tirades" you might have noticed that already. My issue is how/where people are looking. Might I be able to know what you found and presumably dismissed as not meeting GNG/CORP, or is that view based on the fact you found nothing at all? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced article, fails WP:V and as said above does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, could not find sources on Portuguese Google and the article does not even exist in the Portuguese Wikipedia project.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains the company's website. Unless anyone here can prove the reason it's offline is because it's fake, I'd say that counts as verifiable. Also, I wouldn't put any faith in the fact any Wikipedia doesn't contain any article - this is the English Wikipedia and yet it has MASSIVE gaps in coverage of UK bus operators - for example, London Northern ran hundreds of buses for many years in the 1990s in London, yet it has no article here, and apparently never will, because of its total reliance on 5 second Google searches to establish 'notability' (since the 1990s were the preinternet age, coverage of London Northern, in the required independent/reliable form at least, is confined to books). As such, the only mention of it here at all is a blink and you'd miss it two line fragment in another article. Unless Imperatriz is one of the very biggest operators in Brazil (which it clearly isn't on the face of that article), I wouldn't say its absence from the Portuguese Wikipedia is evidence of nothing. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the issue of methodology, it should be noted that 'Imperatriz' is apparently Portugeuse for Emperor (or Empress?). As such, unless people reveal their specific methodology (such as whether or not they used other search terms), claims by non-Portuguese speakers to have not found any evidence of notability of a bus company called Imperatriz in Portuguese Google are about as convincing to me as if a non-English speaker said they couldn't find any information about a bus company called "King" in the English version of Google. As it happens, there is at least one notable bus operator in the UK called King's, but I don't even need to check to already know it won't have any article here, because the coverage of English bus transport on the English Wikipedia is so crap. I expect Portuguese Wikipedia suffers from the same issues. I just tried a Google search on the name of a Brazilian operator that I know for a fact runs nearly 1,000 buses over nearly 100 routes, but since I'm not a Portuguese speaker and since it too apparently has an ambiguous name, unsurprisingly I couldn't find anything in the first three pages that I could have pointed to as showing it was notable. I don't think I even saw the word "bus" in the results more than once. Perhaps the people here claiming they've found nothing, might like to do the same, and reveal what success they have? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am from Spain, I have been to Brazil and visited our neighbor Portugal for many years and I have not had too much trouble communicating. I have dug a bit deeper, and I have found the website for the company Imperatriz I have also found two articles with a brief mention in a local newspaper relating to a strike of all six bus companies of that municipality, Florianópolis, I am including the one where normal services are resumed: Transporte coletivo na Grande Florianópolis volta ao horário normal na manhã desta segunda-feira The article establishes that the company exists, but the subject does not seem to be covered extensively by reliable sources, so since trivial or incidental coverage is not sufficient to establish notability I can not recommend to keep it (I don´t think that just been a bus company is notable. This is just a small local company, not even close to the top ten of Brazil). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's better. In that case, I withdraw my vote to keep, since I am now satisfied that at least one person here has probably made a decent effort to look for evidence of notability. Having looked at their website though, it's better than what I am usually used to seeing for non-notable operators here in the UK. Perhaps Brazil just has better web site designers.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:BURDEN. Nominators are required to follow the instructions at WP:BEFORE. Article creators and supporters must meet the burden of verifiability. Personal motto or not, the suggestion that a nominator should have to prove something is non-notable is nonsense, contrary to almost every policy and guideline we have. St★lwart111 00:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's nonsense is it? Well, let's see what BEFORE actually says. "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" Looking at Step D, now we know (from Crystallizedcarbon) that yet again, as I have seen him do before, this has been another case where Davey saying he "literally found nothing", is in reality not quite right, and what he presumably meant to say (if this is what actually happened, which I suspect it is not) is that he did a thorough search, and while he could verify the information was true having found various sources (such as local news sites), he still didn't think it was enough to prove notability. It also says "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Can you think of any reason why Davey, who clearly can't speak Portuguese and clearly knows absolutely nothing about Brazilian bus operators, didn't follow that advice, and attempt to ask anyone who might, for assistance? I can think of the reason, and it's very much not in the spirit of BEFORE. Is there any reason to believe Davey followed the advice of BEFORE at all in this case? The evidence suggests not. In fact, if I asked you whether or not you followed BEFORE, would you be able to say yes? Given all the things I've said above about the language issues, the vague company name, and the all the other stuff you completely ignored (while curiously choosing to notice my 'motto'). And even though I said it before, apparently you ignored it - unless you can prove that the reason this company's website was down (and looking back, do we even know that for sure? the url is not in the article, so how do we know Davey even found the right link?) was because it doesn't actually exist, then you have no reason at all to think this article was not verifiable. Common sense dictates that websites can be offline temporarily, and that all you need to do is wait (and if you can't wait, use an archive service). Having now looked at the auto-translated version of their website, I see this company operates 33 buses, has a history going as far back as the 1960s, and was purchased by a larger group in 2008. Therefore, when looking at comparable UK cases, I think it's pretty obvious to me that by erasing it from Wikipedia entirely (which will be the outcome here no doubt) is probably going to be a mistake (in the obviously ridiculous assumption that some day someone will be coming to Wikipedia to research the bus transport history of Brazil or indeed Florianópolis, pop. 1m, or Santa Catarina state, pop. 6m - it can't even do that for English speaking countries very well, and probably never will, even though it's clearly part of Wikipedia's purpose). Yet I doubt there is anyone here, least of all Davey, who is actually going to bother to ensure any of this information is preserved. Does Wikipedia even have an article on the company which apparently owns this company? Are they a larger bus operator group, or are they a large and diverse conglomerate? Who knows. More importantly in this case, who really cares. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I conducted my own search. If you found something I didn't, feel free to post it here. Otherwise, your accusations of bad faith, your personal attacks and your non-policy nonsense have no place here. St★lwart111 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of the subject's notability has been presented here or in the article itself. As Stalwart111 correctly notes, the suggestion that a nominator should have to prove that the subject is non-notable is nonsense. Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with this bullshit any more, but please note that this "suggestion" only had one origin - Stalwart111 himself. It's part of a whole host of myths about what I supposedly believe or have said that he has been steadily built up by him to discredit me, for reasons only he knows. I might have said things that sound close to that to people not paying close attention, but I have categorically never said people have to "prove non-notability", because as you rightly said, it is nonsense (although strictly speaking, if you're following BEFORE and you find nothing, that's a kind of proof). I have tried elsewhere, but apparently failed, to point out that if there are common sense reasons to believe there should be coverage, then you perhaps shouldn't take certain people's blanket statements that there is none out there as read, especially if their failure to find it has a pattern to it. But apparently this is a logical step too far for most people here. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please, your insinuation was obvious - that Davey2010's judgement and capacity to adhere to WP:BEFORE couldn't be trusted and that a higher burden of proof should be required because of your personal opinion about sources that should or might be out there (though you have no interest in doing the "leg work" to find them as you've said repeatedly). Both of those ideas are anathema to the way WP works. St★lwart111 10:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made it up. I believe that's called ORIGINAL RESEARCH - combine a little bit of what I said there, with a little from over there, and hey presto, you come up with something entirely new which you claim I said, even though I did not. You can keep complaining all you want, you know exactly what I have said, and you can presumably work out whether or not anything I have actually said is "anathema to the way WP works". You've heard of COMMONSENSE right? As for BEFORE, I went through all that above, so it was no surprise you ignored it and instead chose to reply to something else entirely. I won't do the work for you, no, not even when I know the price to be paid is the loss of a notable article. And I just continue to be amazed at your apparent surprise that you seem to think insults and misrepresentations and threats will make me change my mind. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake. Let's call it what it is then, lying. As for what to call "not here to save articles from deletion", given where we are talking right now, I can only think that's some kind of winter snow-blindness. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but you've made no effort to fix the article by finding sources, adding them to the article, establishing notability and then arguing a cogent case for keeping it. You've vaguely waved at what might be there, asserted things without evidence, and attacked the nominator. None of that will actually save the article and you know it - you've acknowledged as much but have refused to "do the leg work". You're just getting silly. Oh, and yes, I lied by quoting you. LOL. St★lwart111 21:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the point. Note the following:
  • Unlike some sub-elements of the Transportation project, there are no guidelines (that I saw) that supported stubs like this.
  • There are other weak bus articles but this does not support this article.
  • Most importantly, from my perspective, for all we know, this might be a very important transportation provider in Brazil (the streets may be papered with their brochures), but as I don't live there and don't speak Portuguese, we, unfortunately, assume this company lacks notability. Sad. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Ignore and Keep: I like simple, no-nonsense stub articles that tell me exactly what something is (without any obvious puffery or coatracking) in one lede sentence - and when Google has zilch, I like them even better.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austen Morris Associates[edit]

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

This article, created by an SPA, is about a business in the world of finance. There are eight pages of ghits, and I can't see anything I'd consider a reliable independent source. It seems to be mostly PR or mentions. The references provided are 16 to the company's own site, and four that appear to be mentions or PR based. I can see no claim to notability in the article. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was also Draft:Austen Morris Associates created earlier by another SPA which reached its G13 date, having been declined as being an advert. When deleting it, I added G11 to the G13 reason as it was pure spam. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly promotional. Most of the links comes from the official website. Noteswork (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have removed the promotional references and will continue to add relevant content and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinspmann (talk • contribs)
  • Keep We have now removed all promotional references. There are now 10 external references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinspmann (talk •
contribs) 08:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
!vote struck through as account has !voted already. Please note you are allowed one keep or delete, and anything else must be a Comment. Also, please make sure you are signed in when posting, and please sign posts here with ~~~~. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 27 December 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, Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 15:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is clearly promotional in nature. It was also without a doubt written by someone affiliated with the company. -- Calidum 17:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "we", "our" and vapour emission about meeting demand and strong knowledge, blah blah. If a firm wants to advertise, they can probably just afford to buy webspace; this isn't a free-hosting site. They're an IFA firm, so are many others. They do business, well so does any firm. Routine announcements and the occasional trade press profile confirm existence but do not amount to encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently they didn't know how to write on Wiki, maybe give some time to return the entry to normal. Rebelboyl (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Rebelboyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cousins[edit]

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

This player fails WP:NHOCKEY. The only reliable, third-party coverage of him I can find is in relation to his trial for sexual assault (of which he was acquitted). This doesn't make him eligible for inclusion per WP:CRIME. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 December 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, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 15:57, 27 December 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (negotiate) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranya Mordanova[edit]

Ranya Mordanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The speedy nomination was declined by @Fayenatic london: who said that the article is properly sourced. However, from the sources that I see the article have a collection of external links, a ref with photos from Models.com which in itself should be an external link, and this registry which is not considered to be an RS under our guidelines.--Mishae (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 December 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, j⚛e deckertalk 23:36, 20 December 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, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 15:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica1000 16:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marc Rousseau[edit]

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

As with his bandmates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Koehler, this is a WP:BLP of a musician whose notability exists within the context of a band, not as a standalone topic in his own right. Although this article does cite more legitimately reliable sources than either Told's or Koehler's do, the acceptable sources are still very much in the minority compared to the primary and/or unreliable ones — and even among the good sources, the only one in which Rousseau himself is the actual subject of the reference (as opposed to just being namechecked) is #7, which is covering him only in the context of having had to take a couple of weeks off from the band for emergency abdominal surgery. All of which means that nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:50, 13 December 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, j⚛e deckertalk 23:37, 20 December 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, Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 15:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica1000 16:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Koehler[edit]

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

As with his bandmates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Marc Rousseau, this is a WP:BLP of a musician whose notability exists within the context of a band, not as a standalone topic in his own right. Virtually all of the sourcing is of the primary and/or unreliable varieties, and mostly deadlinked at that. The only reference here that passes the reliability test is #7 — and he isn't the subject of that source, but is merely the specific band member who happened to get interviewed by The Georgia Straight about the band. All of which means that nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:50, 13 December 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, j⚛e deckertalk 23:37, 20 December 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, Rcsprinter123 (intone) @ 15:54, 27 December 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. We cannot be presenting discredited historical sources as facts in Wikipedia's voice SpinningSpark 23:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Jat clans of Ambala Division[edit]

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

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. Many similar lists have been deleted in recent months, including this one. Sitush (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Lists like this may be justified if they are needed by at another article, but this one has existed since 2011 and there are still no links from other articles. If people need this information they can always consult the primary source. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Sitush. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 16:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo (Maad Moiselle EP)[edit]

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

Very weakly sourced promotional article. No evidence of notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find it specially promotional, and many articles start off undersourced. Is the subject notable, encyclopedic? I tend to think it is. Spicemix (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There was no evidence of notability. That is why I nominated it. If you can provide some evidence of notability, please go ahead. BTW WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument at AfD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see the point of knocking a little hole in WP so the half dozen or so people a day who are interested can't find this information so easily. Spicemix (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply WP:INTERESTING is not a good argument at AfD either. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 December 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 due to demonstrated notability. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Gonshaw[edit]

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

I see no indication that this person meets our notability requirements, general or specific. The article has been without a single independent reliable source for almost nine years, nor does a quick WP:BEFORE search turn up any such. It doesn't help that almost all the current content appears to have been copied from somewhere else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I would say that as a result of her prominent role in Allo Allo (which is still widely repeated around the world), she meets our notability guidelines. However, if the article is a copyright violation obviously that changes things and it should be deleted - where do you suspect it of being copied from? Can you be sure it isn't the other way? Bob talk 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bob Castle, I haven't managed to identify where it was copied from, or even for certain whether it was or not – if I had identified a source I would either have removed the content at once or have blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP in the usual way. However, in my experience non-encyclopaedic content with extraneous non-encyclopaedic characters such as the randomly distributed newlines here often comes about when stuff has been copy-pasted from elsewhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major role in very popular TV show indicates notability. --Michig (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reason's given above. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 14:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she was in 'Allo 'Allo! which received alot of coverage, I'll admit the article needs alot of work doing but that can be done anytime. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major role in an extremely significant TV series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and search for references. Quite a large entry at IMdB - that's even used as a reference in many articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) p.s. it's not very clear if this AfD has closed or not.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buffalo Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 13:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfront Elementary School[edit]

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

non-notable elementary and middle school. Only trivial local coverage and no legitimate claim to notability. Should be redirected or merged with Buffalo Public Schools Jacona (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Elementary schools cant be notable for just existing. These schools are usually not notable and I don't see how this one could be an exception. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (inform) @ 16:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's best claim to fame appeared to be being the first magnet school in the city, but its own website merely says it was the first PreK–8th Grade magnet, and I was unable to find reliable sources on it in a broader search. The article does include Buffalo News articles with no links, that presumably predate the newspaper's online archive, but they appear to be about more than this one school. If several news stories can be found about Waterfront Elementary individually, even if offline, then it would be notable, but it seems unlikely they would not already have been included if they exist. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ansh666 07:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this unremarkable elementary school to Buffalo Public Schools - and it looks as if there are a lot of other blue links there in the "Primary schools" table which probably shouldn't exist as articles either, if anyone feels like doing a cleanup operation. PamD 09:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica1000 11:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 14:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhr in Love[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s) in spite of continuing to edit. Concern was: No indication of significance. An article about an event unsupported by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my autopatroller rights over this? Vindictive much? Did you try doing any research, kudpung? If you didn't, really no reason to demolish the house while it's still being built. Stubs are beautiful and useful, not trash to be erased without a second thought. Earflaps (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Like most big festivals, especially raves, this has left a trail of press reports about the size of the crowds and the drug busts. The coverage is regional rather than national, but has enabled me to add some facts and figures and demonstrate that it's not all press releases and not all about this year. It's also one of the three brands highlighted when the event organizer was acquired last year. As such I think it squeaks by GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was so close to !voting keep, but I can't in good conscience. The article doesn't appear to be significant and encyclopedia worthy. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not in a good shape, but the subject is one of the more relevant electronic music festivals in Germany. Lots of coverage, mostly regional or in music press, but then again, WAZ is one of the largest newspapers in Germany. --PanchoS (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Annual event. And that's a big crowd in the picture.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep, and equally clear consensus that the article is poorly named. However, there is no consensus on what the best name is, so for now, leaving it at the current title and suggest that the interested parties discuss a better name on the article's talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Impact of Farmers' Markets on U.S. Economies[edit]

The Impact of Farmers' Markets on U.S. Economies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

essay, not an encyclopaedic article The Banner talk 11:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra reasoning: recreation of earlier deleted articles The Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets in the United States and The Impact of Farmers' Markets on the U.S. Economy as copy and paste move within one day of deletion without use of WP:REFUND. The Banner talk 14:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: has there already been a prod or AFD on the content of this article under a different name? Those deletions seem to be for redirects to non-existent pages. I'm not clear on how that would serve as a rationale for deletion of this article. Vrac (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets in the United States. The second title is nearly the same as the present article (Economy instead of the present Economies). The articles have been blanked, deleted, userfied and are now here again. The Banner talk 21:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification. Vrac (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Our articles are supposed to be prose essays. The nomination presumably doesn't understand that what we don't want are personal essays, which present the author's personal views and opinions rather than facts. The operative word in this is "personal" not "essay". Andrew D. (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article is well-sourced with research on this exact topic so I don't see the synthesis, OR, or sourcing issues mentioned in last AFD. I agree with Andrew D. on the essay question. I do think it would be better off under its previous name of "The Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets in the United States" (minus the The). Vrac (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The material should be covered much more briefly in Farmer's market, with links to the sources for people who want more information. The "impact" is an aspect of the thing itself and should be covered in the main article. This is a good quality article, it just is not what an encyclopedia is all about which is basic information on clear topics not (what's really) speculation about relationships of cause and effect. You could have an article on the "impact" of anything on anything else, worthwhile and very important to consider but not for an encyclopedia. (Sorry for my imperfect expression of my thoughts.) Borock (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Farmer's markets in the United States. Any farmer's market is mainly an economic activity (with a little Hobby farmer and maybe "hobby eater" on the side.) Going beyond what Borock suggested, the economic impact is actually the main point of a farmer's market. That is the economic benefits to the sellers, buyers, and the community. There is nothing in an article on the impact of farmer's markets that should not be in an article on farmer's markets. Besides that we really should have an article on modern American farmer's markets. There have been some kind of farmer's markets ever since farming and money were first invented. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a "Keep" vote, in my opinion, although I agree renaming is appropriate. Renaming is for editors to discuss at Talk page of article, perhaps have a wp:RM if disagreement is likely, after AFD closes. --doncram 00:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though perhaps Rename discussion should consider "Economic impacts of farmers' markets in the U.S." as title. Too much of the current title is capitalized. It's a fine topic on both the economic analysis how-to's (the methodology) and the estimates of actual effects in monetary terms. There's room for improvement in terms of academic criticism of the estimation methodologies that are sometimes used. Obviously economic impact studies as covered here can be biased / partisan / mis-used. For that very reason, it is helpful to have an encyclopedia article on the topic, especially on the methodologies used and the general results (e.g. perhaps that a new farmer's market can have a local positive impact but have a negative impact a bit further away, and no net U.S. level impact, which is likely and not inconsistent with the article as written). --doncram 00:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's a very specific, isolated topic that might have to be broken up and rearranged. However the material itself seems alright and interesting. Some abstraction from the United States case would help, as these aspects might differ quantitatively in other countries but not qualititatively. --PanchoS (talk) 02:06, 29 December 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 Caroline Myss. czar ⨹ 17:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of the Spirit[edit]

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

A search in Google Books and Google News archive failed to turn up sources to verify the WP:N notability of the subject, hence it might fail to meet the WP:GNG notability criteria for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Caroline Myss. The author is certainly notable and while later articles do refer to this book as the one that put her on the map, I can't really find anything that specifically focuses on this book. I did find a review through Publishers Weekly, but one review does not show notability- and trade reviews are greatly depreciated at AfD. There do seem to be a few blurbs here and there, but none that would give notability. (In other words, those 1-3 sentence blurbs that are requested by the publisher by people they pay, people they publish, or in an "quid pro quo" type of scenario.) Redirecting seems the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:14, 27 December 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. Such vanity article. Shii (tock) 11:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Shaji[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMICS. No non-trivial mention found in sources independent of the subject. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk This article deserve to be there, anyone who works in the area of open quantum system knows his importance. He is the student of the Prof. Sudarshan and who else is most suitable to be there  ? see this http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110601/full/474024a.html Hindu has also quoted him regarding the nobel prize controversy. http://www.thehindu.com/2005/12/02/stories/2005120206181100.htm Are you guys a serious wikipedia editors ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sijothankam (talk • contribs)

  • Dear Serious Editor Sijothankam, he only has a passing mention in The Hindu, which is totally irrelevant to establish notability. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sijothankam (talk) Dear Vigyani read some physics books and quantum information theory. You have to know what is a spin statistic theorem to understand what he had done !!! He has only a passing mention in Hindu, I added Hindu for you to understand !. By the way, do you know what is Nature ? They had written in Nature on his theoretical findings !!! It is better to have a minimum eligility to assess the content. It is difficult to enlighten on ignorance !

Hello Sijothankam (aka 82.159.6.217?) -Make a Facebook page for him to describe what the hell has he done that no media bothered to write about him in detail. He is simply ineligible for inclusion on encyclopedia. Find the eligibility criteria here. See also, WP:NOT for better understanding of Wikipedia. And, yes please, when you leave a message, make sure you're logged in and sign it typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the article itself, appears to be an Assistant Professor. At such junior rank academics are rarely notable. The two awards listed in the article are student-level awards, which, per WP:PROF, do not confer academic notability. Scholar shows one highly cited paper and a reasonable overall citability record, but not enough to pass WP:PROF at this stage. Nsk92 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yet another non-notable Indian academic. (As with previous one this day's haul, recommend sockpuppet check of associated editors.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Fails WP:Prof by a wide mile. Seems to be only a self-promotional. Does not meet any of our notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourced exclusively to travel guides. Shii (tock) 11:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bungalow (restaurant)[edit]

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

Not an apparently notable restaurant. All references point simply to travel guide sites rather than stating a case for notability under e.g. WP:CORP. At the moment the article fails WP:TRAVELGUIDE and WP:PROMOTION. A search for the owner's name brings up nothing significant (e.g. news coverage in a newspaper) either. LouiseS1979 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, It's little more than a menu, an address, and their website. Nothing to point at notability. Bazj (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment on your talk page. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lolz! I cannot stop laughing. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10/10 would laugh again –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiboleth, Yisraeli, Roberts, Zisman and Moshe H. Ne'eman, Ben-Artzi & Co.[edit]

Shiboleth, Yisraeli, Roberts, Zisman and Moshe H. Ne'eman, Ben-Artzi & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advert, insufficient references. RJFJR (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the sources are clearly WP:PRIMARY and those that are not offer what appears to be merely routine coverage of the company's press releases. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:56, 27 December 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Andersson (supercentarian)[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that living for a long time really meets WP:BIO, but this seems to fail WP:V too. Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:17, 27 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Software Solutions[edit]

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

Concern that fails WP:CORP, in particular WP:CORPDEPTH due to sourcing issues (new refs are dead links, primaries and other issues listed at talk) (3x COI advert promo editors so Notability/POV needs scrutiny) Widefox; talk 12:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those don't fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH? ... The first ones do... Business Standard , The Hindu Businessline , Times of India . Widefox; talk 11:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many, in particular Highbeam ones, [18], [19] and [20]. I'm sorry if you've no access to them. If have please take a look at them. Btw, are you saying these sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's GNG and NCOPR standard? However, the exclusion criteria in COREDEPTH close to these sources, is "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business". I'm not sure if one should call it "brief", as they are published full-page in all mainstream reliable sources as "OPUS leading software provider company[..]", it actually is significant. To me, many of these seem to be meeting the COREDEPTH standard as well. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're all PR so not independent anyhow, but looking closer... [21] "trivial" per "routine notices", [22] per "simple statements" , [23] per broad "routine communiqués". This is whack-a-mole, and indicates the opposite of what you're trying to establish. There may be some RS, but these aren't them, and now would be the time to produce them if they exist. Widefox; talk 23:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are where they are classified as trivial per WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said they are not independent as they 'all are PR', what did you mean by PR there, if not 'press-releases'? If you see all sources as PR, then at first there's no meaning to discuss it with you and I doubt that you'll see COREDEPTH in them. Well, we are not alone. Let other people judge them. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "PR" is too strong, coming back to the nom... "trivial" per CORPDEPTH. (btw "COREDEPTH" does not exist). As to how much emphasis to put on "brief" or "routine" in CORPDEPTH is debateable. Widefox; talk 09:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Anupmehra has provided several (undeniably) reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. They are most certainly not press releases. There are outlets the simply reproduce press releases, but these aren't them. When the Times of India, for example, chooses to publish a story they are putting their reputation behind it, and can be presumed to have fact-checked it. Even if the material was spurred by a PR, it is not a PR by any reasonable definition; it is a choice that reflects notability. For good measure, here is another -article in the WSJ, the world's #1 business newspaper. And beore someone says something stupid like "that's about ElectraCard, not Opus Software" non-notable businesses do not produce notable products. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the statement that the sources are undeniable isn't correct - as someone has denied they are valid, and quoted exactly where they fall short. Widefox; talk 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to claim the Times of India and The Hindu are unreliable sources, you are wasting everyone's time. I seriously doubt that is really the argument you are trying to make. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are RS, but by focussing on the publisher being a RS, that doesn't address the nom - i.e. these two are "trivial" per WP:CORPDEPTH - Times of India per "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business", The Hindu per "routine communiqués". The nom is clear - WP:CORPDEPTH - not just finding 2x RS. Widefox; talk 09:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said they were undeniably reliable sources and you said it wasn't undeniable. I figured that isn't what you really meant, as I said in my reply... And no the Times coverage is neither brief, nor routine. Five paragraphs is not brief! Making such arguments stretches the credibility of the guidelines. The Hindu coverage can reasonably be describe as brief. Neither can remotely be described as "press releases" as you initially claimed. Fortunately there are a half dozen other in depth articles listed in this AfD, including one from the world's premier business source, the Wall Street Journal. And there are literally hundreds more valid sources available.
A "brief announcement of a merger or sale of part of the business" is a couple sentence blurb, usually as part of a larger article detailing many such transactions. (Some business papers publish lists of transactions.) It does not, and was never intended to mean all coverage about sales/mergers is excluded. Such transactions (together with earnings) are the core of business news. If they were excluded, almost every non-consumer product business in existence would be "non-notable". In depth coverage about sales is just as valid as in depth coverage about anything else. And once again, the articles may have been spurred by a sale, but do cover other aspects of the business as background material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially all the sources are press releases, mostly in the form of mere announcements. I agree that the GNG is not very helpful in these cases, because the reliability of so many of the sources is subject to interpretation. We are badly in need of objective criteria of importance. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting point User:DGG. Reports put it generally at 55%-80% churnalism. There is/was a tool at churnalism.com, maybe we need our own tool, a mod of dupdetector? Widefox; talk 13:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such an argument loses any credibility at all when even the Wall Street Journal is lumped in the category of "essentially press releases". You might as well say that only consumer product businesses can be notable if that's the route you are going to take. No other type of business is going to have articles written about anything other than their activities. (Well maybe if they commit a crime, but that certainly shouldn't be the standard.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not understanding how differentiating B2B / B2C, or activities logically follow, or if empirically true about articles written for types of businesses. This is about simply about independence of a particular source (which may be more the spirit, than the current practice of RS). Note: there's two WSJ EXT, one is dead. Widefox; talk 11:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean, is if article about business deals, expansion, earnings/financials, etc. are automatically excluded as "PR driven" even when published by cream of the crop sources, then what does leave? Articles about products (which normally only are written about B2C companies), articles about criminal investigations, and maybe a rare miscellaneous story. The point is, stories about business activities are perfectly valid to prove notability of a business. The WSJ does not publish "press releases", yet DGG has implicitly said it does by excluding its articles about Opus Software Solutions' business transactions. Such a standard is nonsense, and would lead to to deletion of almost every B2B business article. (FWIW, Factiva turns up 140 unique sources (of course not all are in depth coverage) that aren't classified as press releases, including 15 Times of India, 12 Reuters, and 8 The Hindu articles. Indian sources generally have poor coverage online, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. "Deadlinks" also don't take away the validity of the coverage.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is proposing rejecting all those types of business articles - just the churnalism ones. That may not be common practice, but would be useful for determining independence of a particular RS (rather than automatically assuming all RS publishers are independent, as they should be). I agree with DGG, without an objective tool (the one at http://churnalism.com is for UK only), this is a subjective, and we may just have to agree to differ. Widefox; talk 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 13 stories from Reuters alone, so even if every other story was a copy of from there (they aren't), they'll would still be plenty of RS coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(offtopic) I used dup detector at Talk:Nyu Media to manually detect the churnalism there. Widefox; talk 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a clarification: I said "essentially all the sources" not all the sources. People in the industry tell me that the acme of good PR is to get articles about the client written by high quality sources independently, based on their suggestions. I cannot figure out how to deal with such a situation in terms of our notability criteria, which is one reason I dislike our use of the GNG and wish we had more objective standards. Incidentally, since the question was raised, I do not classify any Indian newspaper I know about as reliable for the notability of business or entertainment topics.
And, fwiw, that articles in one newspaper are copied from another or at least based on them is usually obvious, and can be seen by close inspection of the entire text, not just a summary. To be considered non-independent sources for the GNG, literal copying in the sense we useit for copyvio is not needed DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some interesting, and IMO unfair, criteria. Fortunately/unfortunately, none of them are within current guidelines. Indian papers are perfectly valid (and no Times of India didn't repeat the same story 15x) and nothing allows us to discount sources because we think they might have been written at the request of a PR firm. Whatever the inspiration for writing a story was, the fact remains that an independent reliable source put their reputation behind the story. When enough such sources do it, that makes the subject notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too many press releases, directory entries, dead links; too much public relations. If after 10 minutes I can't find a reliable source, at best it's time to delete and let the authors start from scratch. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read my comments? I directly linked to several RS. Even if the article currently uses "too many" inferior sources, AfD is not for cleanup. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are direct or regurgitated press releases. Vrac (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is just a blind assumption with no basis in fact. Reuters and the Wall Street Journal do not publish press releases in any form. (It is very doubtful that Times of India or The Hindu does either.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good example is this: [24] where Reuters is regurgitating a press release from Mastercard. The only "value-add" to the press release is the fact that Reuters chose to regurgitate it. In my opinion that's not enough to satisfy the significant coverage part of GNG. A better case for notability could be made from these: [25] [26] (apologies if someone already posted them, I didn't see them in my brief check of the links above, but they are definitely not used as sourced in the article). Vrac (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think the first link is a press release, although you are correct it is probably not a good case for notability since it is not analysis. Maybe there is difference of terminology here. To me, publishing a press release includes publishing the company's chosen wording, not merely publishing on the same subject... The best case for notability is that the WSJ covered the deal with MasterCard. The WSJ doesn't cover deals by non-notable businesses, period. The second best case is in depth coverage of ElectraCard (pre-MasterCard purchase) such as the two you proved plus others: [27][28][29][30] and others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ElectraCard is not the topic. Opus Software Solutions is. You need coverage of the topic of the article not what they produce. Marksterdam (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I went through this thread very carefully and I followed all the links and I'm not seeing in depth coverage of the company. It's really that simple. Let's not get disctracted by the churnalism/PR stuff. We need in depth coverage of the subject of the article. And yes products and companies are different. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So is your position that ElectraCard (product) is notable, but Opus Software Solutions (company) is not? That seems like a rather pointless distinction. You are essentially saying "delete because of the name of the article only" if that is your position. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is what I have said. Products and producers are different. Your source is not about the subject of the article. Please refresh your memory regarding WP:GNG - To quote: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly". I didn't say anything about the article title or anything about the product being notable. That would be a different topic which I haven't investigated and neither do I have to as it isn't the topic of the article in question. Marksterdam (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to "refresh my memory" as I am well versed in deletion discussions, thanks. A product is an aspect of a business (the most important one, even). To say a product can be notable, but the business that produces it is not is nonsense. We can cover the product at a page named "ElectraCard" or a page named "Opus Software Solutions" equally well. The difference is the first title restricts the scope to just the product whereas the second allows all aspects of the business to be covered. Generally, it is better to cover products at a parent company page unless that is not feasible for space reasons. Just because a product is notable does not mean it needs its own page, and it certainly doesn't mean we should delete the main company page and keep a product page because most of the coverage is about product rather than the business as a whole. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find something in Wikipedia that says we need to consider companies who produce notable products as notable themselves then please let me know. Or else, it's once again, your opinion and pure conjecture. Something like this exists in WP:AUTH where we can look at person's work - books etc. - and if they get significant in-depth coverage we can consider the author notable. WP:CORP does not. Here is a notable product [31] where the company is not notable. However, and once again, I have never said the product is notable at all to begin with. I have not investigated that and nor does anybody here have to as it is not the topic of the debate. Based on your sources, it could be. Who knows. It's not relevant to this debate though. Marksterdam (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course my stated opinion is my opinion - there are no requirements (outside a few core policies) on Wikipedia, just guidelines. Products are part of a company. If a part of a subject is notable, the subject is notable. A person, for example, is not non-notable because "only" their work is covered in RS while their personal life is ignored. If a product is synonymous with a corporation (e.g your example of Foxit Reader with Foxit Corporation), sure makes sense to have the article named after the product. (The alternative naming would also be OK.) If, however, the articles was named Foxit Corporation and nominated for deletion (while no Foxit Reader article existed) it would make no sense to say "the product may be notable, but I can't be bothered to check, so just delete the Foxit Corporation because the name of the corporation doesn't appear as prominently in news articles as the name of the product". That is essentially the argument you are making here. You have decided, based on your opinion only (i.e. having no more weight than my argument), that a corporation can't be notable for a product. And have gone further to state you can't be bothered to determine if the product is notable.
Well, I'll give you a hint: the product is notable. So now the question is what is the best way to handle the material. Option 1 is to delete Opus Software Solutions and create a new ElectraCard Services page. Option 2 is to keep Opus Software Solutions. (Option 3 of having both would be overkill.) A significant portion of the 100+ sources found on Factia are, in fact, about aspects of Opus other than ElectraCard. ElectraCard is (was) the main product of Opus, and Opus would most likely be non-notable without it, but it is not synonymous with Opus. Thus, the most logical arrangement of material is to have an Opus page which ElectraCard redirects to (the opposite naming as Foxit Corporation -> Foxit Reader, but for the same reason - there is not enough notability for two articles, but is enough for one.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say about me: "You have decided, based on your opinion only .. that a corporation can't be notable for a product.". Not true at all, and I never stated that. Please refrain from attempting to dictate/frame the debate or to rephrase what I have said to suit your argument. Once again, I said what I said, others can read that without your interpretation! It is just tiresome to have to say "No, I said x not y" and it doesn't help this debate or any other as people have to go though the same points again and again. I have simply stated that there are guidelines in WP:CORP that unlike WP:AUTH do not say that when a product is notable so is the company by default. Unlike you, once again, I'm sticking to the guidelines. Admins are advised to ignore arguments based on conjecture so I like to steer clear of that. Of course, there will be many instances where a company's product or products are so notable that the company itself gets a lot in depth independent coverage. Here the company is not getting that coverage - only the product. I cannot be more clear than that.
You also say "You have gone further to state you can't be bothered to determine if the product is notable." Once again, no I have not stated that, I have stated that the subject of the debate is the company. I said we do not have to research the product but the company. Once again, the company is the subject of the debate. Marksterdam (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kettle, black. We clearly are failing to understand each other, as I didn't say what you claim I said. Maybe you should take your own advice and "refrain from attempting to dictate/frame the debate or to rephrase what I have said to suit your argument." My argument is that products are a part of a business and coverage about said products makes the business and/or product notable. Whether the article should be named after the company or the product is a matter of editorial discretion, not something dictated by policy. And yes, you are refusing to evaluate the notability of the product so I am not sure why you are objecting to me saying as much. You think the product notability is irrelevant; I think it is highly relevant; either way, you certainly have refused to evaluate the product's notability. (And again, many of the sources both listed and unlisted are NOT about ElectraCard.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not failing to understand each other. I, at least, understand your point completely but it is wrong and not based on guidelines. Also, I don't see how I can be miss-quoting you when I use direct quotations. Odd. Once again, the product notability would only be relevant if it meant that the company itself got extensive coverage. As the company is the subject of the debate. The company is not getting that coverage. Only the product. I've read through everything posted here. Nothing is in depth about the company. And once again, Wikipedia has no guidelines to say that a notable product equals a notable company by default.
And once again you are trying to dictate the terms of the debate/limit the available options by suggesting that it's simply a matter of naming the article differently. It isn't. If the article was about the product, it would be a completely different article. If that article were created, I believe there is chance that it could pass WP:GNG but I don't know. I would approach that subject without prejudice, but it is a different subject matter. Marksterdam (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to "dictate" anything no matter how many times you state I am. If anyone is trying to do that, it is you. I have stated my opinion, you have stated yours. It's as simply as that. Why you insist on assuming bad faith on my part, I don't know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PRODUCT is explicit that WP:NOTINHERITED does apply to notable products from non-notable companies. ThaddeusB Marksterdam: I added a link from WP:INHERITORG to make this easier to find.

User:ThaddeusB, your assertion that the product is notable is not relevant for the notability of the organisation per the notability guideline, and pushing that invalid argument isn't helping here.Widefox; talk 13:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My position should be entirely clear, but I'll state it again. ElectraCard is main source of coverage and is notable by itself. However, Opus Software has a lot of other coverage that does not mention ElectraCard, and is notable by itself. Two articles is overkill. The most logical place to cover both at once is at Opus Software, even though ElectraCard has more coverage. Can we please stop trying to distort my opinion now (and notability guidelines for that matter)? For someone who supposedly hates it when people "dictate" what another person's opinion is, you sure do a lot of dictating Marksterdam --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Widefox for making the case clear. ThaddeusB please note that I didn't write the above comment to which you seem to be replying but it was Widefox. Regarding the word "dictate" I said you were "dictating the terms of the debate" by using logical fallacies to set up alternatives which in actual fact don't address the issue at hand. Please don't get hung up on it. You say "Opus Software has a lot of other coverage that does not mention ElectraCard". Note that we need direct in-depth coverage of the subject. I have looked at the references provided and I don't see that direct in-depth coverage of Opus Software. Going by the length of this debate and the apparent passion exhibited therein I believe that every effort has been made to find it. However, I cannot see it. Thank you. Marksterdam (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least to me, this company only seems notable because MasterCard bought one of their subsidiaries. Does this warrant an article on Opus Software Solutions? Piboy51 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in "not notable" per WP:INHERITORG "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries." Widefox; talk 14:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gokul Geetha Narayanan[edit]

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

Clear CSD:A7 speedy deletion candidate, but the CSD tag has been removed by someone using an account that is not the creator account. The article clearly seems to be about an amateur singer with no claims to importance at all. I've also tagged it with BLPPROD, but I thought AfD might be quicker if a passing admin happens to agree that it's a blatant A7. Squinge (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are refs added now so I've removed the PROD, but they're only the subject's linkedin and academia.edu pages - nothing whatsoever about his claim to fame. Squinge (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 16:11, 27 December 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arasi (TV series)[edit]

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

Non notable and lacks reliable sources 999Creep (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nominator. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable serial and there N number of serial in various channels and has not received any coverage in media. .ரவி (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Probably the kindest speedy criterion to use is test page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical Similarities between China and Bangladesh[edit]

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

Unsourced article no indication of notability, request deletion per WP:NOTCASE Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed the (badly-written) WP:OR, tagged the page as G3. (In the future, use WP:PROD at least, AfD is full enough as is.) Deadbeef 10:56, 27 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asami Sato[edit]

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

With all due respect to the creator of this article, I believe that they erred in creating a dedicated article about this fictional character, who I think fails WP:GNG. Granted, she's a major character in a very notable television series, and she has been mentioned a lot in media coverage about the relationship between her and the lead character, which has been written about as pioneering LGBT representation in children's TV (see The Legend of Korra#Critical response). However, that relationship is an aspect of the series as a whole, not of the character individually, who remains something of a cipher even in the series as presented on-screen. There are just not (yet!) enough third-party sources covering Asami Sato, as a character in her own right rather than only in her function as Korra's romantic interest, in sufficient detail to allow us to write an article about her. The current version of the article, consisting almost only of plot summary and in-universe descriptions in violation of WP:WAF and possibly WP:OR, is an indication of that. I would delete and userfy the article now, without prejudice to recreation in a less plot-heavy form if and when good sources become available.  Sandstein  07:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed to neutral after improvements, see below.  Sandstein  11:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Return to a redirect I agree, the outcome of the last AFD was correct in my mind. I'd suggest that the page be redirected again and protected to enforce the outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it was correct then, but I think circumstances have changed enough to warrant retaining. Solarbird (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a separate page

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with the above statement. There are 3 reasons why I disagree with this statement...

1. As Sandstein noted, the character is a major character in a very notable TV series. She's a member of the current "Team Avatar", which is analogous to the previous iteration of "Team Avatar" seen in the original version of the Avatar series (Avatar the Last Airbender). All characters of the previous iteration of "Team Avatar" have their own pages. Separate pages are being planned (if allowed) for the two other members of Legend of Korra's "Team Avatar" (Bolin & Mako), for the lead characters' mentor (Tenzin) who wasn't part of the Team but played a major role in the series and perhaps Lin, who was a major character in the series, but was not as prominent as Tenzin. It would be inconsistent if members of this iteration of "Team Avatar" who pretty much played a similar role as the previous version of the team, does not have separate pages.

2. The character, along with the lead character, are the first two of their kind. They are the first major LGBT characters featured in an children's animated TV Show produced in the west. She is part of a historic moment. That in itself makes her a noteworthy character.

3. The character was not just the lead's romantic interest. She did not officially become the lead's romantic interest until the last episode of the series. She played a major role overall in the series, particularly in the series' third season. While the character's current page needs work, she was involved enough in the series to have enough material to warrant her a separate page. This last statement is true of the rest of "Team Avatar" as well as Tenzin and perhaps Lin. G. Capo (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is broadly true, but not relevant in light of our inclusion rules, WP:N and WP:V. What matters for the purpose of having an article is whether there are reliable third-party sources that have covered her in some depth. Without such sources, there is just not enough material for an article.  Sandstein  17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was the same criteria used for the original Avatar the Last Airbender characters or have criteria changed since then? For example, Momo has his own page. Not picking on the cute character, but it seems a little odd to me that Momo has a separate page, but not Bolin, Mako or Tenzin. Asami Sato (for now) has a page, but her page is currently being debated. This though is not true for Momo.G. Capo (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed also not a notable character and I've nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momo (Avatar: The Last Airbender) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iroh.  Sandstein  22:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the present content per Sandstein - no reliable sources, and there's nothing to say about the character that can't be covered in a short sentence in the parent article; nothing has changed since this was last discussed. Almost all the current content is plagiarised from http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Asami_Sato, as this report shows (G. Capo please take note: plagiarism is not acceptable here). There is no possible reason to keep it, but if it should by any chance be kept then it would require proper attribution. Naturally, I'd have no objection to a fully-protected redirect as proposed by Callanecc. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted the article has been reworked, so it reads more like a article and less like a fan page. The article is noticeably different from the wikia version. G. Capo (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there are still no third-party sources cited about the character herself, only about the relationship she and Korra share in the series's finale.  Sandstein  21:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've been adding a couple today (just added Vanity Fair a few minutes ago, but others too), mostly about her role as a business leader and women-in-STEM archetype. Solarbird (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain She is literally only the second canon major LGBT character in American children's animation, along with her girlfriend. That speaks critically to notoriety. (eta: I agree with a rewrite and shortening. My retain applies to degree of notability, rather than the specific current contents. But the notoriety given the cultural impact is pretty much a no-brainer to my view.) Solarbird (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Either way is fine with me, she is one of the main characters in the show. One objection I have is about the unnecessary amount of text, especially regarding her role in the last two seasons. --Killuminator (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also volunteering to help clean it up, because I agree the current version is not awesome. Having only participated in a few deletion votes, I'm not sure when one might start doing that, though. Solarbird (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Solarbird: you should start doing it right away, so that more people will be swayed to !vote "keep". G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding characters, I would support creating a page that lists all characters of some renown, the Last Airbender has one (Korra is listed there for some weird reason), but the Legend of Korra characters are all lumped together on the page about the show itself, and it's an atrocious thing to read. I would also support some villain pages (Amon and Zaheer specifically). --Killuminator (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: While this is exactly the kind of detailed "revolting fancruft" that Penny Arcade once chided Wikipedia for removing, this character is a minor (not "major", as claimed above) one on the show, and does not appear in most episodes. Regards the LGBT discussions above, this (alleged) aspect of her character is not in evidence (or at least not prominently enough for me to have noticed, and I've watched this series) in the cartoon. The text of the accompanying "final shot" picture is baloney (the ref is to a claim that the creators have confirmed the two are a romantic couple in their Twitter feeds -- I have no idea if that's true, but the cartoon itself does not imply so, and in no episode has it ever been implied they had the hots for one another). Given the apparent coatrack/agenda-smuggling, a redirect is the best solution.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pioneering role of the series in portraying Asami Sato in a bisexual relationship with the lead character, Korra, is actually well attested in reliable sources, see The Legend of Korra (season 4)#Reception. But that, as I said, is a feature of the series as a whole, not of this individual character.  Sandstein  21:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't listen to what I said: none of that is in evidence in the show. In the show, they're just friends. (The practice of artistic creators offering "new" explanations which they expect certain listeners will find enticing is hardly new, for example Rawlins "outing" Dumbledore as gay in her Harry Potter franchise despite that never being hinted at in the books themselves. They're smart enough to know when a new target audience is waiting with baited-breathe for their answer.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that none of that is in evidence in the show is a flat opinion that is contradicted in a non-relevant way by thousands of fans, and also by the explicit statements of the writers (who started working towards it in Book 3 and 4, by their statements) and by dozens of articles linked here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korra_(The_Legend_of_Korra)#The_Big_List_of_Korra-Asami_Relationship_Sources ). While it is certainly possible to ignore it, with some work, the authors themselves suggested that the material be rewatched without "hetero glasses" to re-evaluate that opinion. You may also be interested in the relevance of "bisexual erasure" and "lesbian invisibility," both of which can be found discussed here on Wikipedia in various articles. Solarbird (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've found, to my surprise, a number of sources that have spoken about this character apart from her romantic relationship with the main character of the series. I will continue to search for more and prove that this character is notable. I believe this character merits a separate article, along with a few others from the series (namely Bolin, Mako and possibly Tenzin). -Informant16 3 January 2015
  • Delete or Redirect. This article should not have been created, and qualifies under speedy deletion criterion WP:G4. The character is not notable outside of Legend of Korra and as a result does not stand to have a standalone article. Whatever content that is mergable should be merged to respectable articles. Tutelary (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My acquaintance, did you read the article? I've added multiple sources. This has all been done within the last two or three hours so check out the latest revision before you make any further comments. Also the character may only be notable in the series, but what is the excuse for Korra, who is also exclusive to the series? Also if we are just going on appearing in Avatar related media, then you should delete every page for every character barring Aang and I believe Katara since they are the only two to appear in non-Avatar games to my knowledge. See how pointless that would be? I'm not understanding how you could determine she is not notable when I've, again, found multiple sources about this character aside from her relationship with Korra. Momentous 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have, and the vast majority of them seem to focus on Asami Sato's relationship with Korra, and while that does have a good amount of citations, is a one event and about their relationship, not specifically about Asami herself. (Tangentially, though.) They need to discuss Asami in depth, and only one or two citations have met that requirement. The rest have all mentioned Asami in the context of a single episode or specifically on Korra and Asami's relationship. There's also a few citations which seem to be wikis (unreliable) and primary sources (can't be used to demonstrate notability). Tutelary (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've particularly been focusing on STEM / Business Leader commentary myself, and have added more. I think that's important material. Solarbird (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed nomination to neutral. Several editors have much improved the article, but there's still far too much in-universe material and use of unreliable sources such as blogs, while the reliable sources touch on Asami only in passing. The sourcing is not always stringent, too: the lead's assertion that "she is half of the first major acknowledged LGBT couple in western children's animation", while likely true, is not supported by the cited reference.  Sandstein  11:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements in sourcing/out-of-universe relevance since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per G. Capo and the amount/kind of references the article currently has. If the article does end up being removed, I'd prefer to see it turned into a redirect. However, I'm afraid that the encyclopedic content of this article can't be moved elsewhere without weight issues. The plot aspect needs to be cleaned up heavily, as non-fans of the series don't really need to know all that much about her role in the show. Even if that section were removed entirely (which I don't see as a bad idea, with the character overview section in place), the article would still have a good length to it. ~Mable (chat) 12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Character is notable not only in respect to LGTB, but also within the series. Also, the article has been significantly improved. Luthien22 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Saxena[edit]

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

Non-notable puffery article with no significant coverage other than a few passing news mentions. Wikipedia is not a place to list one's supposedly numerous awards, nor a place to brag about someone. — kikichugirl speak up! 06:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Lacking "significant" coverage in "multiple" secondary, independent and reliable sources, subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline at this time, and qualifies for deletion. +The article is borderline WP:G11 -for it reads, "He is master of expressing human emotions in words that will touch your heart[..]", "His poetry has touched the hearts of millions of his fans in India and abroad[..]", etc. All awards, they claim to be recipient of are "non-notable" itself. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No RS; all references malformed.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above and Lacks Reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per failure to meet notability criteria. As well, there is current consensus to delete this type of article across multiple discussions. (The redirect will be deleted also.) — CactusWriter (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat al-Raqqa (ISIL)[edit]

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

ISIL is a terrorist organization that controls territory, not a state. As such, its territorial claims are not automatically assumed to be notable. There are many reliable sources covering ISIL’s rule over the Raqqa region, but most of them did not describe Raqqa as a Wilayat. I did find a possible source that mentions this Wilayat by name ([32]), buts the name of the supposed Wilayat is in quotation marks and is used once in the entire article. As there are few reliable sources treating occupied Raqqa as a legitimate sub-state entity, I believe the article on the Wilayat should be deleted for failure to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per the nominator and rational for other similar articles for ISIL Wilayats already deleted (5 so far) or facing deletion (many) under various criteria. Legacypac (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply for lacking notability. For more explanations, one may refer to the former discussions on the similar articles of the same type most of which are deleted and many others are waiting for deletion. Mhhossein (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is informative and sourced enough to stand on its own merit.GreyShark (dibra) 21:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: Hey, Please see the pile of similar deleted articles. The response to your vote is found there! Mhhossein (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not actually that well sourced. The DW article primarily focuses on the relation between the Assad regime and ISIS, and only briefly mentions that ISIS has conquered most of the Raqqa region. The Reuters article gives an in-depth overview of ISIS’s rule over Raqqa, but it never actually refers to the region as a Wilayat, nor in any way suggest that it is a legitimate political entity. The al-akbar source mentions this specific Wilayat once, but it is in quotation marks. It’s pretty clear that the only people who are actually treating this supposed Wilayat as a legitimate political entity are ISIS militants. Just claiming that some parcel of land under your control is not enough to establish notability. If it were, every micronation ever created would have an article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Another Wilayat redirect has been nominated for deletion at [33].Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: At least 20 similar articles have now been deleted with the redirects deleted as well through 5 or more deletion discussions. SNOW this. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article is sourced and referred to as raqqa province. The article is informative and looking at a google search, there is plenty to write about. Mbcap (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like wack-a-mole. Will be nominating Wilayat ar-Raqqah (ISIL) for deletion now. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this large group deletion [[34]] and the various other related deletion discussions linked off of it. Creating this redirect is quite against community consensus. There are few to zero RS saying this name even exists. And that there is an article for the city that covers anything that this redirect or the alternate spelling it points to should cover. We don't do new articles for every city or province a rebel group seizes.Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you search "Wilayat ar-Raqqah" you mainly get direct references like this [35] (quoting an ISIL magazine) and this ISIL dabiq magazine and another issue of Islamic State News, published by ISIL's propoganda center. Everything on the first page of Google results is either direct links to ISIL propaganda or quotes from it, or twitter etc which are not RS. An example preview "IS's Islamic Services Committee that has been organized to help IS achieve its goal of “caring for the residents of Wilayat Ar-Raqqah" - sure "caring for the residents" by executing, putting in jail, flogging, raping etc etc. If you really want this article, it needs an h at the end to be correct according to the official ISIL publications. Legacypac (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ 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.

Previously deleted through AfD or various speedy deletion criteria

  1. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
  2. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
  3. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
  4. Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
  5. Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
  6. Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
  7. Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
  8. Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
  9. Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
  10. Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
  11. Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
  12. Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
  13. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
  14. Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
  15. Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
  16. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
  17. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
  18. Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
  19. Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
  20. Wilayat al-Sinai (ISIL)
  21. Template:Wilayats of ISIL
  22. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
  23. Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
  24. List of Caliphs of the Islamic State
  25. ISIL Caliphate
  26. List of Islamic State Wilayahs
  27. Wilayat Hama (ISIL)
  28. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
  29. Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)

Closed Deletion Discussions

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
  8. Plus many speedy deletes under various criteria

Under Nomination for Deletion or Redirected

  1. Wilayat Algeria (ISIL) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29#Wilayat_Algeria_.28ISIL.29
  2. Wilayat Algeria - redirected away from the ISIL linked Algerian terror group as its a real place, a province of Algeria

(a remark by Legacypac).

  • Delete - I think the nominator hits the nail on the head here, and there is plenty of prior precedent. The article definitely is not well sourced (five sources is well sourced?); I'm not sure Al-Akhbar is a RS, and even if it is, it makes a grand total of one mention of "Wilayat al-Raqqa", I don't see how a Middle East Security Report suggests notability, the dw.de source barely references the city, let alone "Wilayat al-Raqqa", Reuters don't mention "Wilayat al-Raqqa" once, and the book source present in the article cites "Wikimedia" as a source. Almost everywhere talks about the city, whilst barely anywhere talks about "Wilayat al-Raqqa". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all related/similar. --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all related/similar. Non-notable territorial claim by a terrorist organization or original research. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: Please deleted the misspelled redirect pointed at this article as well. [36] Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was move to draft. The consensus here is basically delete, but there is also a suggestion that this might be part of a future New Jersey Volunteer Light Artillery article, so I'm going to be a little bold and move this to Draft:New Jersey Volunteer Light Artillery so it can be used as a starting point and preserve the history -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Battery "B" New Jersey Volunteer Light Artillery[edit]

2nd Battery "B" New Jersey Volunteer Light Artillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual batteries from artillery units are not usually covered as they generally do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This article is no exception. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 05:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 05:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single battery would have to do something really spectacular to merit a standalone article. This one didn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, per WP:GNG, ie "no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: some artillery batteries are notable, IMO, due to the way in which they take on independent identities from parent organisations (e.g regiments etc.) in some armies (largely due to being re-allocated etc), which is not the case for other similar level military sub units (e.g. infantry companies etc. which don't in most cases have an identity outside of their battalion). In these cases, there is generally significant coverage of these batteries, which then supports writing an independent article. I'm not sure that this article demonstrates such coverage, though. I found it a little hard to identify what this battery's parent organisation was, but if one could be found there might be the potential for a merge or a redirect. (From List of New Jersey Civil War units, it appears that there were five batteries of New Jersey Volunteer Light Artillery, so perhaps a single article could cover all five?) Without that, though, delete is probably the only viable action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to create the New Jersey Volunteer Light Artillery article (as soon as I'm done with this beast). You can go ahead and create it though. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, thanks but I don't have plans to do this as it is not my area of expertise and I lack the required sources. I've written a few articles on Australian artillery units, but I couldn't write with any authority on ACW artillery units. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 07:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ye-A[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines per WP:MUS. Random86 (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They had one digital single months ago. The article indicates it did not chart on Gaon, but the information was retrieved in 2013, a year before the single was released (what?). The rest of the article consists of "teaser announcements" and a table of the members' minutiae - all from youtube via allkpop and the company's own website. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They didn't chart so this is just WP:TOOSOON. they're rookies, just let their career pan out first Asdklf; (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. NorthAmerica1000 07:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Antonio Martin[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS -- Calidum 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - This article is receiving a myriad of media attention and this attention will only increase. Protests are ongoing relating to this incident. The same logic that applies to articles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Michael Brown should apply here. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (but not speedy) keep: The incident (and its aftermath and implications) have been covered extensively in national WP:RS. Agree with ceradon in all but !vote degree and add that the incident passes WP:GNG now and the ongoing coverage is a bonus. Deadbeef 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails WP:EVENT, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, &c. It's one death, in a shoplifting incident. How the heck can that have WP:LASTING historical and encyclopaedic interest? Would someone in 100 years care about this "world-changing" event? No. RGloucester — ☎ 07:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run-of-the-mill police shooting of an armed gunman aiming at a police officer, which is getting some media attention because, coincidentally, it happened just two miles from the Michael Brown shooting and subsequent riots and protests. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cullen328, it is getting media attention because it happened close to the site of the Michael Brown shooting just like the Vonderrit Myers shooting. - SantiLak (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though a bit of a cautious one as this happened days ago and it's impossible to tell if it will continue to get the same level of coverage. I'm also a bit suspicious that this, shooting of John Crawford III and similar articles all got instantaneous WP:NOTNEWS nominations and yet 2014 NYPD officer killings did not. What's that about? Artw (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised it took 11 hours to get our first subtle claim of racism. -- Calidum 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nethertheless I have not seen WP:NOTNEWS argued so feircely for events of such consequence and such coverage as I have over the last few weeks and they have all been shootings by police. Normally it is used for keeping trivial occurrences out, here it seems like something else. Artw (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - right now this passes WP:GNG. Only someone with a magic ball can make judgement about the future level of coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - *whips out crystal ball* It is almost guaranteed that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and others will cover it if/when the officer goes public and there is an indictment trial. I don't know why there is already talk about enduring notability. Let it play out. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So many white-cop-shoots-black-man stories in the news lately that they are too many to count. With this article, does this mean there has to be an article about EVERY similar incident that occurs, post-Michael Brown shooting in the least? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of the article is notable, worthy of notice; significant and interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in General Notability WP:GNG and Events WP:EVENTS. It has received extensive and ongoing coverage in highly reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. There are many informed avenues for developing this article. This event has demonstrated lasting effect, has already had widespread national impact and has been very widely covered in diverse sources (WP:DIVERSE), including 29,000 Google News hits (and 500,000 general Google hits). It has frequently been re-analyzed afterwards. It has already shown WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE / WP:PERSISTENCE. The event shows lasting effects, geographical scope, depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. Maintaining a general article on 2014 police-violence protests and separate articles on notable instances of police violence is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This event is notable by itself. It has created lasting effects. A Google News search of <"Antonio Martin"> sorted by Date reveals articles in reliable sources in almost every day since the shooting. It is false and preposterous to suggest that no media is covering it. (Given the extensive press coverage of this case, from the day it took place until now, to suggest that it be deleted raises questions of WP:BIAS.) The consensus to keep seems strong. It would not be appropriate nor encylopedic to try and combine this and similar cases into just one article. Such an article would be too long and clunky. Not every case needs a separate article, but the most significant ones do, and this event qualifies. The separate topics already have been expanded into longer standalone articles. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles. The standalone articles are not duplicates, they do not overlap in enough ways to warrant merging, they each have significant independent text, and they do not need to be presented together to have sufficient context (as with characters from a novel, per WP:MERGE). 208.54.83.228 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  12:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Carnation murders[edit]

2007 Carnation murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor murder that does not meet WP:EVENT notability criteria, which has had no WP:LASTING effect on anything. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and does not collect endless information on minor crimes that are not encyclopaedic. Has had no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, does not appear in a WP:DIVERSE variety of sources, does not have any WP:DEPTH of coverage, and mentions, even from years ago, are primarily in local press, hence not meeting WP:GEOSCOPE. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where and how? What is the lasting impact? RGloucester — ☎ 04:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a local crime story. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Everyking. source do indicate notability. Once that is established notability does not need to be eternal until present time.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where do "sources indicate notability"? Where are these sources? Did you read our criteria, such as WP:LASTING, WP:DEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? I imagine not. This was never a notable incident. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has, in fact, been continued coverage, as is evident from the story yesterday in the Seattle Times [37] about the jury being selected. This and the other sources I have added to the article since this AFD began also establish the existence of in-depth coverage of this event. Everymorning talk 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. One incidence of routine coverage of jury selection in one local newspaper does not indicate WP:DEPTH or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The event must be covered in WP:DIVERSE sources outside a narrow WP:GEOSCOPE. It must also have a WP:LASTING impact. It has none of these things. Simply open Google News, and it is easy to see this. All one sees is a very few articles in local outlets about routine legal business, nothing more. In fact, one sees many more false hits. There is no "in-depth" coverage. I think you did not read WP:DEPTH, or any of the other criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, but how is the Seattle Times a local newspaper? It's the largest newspaper in its state with 230 thousand readers. JTdaleTalk~ 19:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times, and the New York Times for that matter, also cover local news. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times is a newspaper for a small state in one country, which itself is but a small part of the world. It is a local newspaper. You shan't find The Seattle Times on sale in London or Berlin, shall you? I'm surprised you cannot tell the difference between a national and a local newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is the result of a grossly provincial attitude, and you obviously know nothing about Seattle or its media (and probably as little about the US as well). The Seattle Times is a major American newspaper -- not the first rank, not the NY Times or the Washington Post or the LA Times, but definitely in the level just below. You will find the Seattle Times in London in exactly the same kind of store that you will find the Times of London at in New York City, in an out-of-town newsstand. BMK (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, sir. If it doesn't appear in a diverse variety of sources persistently, it does not meet the criteria. Appearing once or so as a matter of routine reporting in a regional newspaper is neither diverse coverage, nor persistent coverage. I shall have you know that I live in America, so I hardly believe the idea that I "know little" it. Odd that I've never seen the Seattle Times on sale in Edinburgh, when I'm home. Odd. Very odd. Regardless, if it only appears in the Seattle Times on a rare routine basis, that does not demonstrate lasting impact, persistent coverage, or diverse coverage. You've failed. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DAMN!! I missed the new notability requirement that all reliable sources must be available on sale in Edinburgh (a city, incidentally, whose population is only 2/3rds of Seattle's, and whose main paper, the Edinburgh Evening News has a circulation 1/7th that of the Seattle Times). BMK (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said such. There is a reason I don't write articles about parochial crimes in Edinburgh. Likewise, no one should be doing such for any other place either, unless it can be demonstrated that the event meets the criteria of having a lasting impact, appearing in a diverse variety of sources, and having continued coverage in that diverse variety. This event clearly does not meet those criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Everyking. Notability is quite sufficiently established. BMK (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where, exactly? Can you demonstrate where it is "sufficiently established"? I have not seem any such evidence provided. I have listed the criteria, and yet it doesn't seem that anyone has tried to claim that this article actually meets them. Or perhaps you are doing a certain something that can be considered vindictive, and not becoming of someone of your station? If that's the case, I fear I shall have to take action against you. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As with many other aspects of Wikipedia, you clearly do not understand what "notability" means, or when its requirements are met. It's quite obvious that this article easily meets them, and has quite enough referencing from very reliable sources (the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for instance.).

As for "vindictive", if you mean that I have noted your considerable lack of judgment on a number of occasions, as well as your hypocritical behavior and your failure to understand how Wikipedia works and what its basic premise is, and for these reasons decided to take a look to see what other harm you might be doing to the project -- yes, that is true, and it lead me here, and I examined the article and the sources and the evidence and the opinions of others in their comments, and I decided that, once again, you were wrong, hence my opinion that the article should be kept. If you want to "take action" against me for expressing an opinion you don't agree with, that's your privilege, but I'd be surprised if it got any traction, especially considering the way you blithely mutilate and misinterpret Wikiways in order to get the results you want. BMK (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here we go. You have not read WP:EVENT. There are criteria. It must appear in diverse sources, it must have a lasting impact, it must have continued coverage long after the event has ceased, and it must heavily affect a region, group of people, &c. You've not demonstrated how it meets these criteria. It simply doesn't. There is no continuing coverage in diverse sources, and there is no evidence that it has had a lasting impact anywhere, despite the fact that years have passed. I find it hard to take someone seriously that both ignores Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and attacks another editor for no apparent reason other than to be vindictive. You've not examined anything. You are here to make a point. You've made it. I hope you are content with yourself, for it is you who is damaging the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 05:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll be content when the article is kept, as it should be. BMK (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you accuse me of being "partisan". What a lovely world, we all inhabit. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that I have a partisan reason for wanted this article to be kept, as opposed to having examined the evidence and made a judgment based on it? Do you actually read anything you write, or do you use one of those automated gibberish generators where you feed in a bunch of "my dear sirs" and "I shall be compelled to take action" and "I am as my creator made me" and then push the button? BMK (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject fails WP:EVENT and there are currently no policy based arguments for "keep". "Sources indicate keep" suggests that notability is self-evident, but we have guidelines for dealing with topics that are mentioned in the news and WP:EVENT is one of them. This topic clearly does not pass any of its various subsections of that guideline, including WP:LASTING (the murders have not drummed up new legislation, etc.), WP:GEOSCOPE (there is virtually no interest in this outside of the local area), WP:DEPTH (there isn't much to say other than a man and a woman may have killed her family members because her parents wanted them to pay rent... ho hum), WP:PERSISTENCE (the murder/arrest/trial/sentencing/appeal process is essentially one event and no one outside the local area seems to care much), and WP:DIVERSE (notable crimes tend to get coverage beyond the breaking news outside the local area in newspapers, weekly magazines, and books). - Location (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a local crime story, domestic murders are rarely notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 22 December 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, Wifione Message 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a mass murder of six people, not a "minor crime" as the nominator would have it. I have supported deletion of articles about run-of-the-mill killings, but a mass murder is a more encyclopedia-worthy topic than the murder of one or two people, and a subject of ongoing research. The FBI defines "mass murder" as four or more fatalities, and for me, that is a good working threshold. I apply that standard to murders in Scotland as well as Seattle. Earlier today, I expanded an article about a mass murder in China. Location is irrelevant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even bother to read WP:EVENT? "Mass murder" is not "encylopaedia-worthy" unless it meets the WP:EVENT criteria. This does not. Number of deaths has nothing to do with notability. Talk about WP:OR and blatant flouting of our guidelines and policies. People are murdered everyday, and in significant batches too. Deaths are not inherently notable. That's minor, unless it has some wider historical significance for some reason. This does not. No one has demonstrated that this has, and no one has demonstrated that there is any "research" ongoing about this murder. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of murders involve one or two victims, and murders of six at once are relatively rare in comparison. I consider such mass murders notable. My claim is that mass murders in general are researched, and that this encyclopedia should have categories, lists and articles covering them. Yes, I have read the guideline repeatedly. You interpret it stringently and narrowly, where I see it as a guideline rather than as royal writ. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People die. That's a fact of life, as far as I'm aware. Unless the people are important, or the reason they died was important, death is not notable. Murder is not notable, nor is mass murder, unless it is laden with historical meaning. If you want to be a tabloid journalist, go find a newspaper to work for. Until then, please do not insist on keeping rubbish sensationalist articles that exist only to allow people to gawk and gossip at the misfortunes of others. You are polluting the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I insist on nothing, but have simply expressed my interpretation of the notability of this particular topic. I will lose no sleep if it is deleted. If my reasoning is flawed in this case, then it will be discounted by the closing administrator. Your "polluting the encyclopedia" remark says far more about you than it does about me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it says that I like to keep this house in order, free of detritus, dirt, and other rubbish, which should not sully the carpet of a good man's household things. You, on the other hand, are content to live in a dirty pile, it seems. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that The Seattle Times is an RS. That has nothing to do with whether the article meets the WP:EVENT criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought the Seattle Times' credentials as an RS were being questioned when you said this: "The Seattle Times is a newspaper for a small state in one country, which itself is but a small part of the world. It is a local newspaper. You shan't find The Seattle Times on sale in London or Berlin, shall you? I'm surprised you cannot tell the difference between a national and a local newspaper." Vrac (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't a dispute about the reliability of the paper. It was a dispute about whether this event was continually covered in WP:DIVERSE sources over a long period. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG, and the coverage includes national coverage and covers a span of a number of years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meet GNG, and appears to be having sustained coverage. Seattle is a very large place; describing Washington state as a "very small state" is actually factually inaccurate, since it has the 13th largest population of any US state, and, in fact, the 18th largest area of them as well. Now, I'm no expert on American sources, but when you have a newspaper of a neighbouring state (not city) covering this, The Washington Times (can't criticize too much, but the fact this source came out today kinda defeats the WP:EVENT failure argument) and it also gets featured in a Telegraph list about US shootings (hardly in-depth, but the fact it is mentioned in amongst the others in a UK paper says something), it really does seem to not just meet EVENT, but fly through it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:ROUTINE court coverage that doesn't imply encyclopaedic significance. Whether it came out "today" or not doesn't matter, per WP:NOTNEWS. What matters is whether that one article that came out today demonstrates a WP:LASTING historical effect, and whether there is a WP:CONTINUED WP:DEEP coverage in WP:DIVERSE sources. Routine coverage of a trial is sensationalism, and has no bearing on whether to include this in an encylopaedia. Also note that the report you cited is a wire piece from AP, and hence fails WP:DIVERSE, and also WP:DEPTH. RGloucester — ☎ 23:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Washington Times piece goes beyond being simply routine - if you'd read it, you'd know that. Not quite sure what the rubbish you're spouting about AP is about, but each of the things I've cited has come from different news stories, so... Everyone knows what your position is - stop badgering the delete voters, especially as consensus is definitely against you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is against you, because consensus is based in policy. It is routine, and it is merely an AP wire piece, which fails WP:DIVERSE. Again, all of them have come from regional papers, and have been routine court coverage. Nothing more. That fails WP:EVENT. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were correct, then most people in this AfD would've voted to delete as well. They haven't, and you aren't. WP:DROPTHESTICK, and stop badgering delete voters; again, we know what your opinion is, you don't need to keep throwing it into people's faces and demanding they change their votes to inaccurate viewpoints. You aren't even reading the sources properly, for goodness' sake, so how can you claim to be right? Washington Times has a wider circulation than some national papers, just because of the number of people in the state. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because most people are idiots. Anyway, I am reading the sources. That piece was not even written in house. It was an AP wire piece. The Washington Times is a local newspaper to that state. If pieces were persistently appearing in The Times of India, in the BBC, in the ABC, in the CBC, in The Straits Times, The New York Times, that might ensure diverse coverage. Having one AP wire piece that is routine court coverage appear in a regional paper, where the event took place, does not demonstrate WP:DIVERSE coverage. When that AP wire piece makes itself into the online Washington Times, that doesn't mean much. Because, per WP:DIVERSE and WP:DEPTH. Wire pieces do not demonstrate diverse of in-depth coverage. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now you've just made a generic personal attack against people in this AfD. Which destroys any credibility you had. Congratulations! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If RG is to continue quoting policy at fellow editors at every turn, I hope we can respond with reminding him about WP:CIV. "People are idiots" is not how we build consensus, let alone an encyclopedia. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fact of life, isn't it? I think we're all aware that there are idiots in the world. I don't think anyone questions that assertion. I can provide sources to back it up, if you'd like (WP:V, and all that). I don't think there is anything uncivil about acknowledging that there are idiots in this world. It is a simply reality, that we must all stomach if we are to get on in this world. Are you trying to hide from it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now you've descended into being both condescending and a troll at the same time. I think this conversation is done, and you've discredited yourself... again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Policies and guidelines are on my side, in this discussion. No one has demonstrated the WP:LASTING effect of this minor crime, nor WP:DIVERSE and CONTINUED coverage with WP:DEPTH. The fact there are idiots in this world is verifiable. What exactly are you questioning? RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors above have shown continuing coverage, notability which meets GNG, and implied willingness to ensure article retains its balanced and broad content. As above, Washington State is not "very small", which takes away one major column of nominator's reason to delete. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When evaluating whether or not sources are local, please be aware that The Washington Times is published in Washington, DC, nearly 3000 miles from Seattle, Washington. It is not a local source, and neither is The Oregonian. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, both of those are AP wires. They are not stories actually appearing, other than because of the wire. They are not in house. Per WP:DEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE, wire stories do not demonstrate diverse or deep coverage. Specifically, the Oregonian AP wire piece is WP:ROUTINE coverage that cannot be used to establish notability, per WP:DEPTH. It does not include any contextual information, and is simply a passing piece of routine court reporting. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know policy doesn't actually back you up on that, right? All things based on the wire count as one source, yes, but only for each story. Go and actually read the policy before commenting with more inaccurate rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editors in Washington, DC, thousands of miles away, made the editorial decision to run an in-depth article about these murders that happened over seven years ago. Prolonged, repetitive Wikilawyering will not make these murderers less notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One article in one paper from a wire does not make WP:DEPTH. Nothing about what've said is "inaccurate". RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The GNG is not met as suggested in the comments above. All of the sources are primary sources reporting on the details of the crime and investigation and trial, and as per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, they are considered primary sources for our notability guidelines, meaning that there is no secondary coverage of the situation. This also fails NEVENT as there's been no demonstration of long-term significance here (particularly considering the small-town nature of this). Perhaps there is a list article on mass killings that this could be redirected to, but that I don't know, but we should not have a standalone article for this. This is what Wikinews is to handle. --MASEM (t) 06:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's long been established that simple reporting of an event without transformative content (analysis, criticism, etc. ) would be a primary source, and thus you have no secondary sources here. The event further fails NEVENT. As such, deletion is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is right in WP:DEPTH – "In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting". RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester does not mention what WP:NOTABILITY says quite clearly, namely that a topic may deserve an article if "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". It says either/or rather than "both/and". In this case, we have a mass murder of six people, covered by newspapers across the country, with coverage extending over seven years. It qualifies for an article under the General Notability Guideline, widely accepted by almost all active editors. To call reporting of a murder of six people "routine" is as absurd as calling the event a "minor crime". The vast majority of crimes are not murders and the vast majority of murders do not involve six victims. Relatively minor crimes are things like shoplifting, burglaries, drunk driving and barroom fistfights. An encyclopedia with nearly 5 million articles and no need to purchase paper and ink can certainly cover mass murders, which are subject to deep academic interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to demonstrate that this incident is "subject to deep academic interest". You've not done so, nor have you demonstrated deep and continued coverage over seven years. It has nothing to do with purchasing ink. It has to do with tabloid journalism, which is not appropriate for an encylopaedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A murder of six people is routine. People have been murdered since time immemorial. Murder is only notable if the people murdered were significant, if the manner of their murder was significant, or if the murder was a catalyst for some other event. That's not the case here, and no one has demonstrated it as such. It simply does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT.
You've forgotten the most important GNG criteria: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When people say "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I always wonder to myself: "Who said it is?" Everyking (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Another one is WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was news? Everyking (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you support keeping this article, you say so. RGloucester — ☎ 02:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I simply support having encyclopedia articles on notable things, no matter when they occurred. Everyking (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedias do not contain articles on minor crimes. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before being overly-impressed by mention of WP:NOTNEWS, undecided editors should take a look at our Wikipedia Main page, which highlights a section called "In the news", featuring an article about a mass murder as I write. Our main page, our most public and visible face to the world, makes it crystal clear that we DO cover the most important news topics. Then, you can actually read WP:NOTNEWS, which helpfully provides examples of inappropriate news article topics: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Now that we have established that Wikipedia includes articles about notable news topics including mass murders, but not trivial news topics, like routine sports results and celebrity gossip, then we have a grounded basis for evaluating this article. If you truly believe that a mass murder of six people is equivalent to routine announcements about celebrities, then please go ahead and recommend deleting this article. Otherwise, let's keep this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not another !vote) – They are the same, because neither have historical significance. Celebrity gossip, domestic murder...it is all the same sensationalism. "In the news" is in fact very problematic, as most people there do not follow the criteria that it sets for inclusion. It is not supposed to be a showcase for breaking news stories, but that's another kettle of fish. To be clear, no incidents of "mass murder" are currently posted at ITN. In fact, there is an article about a conflict in Assam, whereby around 70–80 people were killed in attacks by militants. That's hardly the same thing as a domestic murder, as it has political and historical implications. India is deploying roughly 10,000 soldiers in response, demonstrating a clear WP:LASTING effect. I can't believe you are even making this comparison. Were 10,000 soldiers dispatched to the scene of this murder? RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is as absurd as it would be if you nominated for deletion every article about an event that did not involve deploying 10,000 soldiers. Would deploying 8,000 soldiers be enough for you? Making that comparison is equivalent to comparing William Henry Harrison to Abraham Lincoln. Of course, the first president I mentioned is nowhere near as important or significant as the second president I mentioned. But both deserve an article in this encyclopedia. Please be aware that one of Wikipedia's main functions is assembling, linking, listing and categorizing various topics to assist and facilitate academic research. Here is a survey article Mass murder, shooting sprees and rampage violence: Research roundup that makes it clear that the study of mass murders is important in academia. We ought to help not hinder such research by keeping and writing articles about mass murders, and a wide range of other topics of academic interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't include articles in news stories just because they are in the news, but because they have had some type of significant influence of the world at large, having some type of long and wide-ranging effect. A basic crime like this is neither case. This doesn't prevent listing it and a link to basic news reference in a list of crimes page, but we shouldn't have a full article on it. Note that the line is not always objective, and can be disputed, but this is a situation far from that gray zone, below the normal inclusion guidelines for WP. Wikinews, perhaps, but not an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you recommend Wikinews, I assume that you referring to the long failed project that ranks 47,420 on Alexa, and has published a grand total of 80 news articles in 2014? Or was it another "Wikinews" that you were recommending, Masem? Because it would be a ridiculous recommendation otherwise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews is only failed when people don't opt to use it when their content is rejected on Wikipedia. There are a lot of people that do a good job of working on crowd-sourced reporting that their efforts are misplaced when they write at the encyclopedia. And a further benefit is that Wikinews stories can be transcluded back into en.wiki if the story gains notability after the fact. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please provide sources showing that this particular crime is of "importance" in academia, or has been the subject of research. As I said before, Wikinews is too highbrow. Go to News of the World! RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the mildness of your recent opposition, RGloucester. Perhaps with hard work I might be taken off your "idiot" list? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear...I don't keep a list. I merely assume that humans are programmed for idiocy. RGloucester — ☎ 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it has current (28 Dec 2014) national news coverage even, [38]. Dicklyon (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AP's version is also playing across the country [39]. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AP's version remains a primary source (there's no analysis or criticism about the case, and definitely not from the AP that doesn't engage in that type of journalism most of the time). --MASEM (t) 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't, and all your attempt at backing up your claim did was make it look like it might be routine, not primary. I've never seen anyone, anywhere consider an AP-based source as "primary", other than you in your desperate attempts to delete this article. You and Gloucester are as bad as each other. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no transformation of information here, no commentary of any type; the article simply states that they have their jury now and the trial is going forward, which is routine for any criminal court case. That fails our requirements for secondary sources for the purposes of notability. This is all described in existing policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage over a significant period of time. The article should be expanded to cover the court process since the murders which reached the state supreme court. I am firmly not one of the editors who say "Some editors consider narrative news reports to be primary sources rather than secondary sources." as the WP:EVENT guideline says. Davewild (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 07:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S the One[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Random86 (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (report) @ 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Do we still have to vote since it's now marked for speedy deletion?) The two sources, Star News and TV Report (via Naver) are gossip/PR sites. No songs released. No evidence of any activity ever. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Asdklf; (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to St. Andrew's Priory School. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Emma Preschool[edit]

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

Unlike high schools, preschools are not inherently notable. A Google search fails to find enough significant or reliable coverage for this one preschool. A possible mention in Honolulu's article (possibly including a redirect) or something similar should suffice. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate any degree of notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I could not find any references to show notability. If we keep this though we can have possibly 110,000 future preschool articles. I suspect that articles like The College Preparatory School, that shows 61 references and a very quick glance of near 50% reference puffery and St. Andrew's Priory School with no references are in the same classification. WOW! I wish I hadn't saw this now because of all the "junk" school related articles. Otr500 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to St. Andrew's Priory School. Delete per the above lack of sourcing, though "St. Andrew's Priory School" is a valid redirect, as an affiliated school. I would say that the delete is not even necessary and to go straight for the R, but it's easier with consensus to do this. czar ⨹ 17:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, probably to St. Andrew's Priory School, an article which describes the Queen Emma Preschool as one of its parts (in "Academics" section). But, per http://www.standrewsschools.org/, Queen Emma Preschool and St. Andrew's Priory (girls only) are 2 of 3 of the St. Andrew's Schools which also includes boys school. Preschool probably serves both the others. But redirect to girls-only one still seems okay as a choice. (By the way, negative comments above about St. Andrew's Priory School seems off-base; as the article states that the school was founded in 1867 by Queen Emma, wife of one of the Kamehameha kings; it is clearly important in Hawaiian history.) The Queen Emma Preschool article currently gives, in its infobox, http://www.standrewsschools.org/ as its webpage. Within that clicking on Queen Emma Preschool and further does not lead one to any mention when the pre-school was started. It was named for, not created by, Queen Emma. --doncram 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Moby-Dick#Themes. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And not a very well-written one. The whole thing is quite unclear, so ESSAY right now is an appropriate guide for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am finding some sources that discuss this concept and show that the idea of this theme (and its specific chapter) is taught in classes, ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]) but so far I'm undecided on whether or not it needs its own individual article as opposed to a mention in an existing subsection or a separate subsection by itself. I'd have to really go through the sources to see how much it is mentioned, but it does deserve a mention somewhere. What I can say is that this would need to almost be completely re-written for clarity if we do decide to make it into its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selected information to Moby-Dick#Themes and redirect. This is a specific theme that is taught and highlighted in various classrooms, but I'm somewhat against this having its own individual section outside of the main article for the book. This can really be boiled down to a few sentences about how the entire chapter and theme is a metaphor for various property laws and for the idea of nature favoring the strong. Anything more than that would run dangerously close to be original research and while I do think that there is potential merit in having an article that deals specifically on the themes in Moby-Dick, this article isn't really the right way to do it. Even with my cleaning it still has some serious issues and it really needs the touch of someone familiar with the work or more familiar with how these terms are used- especially in the legal world, as these terms/concepts seem to be of particular importance there. This technically has enough sourcing to argue for its own article, but I still somewhat think that this would do best as a merge and redirect. I would, however, argue that the history be left intact so someone can improve this if they choose to do so. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. As a plausible redirect to Moby Dick, this article is not eligible for deletion (WP:R). Dozens of results in GBooks. James500 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... the article is actually eligible for deletion because it exists as an article at this point in time and the argument here is whether or not the concept is really notable enough to remain as an article independent of the main article for the book. The thing is, an article can be deleted and then a redirect created after the fact. Or the AfD can close as "redirect with history". Just arguing for the article to remain because it could potentially redirect to the main article isn't really an argument for inclusion. I can't tell if you're arguing for a "redirect with history" or if you're arguing to keep the article in question since you aren't really properly citing policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained at the AfD for A Throne of Bones, if the page name is a plausible redirect, the only way the page could be deleted is if the entire page history meets the criteria for revision deletion, otherwise the worst possible result is a BLAR. I haven't decided whether the article should be kept or redirected, only that I can't see any grounds for deletion. I would have thought that it was obvious that "do not delete" means "keep or merge". James500 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily- you have to understand that nowadays the argument "do not delete" or "not valid for deletion" is almost always used by people to argue that an article be kept "as is", meaning that it not be deleted and not redirected. In many cases it's used by people who came into an article without any real prior Wikipedia experience. Whatever the term used to mean or was used in the past, in my experience this is used almost solely by people arguing for an article to be kept, no deletions and no redirects. That's why I asked for further explanation, because with that in mind it seemed like you had been arguing for the article to have been kept based on the then current sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Used to mean? The literal meaning of that expression has not changed and cannot change just because some people either don't understand the difference between deletion and redirection or can't speak English properly. James500 (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is loaded with good references and has clearly been discussed a good deal in its own right. Everyking (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move: to Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish (law), and if that is not within the scope of an Afd then Merge to '"Moby Dick".
  • Comments: The title name is about a sentence in a chapter in a particular book. If we are going to separate the two then we must show autonomy by delineation (Notability) because it is not inherited. Do we have Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish (Moby Dick) or Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish (law)? There is the references in the article: #1)- Law: "JSTOR", #2)- Need a "VCU eID", #3)- Not a good reference, #4)- Law: "Concise Introduction to Property Law", #5)- Law: "Vermont Law Review" (“He who has got it gets to keep it..." p.47), #6)- About the book; "The Book as Artefact, Text and Border", #7)- About the book?, #8)- Law: Melville's Bibles; "The question of possession", #9)- Either: "No, I am not a loose-fish and neither are you". Suggested references by Tokyogirl79. #1)- About the book: but does present information about Dead white men, #2)- About the book: not a great reference, #3)- Law: who owns the baseball, #4)- N/A: Same as 5 above, #5)- Law: "Concise Introduction to Property Law", #6)- N/A: Included above, #7) N/A: Same as 8 above , #8)- Not a good reference.
The references: The vast majority point to the title as viewed from the standpoint of "Law". It does not matter if this is wording from a particular book. That can be shown in the lead. Otr500 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reba Shahid[edit]

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

Couldn't find references. Doesn't look notable enough to warrant entry on WP. Saqib (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to find it tough when the author is an Urdu (or any non-English) journalist, in the audio format and/or an editor whose byline might not be as visible online. All three apply here. fredericknoronha (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this shows some results [48] but they are mostly written by the journalist rather than on her and that makes this article OR. However, this seems to be of value [49] though it is not enough alone to establish notability. But I think a week keep might be in order if there are more of these. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no indication of enough independent reliable sources for even the most basic notability, much less enough to support an accurate BLP. --RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Schneider Organization[edit]

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

Article cited exclusively to primary sources and broken links. A search of the leading trade magazine, PR Week, does not result in any hits to suggest notability.[50] Poking around a little bit, there is some possibility that the founder may be notable enough for a page, but that is a discussion for another time. CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see how this is anything more than a very run of the mill public relations company, one of thousands. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:02, 27 December 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. NorthAmerica1000 06:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor Communications[edit]

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

Promotional article tagged for notability since more than a year ago. Citations used are not reliable or do not actually contain much information on the company. A quick search at the leading trade magazine, PRWeek, confirms user:Peter James' comment on the Talk page; the founder may have a shot at notability, but the company does not. A discussion for another day. CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:NOTINHERITED. While the founders' book is notable, their business is clearly not even close to being notable per WP:CORPDEPTH; I don't see any significant analysis of the company in reliable sources. The cites given are to blogs, press releases, a social media site, conference reports (possibly self-reported biographies), and the the company's website. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Bearian. The subject's business venture is not notable. A large portion of the article is about the founders, while another large section provides a laundry list of clients without any analysis. I eat BC Fish (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't see independent coverage of this company so it doesn't meet the coverage requirements of WP:GNG.75.150.214.113 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Mamou-Mani[edit]

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

A very new article alleged to be A7 eligible, however this guys won a few awards and has some publicity; enough, I think, to warrant an afd rather than csd for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should stay, he has won awards and he is very notable for a Wikipedia article. His work(s) make him notable and I advise that this article stays! He also did a TedX speech, so that also makes him notable! Hopefully, editors will come to an agreement, that this article should stay. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
  • Keep : I fully support the exercice motivating tech revolutions. Now, I'm sorry to say the 5 sources are either MMani' website, MMani's platform, MMani's special school award, or MMani's appliance for the Black Rock "outdoor, poor quality sound" TEDX experience. Make no mistake, this guy is cool, but you're not helping him in having him banished in 6 months from WP, for "Total" lacking of Secondary sources, which he will obviously be afterwards. Actually, he should be at the state of Draft to give him the proper time to make a perfect page without risking the deletion process.KratorOne (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@KratorOne: -- I just wanted to tell you cussing on Wikipedia is not appropriate, and secondly, Its fine if the article is deleted, but if there is more secondary sources I can find about Arthur, I will be adding them to his article as references. Thanks!! CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
You're absolutely right. I changed the sentence.KratorOne (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So who's going to make the final decision if the article stays or leaves? --CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
I added the category : 3D printers on MM's page. I will change my vote, if MM gets the sources needed, as we can find them on Adrian Bowyer, Bre Pettis and 3D printers pages, as The New York Times, The Guardian or Wired, which are the true confirmations of notability. Have you found this kind of sources ? KratorOne (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@KratorOne: Hi Guys, I have added several sources which I hope you will find valid enough, Forbes, Wired, Develop3D, Karen Millen's website, World Architecture News, Hypecask3D Printers, ARUP Associates. I also added another project which used laser-cutting to show the different use of tech in my practice. I hope the article can stay now. In any case, it is an honour that someone thought i deserved an article here and it made my parents very proud so thank you CookieMonster755. --mamoumani (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2014 (GMC)mamoumani
Forbes is a good example of what is considered as a reliable source (secondary source) but blogs are traditionally erased automatically. Now, you will face the second problem with the sources. They have to be centered on the person concerned. What is needed here is a full portrait of MM in this kind of magazine. Can you find it ?KratorOne (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@KratorOne: Thanks a lot. I was interviewed very recently in Shanghai Daily, which is an important printed and online newspaper in China, where I did my last 3D Printed project. I have added the link as well as the two main exhibitions that I did in China and the UK with links too. --mamoumani (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2014 (GMC)mamoumani
Fine with me. Welcome on board, captain ! ;-)KratorOne (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So who makes the choice of removing the deletion tag? CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 18:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @KratorOne: Are you Mamou-Mani? The "I was interviewed...." and the fact that KratorOne is an SPA on that article sure looks like a WP:COI issue. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. I was quite against MM's validity in the beginning. But we have to admit the sources are now serious enough to accept him on WP.KratorOne (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough reliable sources, can we remove the deletion tag? CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
No. The deletion tag is not to be removed until the discussion here is closed by an admin, and that takes a week - sometimes more if the discussion needs more input. Just be patient and let this run its course, it'll be over before you know it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply TomStar81 — CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sources suffer from either a lack of independence, significant coverage, or reliability. I don't think a Ted talk guarantees a wikipedia article. Entertaining puppet conversations though. Vrac (talk) 01:58, 27 December 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, CookieMonster755 11:09, 04 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica1000 06:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The HeavyTrackerz[edit]

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

The phrase "you're a parasite, and this interview is terminated" springs to mind. The only reason I'm not CSDing this is because it contained a claim that they had won the "best grime act" at the Mobo Awards; upon investigation, I learned MC Stormzy had won it and the claim was based on the fact that this group had produced an album of his. It has since been removed. Otherwise, no indication of notability and I think this needs being deleted and salted. Launchballer 20:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The HeavyTrackers are clearly of note as they have produced two of the biggest Grime records of the year. Both of which won awards at the MOBOs. Perhaps it was interpreted it incorrectly but it was stated that Stormzy won this award and The HeavyTrackerz were the producers. They have significant production and writing credits on other songs which will be added in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Insanity (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 27 December 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. Davewild (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karussell[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources to establish notability. —Swpbtalk 21:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but... - The English page and the German pages need more work. If the German Wiki page that describe their discography is correct, they have been prolific, and therefore notable. The German Wiki also needs better third party sources. Suggest simply tagging and see what happens... Dinkytown talk 16:32, 13 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agree that the article needs attention but this is a well-known band in the German-speaking world. Vrac (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I added two references, one of them in Das Bild. There are clearly more references available around, and the group easily passes WP:GNG--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Gnosticism. czar ⨹ 17:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early Gnosticism[edit]

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

No source since 2007 and irrelevant article since Christian Gnosticism & Gnosticism already exist, also, failed WP:GNG grounds. JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - not sure about this one. There are plenty of sources that talk about "early Gnosticism" but they don't directly relate to what this article purports to cover. It's not really clear exactly what this article would cover, were it to cover anything properly, or whether such an article would be made redundant by the articles Christian Gnosticism and Gnosticism. There are plenty of sources for Pre-Christian Gnosticism which we don't have an article for but this wouldn't seem to be that either. Interested to see what others have to say. St★lwart111 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not
  • Delete and redirect to Gnosticism per nominators argument that the topic is already covered and this is not referenced, but it is also a possible search term worth redirecting. JTdaleTalk~ 03:51, 27 December 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. czar ⨹ 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move with You[edit]

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

Literally nothing here to suggest notability at all. MaranoFan (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Doesn't meet WP:NSONG in any regard. It is not "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." and just as importantly it doesn't meet the criteria that "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." There's simply no indication on the Wikipedia page or elsewhere that there's enough of significance about this song to fill an article. DiscantX (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was going to suggest redirecting to Jacob Banks (singer)#Singles. However, there's a hatnote on the page that links to Pork Tornado (album). The article name is vague, and might be better as a disambiguation page. I'm not quite sure which one would be better in this case. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cannot establish that the subject meets GNG or NSONG. I don't believe a dab page is called for as there would be zero extant articles on songs by that name after deletion. As there is not a primary topic, a simple deletion is probably the correct move here. Deadbeef 01:04, 27 December 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Glieson[edit]

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

Does not meet Basic criteria of notability for Biographical articles. Does not meet additional notability criteria for Entertainers. This article is also maintained solely by Ben Jackson, who is closely related either romantically or professionally to Katja Glieson. As a result this article exist as self promotion and therefore should be removed. StePAhi (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have a strong feeling this is a bad faith nomination based on the nominator's behavior (repeatedly restoring a PROD tag after being told multiple times that isn't how it works), possibly due to frustration "their article" was deleted. Regardless, Glieson is quite clear notable based on the numerous RS in the article and those found by a quick search. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:BADFAITHONOM. User's article was AfD'ed and has no editing history. It seems like this article was picked out of WP:SPITE in order to justify deletion of other article. As for this AfD: weak article but notability is met and WP:RS's are adequate. Article can be improved and WP:COI can be resolved.-☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bad faith nom or not, the bulk of the sources in the article are junk, and those that are reliable only briefly discuss a video that the subject was in. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources from a web search. If I'm missing something please point out such coverage. --Michig (talk) 14:22, 26 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is there, Just needs a lot of tidying and needs alot of the promo crap removed - As an aside - I would fix the cite titles but I sure as shit aint fixing 35 cites manually only for it to be deleted..... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:59, 27 December 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. The nominator proposed redirection, a non-deletion action, and no one has !voted to delete this, so I am closing per SK1. From here, the article can be redirected through the BRD process or expanded; I'll leave that decision up to individual editors. (non-admin closure) –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the article was redirected to Gabrielle Leithaug a few moments after the ridiculous close above.--NØ 09:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 fine frøkner[edit]

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

No sources. Unlikely to ever grow out of a stub. The chart position can easily be made available through the artist's page. Redirect to Gabrielle Leithaug#Singles. MaranoFan (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 5 fine frøkner by Gabrielle was also performed at the Nobel Price Concert this year. I am sure it is possible to expand the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gabrielle Leithaug where this information is already included, along with the correct chart peak. --Michig (talk) 17:36, 26 December 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. Davewild (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raphoe Hockey Club[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 December 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete amateur club with no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 24 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:26, 27 December 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. czar ⨹ 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ihab Messiha[edit]

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

Most likely fails WP:GNG. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should have been speedied as it's just his CV/advert. Delete his promotional photo while you're at it. JFW | T@lk 21:51, 20 December 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, Deadbeef 00:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or any other relevant notability guideline; this was the only coverage of him I could find in a reliable source and it's not enough on its own. Everymorning talk 03:15, 27 December 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--withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 04:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mi primer amor[edit]

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

Unremarkable telenovela. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable stars and network involved. No doubt sufficient (pre-internet) press covered it, but cannot be found - a counter to recentism, where every new tv show and even those which haven't aired get articles because sources are easily found on the internet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 December 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, Deadbeef 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I withdraw my nomination. If anyone sees this and wants to close, they can. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 December 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. Wrong venue - please take to WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 16:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Board of Ophthalmology[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG - Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 27 December 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. No prejudice to an early recreation in case sources can be found. Wifione Message 05:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteen Sound[edit]

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

This article was at CSD, but the company has been listed at List of loudspeaker manufacturers (albeit tenuously) and the phrase "develops ... for many major pro-audio speaker brands" suggested there might be sources out there than can prove notability. While there are lots and lots and lots of hits, I can't see anything that is obviously both significant and independent coverage whatsoever. I was expecting to find at least something like a review in Sound on Sound, but there doesn't seem to be anything at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 December 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, j⚛e deckertalk 21:44, 19 December 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, Rcsprinter123 (cackle) @ 20:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Only other article on them I could find was this. JTdaleTalk~ 04:18, 27 December 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 BIODEL Wifione Message 05:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wilkes[edit]

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

Non-notable dog trainer lacking non-trivial independent support. reddogsix (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:45, 19 December 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, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 20:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the sources in the article don't get him past GNG and I couldn't find anything else out there that would. Vrac (talk) 03:12, 27 December 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. ...or rather, Soft Delete, as Schmidt mentions (I've never used the term for closing any AfD, but it works). No prejudice to an early recreation in case reliable sources come up confirming to NFF. Wifione Message 05:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naach (2014 film)[edit]

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

The article was started in 2013 stating it will release in that year but it was moved to "Naach (2014 film)" but still the film is not released. No confirmation whether it is filming, or in post-production, since 2 years no news about it. UBStalk 12:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fairly certain no one has any idea when the film will be released, Pointless the article going from "Naach (2014 film)", "Naach (2015 film)", "Naach (2016 film)" etc etc so per WP:CRYSTAL it should probably be deleted. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without year: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer/director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Soft delete without prejudice for now, and ignore earlier optimistic years. Even though Express Tribune shares that trailer has been released,[51] [52] and the topic IS getting coverage, we can wait until principal filming has been confirmed and more sources become available. More, a refunded or recreated article will have to have the proper release year, obviously. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Fails WP:NFF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_December_27&oldid=1142629455"