Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 December	1 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Grosu (entertainer)[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON. As of yet, this artist does not have significant coverage, and therefore fails WP:GNG. A quick internet search reveals nothing more than the artist's social media accounts. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 20:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 20:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 20:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unsourced BLP, child actor with no credits + a song which ranked tenth in an unnotable competition, no claim of notability, WP:A7 eligible in my view. Cavarrone 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:19, 7 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ROTP[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete — A quick Google search didn't reveal anything remotely relevant that wasn't on DeviantArt. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 02:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't find any significant coverage through a Google search. Altamel (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole game is still concept. It's going to be a long while before it's notable. Mattwheatley (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game. Instead of WP:RS a Facebook page and Deviantart page are listed as references. Fails WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 16:55, 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 Deleted - article created by a banned user. Keegan (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phibian Mike[edit]

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

Looks like a failed development project. There is nothing in any of the references from 6 and 3 years ago that support anything about a series being picked up. The first reference purporting to support a pickup mentioned nothing about this series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this is anything but a vapor project. The claim that the series is going to premiere in Fall 2015 is not adequately sourced. Per WP:BEFORE there are no Google News articles on this or Google Books references available. Probable hoax. It may have been planned at one time, but there is no new reliable information about it that I can find. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 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. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Nigras[edit]

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

It may be noted that I have already nominated this article for deletion in the past. It is important to note that I am not bias for or against this group however as an editor and keen contributor I do feel that this Article in some sense undermines Wikipedia principles. My main reason for nominating this article for deletion is because I sincerely believe that the topic is not notable and does not encompass a wide range of discussion which would interest general readers.

Despite the fact the Patriotic Nigras are mentioned in name by media outlets and some lesser known researchers I do not believe that this alone make a topic or organisation "notable." The page is simply about a group which has been known to "troll" and "grief" on popular social media websites. Their exploits may have drawn public attention and researchers attention however, again this doesn't prove the group is notable.

I argue that this group is simply a small selection of unknown persons who disrupt online virtual worlds, this is something anyone can do and stand together with a so called "group" and claim responsibility. That group may then go onto receiving minor media coverage by local news outlets and then could go onto making a Wikipedia page which in fact further glorifies their actions.

I do not believe Patriotic Nigras serves any academic, research or public interest and therefore an article on Wikipedia is inappropriate. olowe2011 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Delete -Their presence is verifiable, but not notable by WP:ORG. The article reads like a rap sheet of their antics and also has some WP:NPOV issues (mainly from WP:UNDUE) that I don't think will go away—this is a minor article's fifth AfD. The majority of the sources are not reliable and some are self-published. While I admire the attempt to document and memorialize this piece of Internet culture, now is not the time or place olowe2011 (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Olowe2011: Per the WP:Guide to deletion: Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations. (emphasis mine) -- In other words, please don't issue another bolded !vote after nominating (you are, of course, welcome to comment along the way, though). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is supported in depth by multiple independent reliable sources. It clearly meets the general notability guidelines. I don't understand the argument that although the group has drawn the attention of the media and academic researchers it still isn't notable. How are you defining notability? -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable. A OP says, article does not serve any academic, research or public interest. It's just offensive trolling nonsense. Some offensive trolling nonsense could rise to the level of notability, I suppose. These dudes don't. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by that? What makes you think that the article's topic holds no academic, research or public interest? The sources presented in the article in its current state clearly demonstrate that the topic is the subject of numerous academic and news articles. I'm unclear about what standard of notability you and the nom are applying here. -Thibbs (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article does not serve any academic, research or public interest - According to who? The nomination even points out that they've been written about by academic researchers, and even if not, that's for the secondary sources to determine not for us. It's just offensive trolling nonsense - Again, it's not for us to decide what's "just" anything when determining notability -- it's importance comes from the coverage it receives not the subject itself. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur with Thibbs, I'm not sure how exactly the nominator or the "delete" !votes are defining notability. The article has many third party reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. That's all that's needed, and that's what is already present in the article. I don't mean to make bad-faith assumptions, but the people in favor of deletion's rationale seems to border more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like or condone this sort of activity from internet trolls either, but I also know that that has no bearing on Wikipedia's standard of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - I completely agree with Thibbs and Sergecross73. Furthermore, this decision, from a prior AfD nom, still applies. Also, olowe2011, just out of curiosity, which of the sources are "self-published" and what made you come to such a conclusion? GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 4 previous nominations, 4 keeps, and seemingly no new information here. Presented are two reasons for deletion: (1) the topic is not notable and (2) does not encompass a wide range of discussion which would interest general readers.. The second is of absolutely no consequence to AfD -- that's what maintenance templates and editing are for. As for notability, it is defined by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. There's no argument, as I perceive here, that there is significant coverage in reliable sources but they aren't notable (of course, subjects that are notable are sometimes deleted for a variety of other reasons). Notability -- and Wikipedia in general -- is indifferent to judgments like, for example, the article is simply about a group which has been known to "troll" and "grief" on popular social media websites or that this group is simply a small selection of unknown persons who disrupt online virtual worlds, this is something anyone can do. The activities of the subject have nothing to do with notability. It isn't the case that we have an article on them because they troll/grief, which indeed anyone can do at any time; we have an article about them because of the coverage they've received when they did so, which not everyone has. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's somewhat remarkably well sourced given the subject matter, surely passes notability requirements as it has in the past. The remaining deletion arguments smell like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.LM2000 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the keeps above. The article is clearly WP:GNG and perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (6th nomination) should be WP:SALTed. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - as this is the fifth nomination, and all the previous nominations have resulted in keeping the article, perhaps repeatedly re-nominating it isn't a wise idea. As I quote from the nomination, "Despite the fact the Patriotic Nigras are mentioned in name by media outlets [...] I do not believe that this alone make[s] a topic or organisation "notable" - err, sorry, but yes it does. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:42, 7 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 keep. Nominator is requesting merging, not deletion. Please read WP:MERGEINIT. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Discovery Kids[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because I feel that the contents of this article should be merged into List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family. However, I would like your input on this matter: will it be too confusing for readers, or is it a smart move?

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason as stated above:

Elec tric Burst^{(Is there anything you need of me?)} 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricburst1996: If you're asking for a merge proposal, withdraw this nomination and follow the instructions at WP:MERGEINIT. (See WP:BEFORE.) 23W 09:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 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. Primary policies and guidelines cited for deletion: WP:V, WP:N, WP:SCHOOL (WP:ORG). No policies or guidelines cited as rationale for retention. slakr^\ talk / 21:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redbridge International Academy[edit]

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

Unreffed article on a school only established last year. Notability very questionable - almost A7 material. Also some suspicion of creation by a paid editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Red Bridge International Academy was WP:CSD#G11 deleted a month ago. This article was recreated a few hours later. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 17 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 (indicate) @ 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does show a history of secondary schools being kept at AfD, but it is a bit different with articles on newly-created schools where it is WP:TOOSOON. Essentially WP:Notability (high schools) still need to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and this doesn't. I would redirect to school district or similar page, but this is orphaned and has no obvious redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 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, -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I know the standards for schools are meant to be lower, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how this would even pass WP:V. NickCT (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Whilst most have been kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES those generally had some form of notability ..... but this doesn't ... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep It is very soon, considering the school was only opened on June 8, 2013. However, it is a secondary school, which has a history of being kept, and I'm finding a couple mentions of it that aren't on the school's own website or facebook page; although they look to be very promotional in nature. Also found a parent's review, and a very angry parent. These seem to verify that the school at least exists. However, they aren't exactly reliable sources to establish notability. So, yeah, I'm saying keep just because it's a secondary school, but it's a weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:11, 9 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feilo Meloy[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Being ranked sixth in some very minor promotion doesn't show notability. Coverage is routine sports reporting which means he also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name doesn't sound Polish, for what it's worth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not he's Polish is irrelevant. The point is that he has no top tier fights and doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:00, 28 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, -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous comments. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 7 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. See my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patryk Tracz SpinningSpark 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Solano[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The article has 18 sources, but the out of 6 I checked, 3 don't mention the subject, two do in passing, and one seems to have a broken link. The article is primarily based on sources discussion companies and business enterprises the subject was involved in, and is not even focused much on the subject in the body. It seems like a spam piece, through whether for the subject, product or a company, I am not sure. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to pass any relevant notability requirements. PS. This article is shares almost all of the content with Patryk Tracz (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patryk Tracz) and Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur))... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, page maker here. I think merging them all to a page for "The Committee" would be a good option (maybe on the life in color page), using the same guideline used for bandmembers; I went ahead and made three new separate pages (similar to the original Lukasz Tracz one), just because I didn't predict the research would be so similar, but except Solano they turned out almost all the same. I do think all 4 independently pass the GNG for company founders (per if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), so I wouldn't agree with deleting any info overall. Earflaps (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's detailed rationale. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 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 15:28, 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, -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted this debate due to there being no discussion here since the last relist, which was a week ago. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:31, 31 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. I realise that an editor has just done a third relsit of this but I am deleting anyway. Earflaps complains that the nominator has only reviewed one third of the refs , but fails to point to any of them that might actually establish notabiity. I conclude that there aren't any and it is wasting everyone's time to keep this open. Earflaps, if you can actually point to such sources come and speak to me on my talk page. SpinningSpark 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Tracz[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The article has 18 sources, but the out of 6 I checked, 3 don't mention the subject, two do in passing, and one seems to have a broken link. The article is primarily based on sources discussion companies and business enterprises the subject was involved in, and is not even focused much on the subject in the body. It seems like a spam piece, through whether for the subject, product or a company, I am not sure. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to pass any relevant notability requirements. PS. This article is shares almost all of the content with Sebastian Solano (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Solano) and Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur))... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, page maker here. I think merging them all to a page for "The Committee" would be a good option (maybe on the life in color page), using the same guideline used for bandmembers; I went ahead and made three new separate pages (similar to the original Lukasz Tracz one), just because I didn't predict the research would be so similar, but except Solano they turned out almost all the same. I do think all 4 independently pass the GNG for company founders (per if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), so I wouldn't agree with deleting any info overall. Earflaps (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, Piotr, u only reviewed 1/3 of the sources before nominating for deletion? o_0 is that normal? Earflaps (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's detailed rationale. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 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, -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted this debate due to there being no discussion here since the last relist, which was a week ago. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:30, 31 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shams Tunisie[edit]

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

Unknown organization and no Notability, the only source also talking about LGBT in Tunisia, not about it (The Organization name "Shams" not including in article), and when I search in web I didn't find any other references (You can check), no media coverage or any news Ibrahim.ID »» 16:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable independents sources are needed to establish the wp:notability. There are none. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) @ 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm having trouble finding any secondary coverage at all. There's an obvious language barrier with most of the sources, though, which makes me wonder if there's another name the organization goes by or if it's WP:TOOSOON (or if it's simply a WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG fail). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the article, they originally went by "Pour la dépénalisation de l'homosexualité en Tunisie" - for which one can find some sources (though perhaps not enough for WP:N) Wily D 13:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while laudable, this appears to be a small movement. Bearian (talk) 06:25, 7 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 a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering Sharon[edit]

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

Non-notable play, with only two cited performances. Author does not have article either. TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Heavily biased article about a non-notable play written by a non-notable playwright about a non-notable event. --Mr. Guye (talk) 16:34, 31 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 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Party (Kosovo)[edit]

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

I almost tagged this for speedy deletion per A7. I can't find anything that supports this party's existence, let alone its notability, other than a few wiki clones. Even assuming it does exist, 10.5 votes? The only reason I'm taking it to AfD is because I'm not good at searching foreign sources. Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; zero evidence of existence found. Creator blocked, seems there are some other possible hoaxes as well. --Soman (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 10.5 votes would be short-hand for 10,500. In Europe the period rather than comma is used that way. --do ncr am 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even in Europe it varies from country to country, but 10,500 in America and Britain would be 10 000,500 in some countries and 10.000,500 in others. There are other variations as well. I don't really see 10.5 being shorthand for 10,500; do you have a source for that? Not that it matters much in terms of whether we keep or delete the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; This party does not exist. There is a Independent Liberal Party whose leader is not Don Salihu. Also no parties gained 10.5% or 10,500 votes only in the last elections. This party together with the others who are under AfD are all hoax.Stepojevac (talk) 21:25, 6 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 04:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreyCampus[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. WP:SPA creator removed prod; seems like promotion. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing project management, then Six Sigma, then ITIL - really just setting out a firm's wares. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) turn up no evidence that they are notable. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article tone is completely promotional and full of weasel words. Would have to fully rewritten, and no sources establish notablity. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 20:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick search turns up little beyond their own press and promo. Even their own press releases are lackluster. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find sources in WP:RS with information about this company. Almost a WP:CSD#G11 candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:30, 6 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. slakr^\ talk / 21:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carl Marci[edit]

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

Unsalvageable advertisement. —Swpb^talk 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE. He's hardly mentioned in several of the sources cited, such as the New York Times, Boston.com, and Psychology Today. In a few of the sources, he and his ideas are not even mentioned: see the Wall Street Journal, Ad Age, Media Week, and Popular Science. That makes me want to throw WP:AGF out the door. Only one source actually quotes Marci more than once: the Wired article. Even then, they really just quote him, and don't even describe (except in geek-jargon) what makes him notable. It's possible that a decent stub could be created, but this needs a lot more work. Right now, a reasonable argument could be made to blow it up and start over. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete – On Google Scholar there are a couple of papers with one or two hundred cites, but it declines rapidly after that. And they are for his early work, not the advertising related work in the cites. The memberships and advertising industry lectures and awards don't meet WP:PROF. This article was created by the author of Innerscope Research, around the same time. I thought that article was far more interesting. He should concentrate on improving that. The basic affiliation information from this article could be moved there. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 21:42, 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, Mr.Z-man 17:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:PROF and I see no other basis for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Long, Ernie (1987-06-18). "Parkland's Marci Has More Goals". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Carl Marci could answer that question with a resounding, "Yes!"
  The former Parkland High School senior, who graduated sixth out of his class of 460 on Sunday, sports a 3.998 GPA, and seems to have reached the peak as he is attending Columbia University in the fall, led the basketball team in scoring and rebounding, holds the school record in the high jump and won a medal at states last month.
  In recognition of these accomplishment's, and several others, he was recently named the Most Outsanding Senior Athletic Male and Outstanding Scholastic Male at the East Penn Conference school.
  ...
  Academically, Marci received an award as the Outstanding Scholasitc Male during Academic Awards night. In his high school career he garnered an A in every class, every semester, until a recent B in health class spoiled the string.
  It may be tough to maintain that level of success at an Ivy League school like Columbia, especially in Pre-Med. But the president of Parkland's National Honor Society welcomes the challenge.
  "I'm really interested in the sciences and physics and maybe one of the reasons I picked this major is because no one else in my family has (Carl also has a 27-year-old sister Anita). It's a goal for me (to prove myself in this field)."
2. Ordovensky, Pat (1991-02-22). "Cream of the college crop; Creating paths of their own". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Three - Elizabeth Hughes of Harvard, Theresa Simmonds of Penn, Carl Marci of Columbia - represent the Ivy League; one - John Foster of Jackson State - attends a historically black school.
  ...
  Columbia's Marci, high jumper on the track team, overcame anxieties rooted in his ``all-American, upper-middle-class background'' as he volunteered with a New York City group delivering meals to homebound AIDS victims.
  ``Putting aside my anxieties toward the disease to take a volunteer internship,'' he says, ``has had an undeniable influence on my choice'' of a public health career.
  Since his internship, Marci has worked at an addicts' rehab center and marched in a Gay Pride parade, which ``gave me a true feel of the livelihood of two major cultures.''
3. Pogatchnik, Shawn (1992-10-18). "In Oxford, Rhodes Lead to Clinton". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  But at Oxford, almost all of the current crop of American Rhodes scholars say Clinton is their man.
  ...
  Carl Marci, 23, from Allentown, Pa., comes from a Republican-leaning family but supports the Democratic candidate.
  This article verifies that Carl Marci was a Rhodes scholar.
4. Snyder, Susan (1990-05-24). "Time Magazine Honors L.v. Man For Service". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Carl Marci has done it again.
  Only this time, his field was bigger than a high school track course or basketball court and broader than a graduating class.
  This time, the 1987 Parkland High School graduate has distinguished himself as one of the best in the country.
  Marci, 21, who attends Columbia University, recently was named among 20 college juniors from across the country to receive the 1990 Time Magazine College Achievement Award.
5. The previous article notes: "Along with the other 19 winners, Marci was honored at a banquet at the Hard Rock Cafe in New York and received $3,000. A story about him and the other winners and a photo appeared in Time."
  The Time magazine article is another source about the subject.
6. Lazar, Kay (2004-10-14). "Heard the one about the shrink? Doc finds deep meaning in laughs". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Laughter is highly underrated, says a Boston researcher whose latest study suggests giggles can be used to gauge more complex emotions.
  Dr. Carl Marci, a neuroscientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, used a lie-detector type of machine to measure sweat on patients' hands during psychotherapy sessions. He also measured it on therapists.
7. Foy, Nicole (2006-02-19). "Laugh till it doesn't hurt". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  As the giggles over the cell-phone icebreaker begin to subside Saturday morning, one of the most admittedly unfunny people there took the stage. Before he began his scholarly keynote talk, Dr. Carl Marci of Harvard Medical School admitted to the crowd of amateur comedians that even his wife doesn't think he has a sense of humor.
  Marci noted that evidence abounds on how laughter can be "the best medicine," but more rigorous scientific study is needed.
  As a psychiatry professor and researcher, he has used skin sensors to measure the physiologic ways people respond to humor and empathy. He's also that found frequent laughter relieves tension, creates social cohesion and stimulates neural pathways to help regulate moods.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carl Marci to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:47, 31 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, Davewild (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to allow discussion of the sources raised by Cunard. Davewild (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is pretty borderline. I can't see sources giving the subject direct and significant coverage, though there are several RS's discussing his studies. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source about the subject:
1. Bartelme, Tony (2012-01-01). "Meet Carl Marci: a doctor who wants to measure your emotions. (Profile)". Physician Executive. 38 (1). American College of Physician Executives: 10–14. PMID 23885503. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2015-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Fast forward to 2004. A psychiatrist named Carl Marci, MD, also was fascinated by measurement, especially when it came to interactions between doctors and patients. At the time, Marci was director of Harvard Medical School's social neuroscience program at Massachusetts General Hospital. He had long wondered how7 certain doctors and therapists established rapport with patients; he had even counted the number of laughs between patients and therapists during counseling sessions.
  Like Nielsen, Marci eventually found inspiration at MIT, in this case, with Brian Levine, a business school student who had helped create Web sites for Major League Baseball. Together, Marci and Levine co-founded Innerscope Research, a company that uses biometric devices to measure emotional responses to images on television, the Internet, and other media. Their goal was to take the Nielsen concept to another level--measure what's happening in our hearts to get a better idea of what's going on in our heads.
  Today, their company is on the second floor of a brick building a block from the narrow streets and Italian restaurants of Boston's North End. The sparsely decorated offices have the freshly carpeted and urgent hum of a maturing start-up.
  http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/70548705/meet-carl-marci-doctor-who-wants-measure-your-emotions^WebCite says:
  The article profiles psychiatrist Carl Marci who co-founded Innerscope Research, a neuromarketing company that uses biometric devices to measure emotional response to images on television, the Internet, and other media, together with student Brian Levine. The author states that Marci was intrigued by measurement especially when it comes to patients and doctors interaction. He mentions that Marci's research and use of biometrics comes about understanding the brain's neural wiring.
NickCT (talk · contribs), would you reconsider your position?
Cunard (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: - Glancing at this again, I think I'm still in the "delete" category. Marci's article and his company's article were both started by an WP:SPA. These articles have the vague scent of self promotion and advertising. I know self promotion and advertising aren't rationales for delete, but they're enough to make me dubious about keeping. Plus, there is something very WP:FRINGEy about Innerscope Research, which also makes me want to be cautious. Physician Executive is a moderate quality RS and it is direct coverage, but it's only one. That still makes this guy borderline non-notable. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Physician Executive article is a high quality reliable source because it is a peer-reviewed journal and the author is two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist Tony Bartelme. Thank you for explaining that the possible Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues are inclining you towards deletion. Cunard (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – OK, on the basis of the material found by Cunard and in the interests of consensus, I am changing my criteria from NPROF to GNG. I admit that now there is enough material about him to write an article with. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for lack of the significance of most of the coverage in independent reliable sources, noted above. I agree he fails WP:NPROF and that the test of his notability should be WP:BIO which ends up meaning WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source about the subject:
1. Mandese, Joe (2011-04-13). "Being Carl Marci". MediaPost. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Dr. Marci got to test and improve his hypothesis as the director of social neuroscience at Harvard Medical School and continues in a similar role at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he also is a practicing psychiatrist - when he and his Innerscope cofounder, Brian Levine, aren't conducting research for some of the biggest brands and media companies in the world.
Cunard (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject easily passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
He was the subject of four articles over a period of 25 years: 1987 ("Parkland's Marci Has More Goals" from The Morning Call), 1990 ("Time Magazine Honors L.v. Man For Service" from The Morning Call), 2011 ("Being Carl Marci" from MediaPost), and 2012 ("Meet Carl Marci: a doctor who wants to measure your emotions. (Profile)" from Physician Executive). Cunard (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be willing to go along with a move (take out the "Dr.") and removal of the peacock wording. Bearian (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bearian and Cunard have recalled some better sources. Noteswork (talk) 20:07, 9 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 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shams-ul-Fuqara[edit]

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

Per WP:N - wholly Urdu-language book with not a single English-language review and likely of little interest to an English reader kashmiri ^TALK 11:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Reason to Delete this Article This is not a valid reason to delete a article,that the Article is about a book which is written in Urdu language. Second thing this that this book also have a English-language review with the name of Sultan Bahoo - The life and Teachings, many other article in Wikipedia written on books which are in urdu or in other languages, few example are:

Fazail-e-Amaal(originally whole book is in Urdu)
Bang-i-Dara(originally whole book is in Urdu )
Rumuz-i-Bekhudi(originally whole book is in Persian)
Payam-i-Mashriq(originally whole book is in Persian)

A have carefully read the whole article, this article have proper reliable published sources which are verifiable and proper book and website citations are given in article,

other thing that i have notice is that User:Kashmiri just attacking on all work done by User:Neyn due to some personal, religious or geographic Bias, or doing act of Vandalism Mrashid364 (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)

The book is in Urdu-language as deliberately specified in the article. Various articles exist on Wikipedia based not only on Urdu books but books belonging to other languages as well. This is because Wikipedia holds encyclopedic content without any discrimination of language for anyone. This is part of the reason why Wikipedia.org is available in various languages as well check the left bottom bar on the main wiki page.

So, both the interest and language factor is clarified. Hence, there is no reason for the deletion of this article. Ayesha Nb (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)

Delete: Sentiment declined after reading MezzoMezzo below. Article in desperate need of clean-up, preferably by a non-ESL (as grammatical errors pepper the thing like bird-shot); all refs and external links poorly formatted. I'm not casting a vote at this time, as while I can't determine which sources are RS (many appear not to be), I am presuming the work is somewhat notable in its own right. I get the impression it's an "old" book; if not, then sentiment declines.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shams-ul-fuqara(urdu) is the best book on the life history and teachings of famous sofi saint sultan bahoo. User:kashmiri used wikipedia against casts;spiritual school of thoughts and religious school of thoughts.Some examples are given ,( 1) Gujjar( 2) Risala Roohi Shareef which is a golden book of sultan bahoo (3) Sarwari Qadiri Order (4)sultan bahu (5) Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings which is an English book on sultan bahoo's life and teachings)(6) Shams-ul-Fuqara which is an Urdu book on the life and teachings of sultan bahoo (7) Mujtaba Akhir Zamani which about the life history of the spiritual guides of sarwari qadri order) User:kashmiri frequently amended all articles without any knowledge of relevant school of thought.He is not a specialist of all fields of knowledge on the other hand he is authorized to amend the article field of medicine,banking,telecommunication,asian culture and politics. Now he entered sensitive cast and spiritual area and he used Wikipedia successfully without permission and authority of work in the field

More examples are also available before you.Please collect them.

I submit my opinion only, this matter is decided by Wikipedia on merits. Punjabsind82 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)

Strong delete There is a veritable forest of these non-notable books all being created and defended by the same group of accounts created within days of each other, but this article is the worst example of promoting a recently published, non-notable book for commercial gain. The first edition was only published two years ago according to the article itself (hope that answers @Раціональне анархіст:'s question) so it isn't connected to the historical figure, but rather is a modern attempt to cash in on Sultan Bahoo's legacy. Every single citation seems to somehow be connected to the publisher Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd., itself non-notable and with an article probably deserving of deletion. There seems to be virtually no information about this book independent from sites and organizations tied to this religious revival movement or the publishers; this is a not notable book that fails WP:GNG, and if it can't even pass that then it's a huge failure. The fact that the article about this non-notable subject is also a major violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING just makes it come off as an attempt to generate publicity for a commercial product. This article needs to be deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

@MezzoMezzo You are confused. First, this book is available all over the internet through FREE DOWNLOAD and without any cost. Hence, you cannot possibly name this a commercial promotion. It is not even a religious movement but is in fact a Spiritual movement. Spiritual Beliefs are not only respected by all religions, they are also accepted by them. As for the references, they are not limited to any one particular website or even one book for that matter. The content has been there with proper references with books and websites on spiritualism as a whole and without any limitation to one source. So, at least be truthful about your claims as they are all FALSE.You do not work to make the article better or work with editors to make article better by having a discussion on the talk page. All you know is placing objections and to revert other people’s contributions and efforts for your own interest. Of course debates are welcome but never for personal preferences. What you do is not discussion. You make it an EDIT WAR.

User:kashmiri is a notable user in EDIT WARS especially after recent unnecessary edits for the article Gujjar. Your edit records clearly show that mysticism, caste and school of thought is NOT your area of specialization but is merely an arena of TEASING other users who contribute to authentic and rightful Wikipedia encyclopedic content. The role of editors is to contribute to articles and not to LIMIT content or HARASS other users. The LACK of knowledge regarding SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and Tasawwuf pours out of the comments given by both the usernames i.e. User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo. Both the users have no specialization in the field of Spiritualism. Only those connected or specialized in the teachings of Sufi saints and Tasawwuf and mysticism are the rightful editors of such articles.

Unfortunately, none of the arguments you come up with are substantial and cannot be justified. So, here is some advice, let Wikipedia be the judge and stop acting like you can control or violate Wikipedia as per your own interest.

Neyn (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)

Delete Self-published book with no outside coverage Shii (tock) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Shii This is not a self-published book for God’s sake check out Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. under which the book has been registered. The page clarifies that “Sultan-ul-Faqr Group of Publications was registered under the Intellectual Property Organisation Pakistan. It was registered by the number 278040 under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Section 33(4).” You can also do some research on your own if all of a sudden,you happen to be so interested in this article.

Neyn (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 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 04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings[edit]

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

Per WP:N - unremarkable translation of an Urdu-language book with not a single English-language review kashmiri ^TALK 11:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

;Invalid Reason for Deletion This book Article is a English translation done by a group of Three individuals from its urdu text book named Shams ul fuqara, Article language is clearly neutral point of view without bias, and proper book and web citations are given, so deletion tag is a wrong act with this Article. Unremarkable translation of an Urdu-language book is not a valid reason, i also read some parts of this book, translation from urdu to English according to international English stander

the second thing i notice is that User:Kashmiri just attacking on all work done by User:Neyn due to some personal, religious or geographic Bias, or doing act of Vandalism Mrashid364 (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

The article cannot be qualified for "unremarkable" for the readers of Islam, Sufism, saints, punjabi saints, Islamic sufism, mysticism and the like. Also, for basic readers especially of biographies, this article holds meaning. This is against Wikipedia policy to wrongfully point a particular book article as "unremarkable" due to personal bias or just because the book does interest one particular person. Ayesha Nb (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

I love how User:Neyn, User:Nainntara, User:Mrashid364 and User:Ayesha Nb always edit the same type of articles, write in one style and one after another. Now, the fact that a book has been translated by three individuals does not bring it any additional WP:NOTABILITY. In my view, the book is non-notable as understood by WP:NBOOK. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different user make there contribution to improve an article it is your original reason instead of WP:NBOOK, certainly you do this due to some Bias 39.34.111.102 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user User:Kashmiri is trying to limit the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia by placing false allegations on the articles related to Sultan Bahu. This is a very discriminatory act. Please take note that Wikipedia is not for the interest of one user. All kinds of users contribute to one article. If Wikipedia has an already existing accepted article and only ONE specific user is having issues it just goes to show it is his own issue-psychological or sensitivity or unreasonable blaming. JugniSQ (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings is the best book on the life history and teachings of famous sufi saint sultan bahoo. User:kashmiri has used Wikipedia against casts;spiritual school of thoughts and religious school of thoughts.Some examples are given ,( 1) Gujjar( 2) Risala Roohi Shareef which is a golden book of sultan bahoo (3) Sarwari Qadiri Order (4)sultan bahu (5) Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings which is an English book on sultan bahoo's life and teachings)(6) Shams-ul-Fuqara which is an Urdu book on the life and teachings of sultan bahoo (7) Mujtaba Akhir Zamani which about the life history of the spiritual guides of sarwari qadri order) User:kashmiri frequently amended all articles without any knowledge of relevant school of thought.He is not a specialist of all fields of knowledge on the other hand he is authorized to amend the article field of medicine,banking,telecommunication,asian culture and politics. Now he entered sensitive cast and spiritual area and he used Wikipedia successfully without permission and authority of work in the field

~~More examples are also available before you. Please collect them. I submit my opinion only, this matter is decided by Wikipedia on merits. Punjabsind82 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

Delete Similar to a whole bunch of other non-notable book articles now being defended by accounts created within days of each other, this book doesn't even seem to pass WP:GNG. The citations are all websites tied to this religious revival movement or commercial sites selling these books. In addition to failing to meet notability criteria, the article is a major fail of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The end result is that the article itself seems like an attempt to generate publicity for the purpose of commercial gain; there don't seem to be enough mentions of this book anywhere to deem it notable in its own right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:MezzoMezzo vandalized 14 Time and co partner or other version of User:Kashmiri 202.166.163.146 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: WARNING~~

@MezzoMezzo You are confused. First, this book is available all over the internet through FREE DOWNLOAD and without any cost. Hence, you cannot possibly name this a commercial promotion. It is not even a religious movement but is in fact a Spiritual movement. Spiritual Beliefs are not only respected by all religions, they are also accepted by them. As for the references, they are not limited to any one particular website or even one book for that matter. The content has been there with proper references with books and websites on spiritualism as a whole and without any limitation to one source. So, at least be truthful about your claims as they are all FALSE.You do not work to make the article better or work with editors to make article better by having a discussion on the talk page. All you know is placing objections and to revert other people’s contributions and efforts for your own interest. Of course debates are welcome but never for personal preferences. What you do is not discussion. You make it an EDIT WAR.

User:kashmiri is a notable user in EDIT WARS especially after recent unnecessary edits for the article Gujjar. Your edit records clearly show that mysticism, caste and school of thought is NOT your area of specialization but is merely an arena of TEASING other users who contribute to authentic and rightful Wikipedia encyclopedic content. The role of editors is to contribute to articles and not to LIMIT content or HARASS other users. The LACK of knowledge regarding SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and Tasawwuf pours out of the comments given by both the usernames i.e. User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo. Both the users have no specialization in the field of Spiritualism. Only those connected or specialized in the teachings of Sufi saints and Tasawwuf and mysticism are the rightful editors of such articles.

Unfortunately, none of the arguments you come up with are substantial and cannot be justified. So, here is some advice, let Wikipedia be the judge and stop acting like you can control or violate Wikipedia as per your own interest.

~~Neyn (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

Delete Self-published book Shii (tock) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Shii This is not a self-published book for God’s sake check out Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. under which the book has been registered. The page clarifies that “Sultan-ul-Faqr Group of Publications was registered under the Intellectual Property Organisation Pakistan. It was registered by the number 278040 under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Section 33(4).” You can also do some research on your own if all of a sudden,you happen to be so interested in this article.

~~Neyn (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a mess of a content fork. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 7 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. KTC (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risala Roohi Shareef[edit]

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

An entirely Urdu-language book failing WP:N and with no interest for an English reader kashmiri ^TALK 10:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the first article on Urdu-language book. Also, it is a popular book as cited with references. Recheck your false objection as it does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Nainntara (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

wrong Tag of deletion

This Article was first published on Wikipedia ‎dated 5 December 2011. So its 3 years and 28 days older. Many Wikipedian make their contributions to improve this article.
Risala Roohi Shareef is a very famous Book of Sufi Saint Sultan Bahu which is originally in Persian and Arabic language. This book is about 325 years old, and very famous between Sufism and people of Sarwari Qadiri order,
This book is also translated from Persian and Arabic to English language with the name of "Of The Spirit" translated by Prof. Syed Ahmed Saeed Hamadani and published by Ghulam Dastagheer Academy Jhang with ISBN# 969-8241-29-9 First Edition in 1996.So English readers also have interest with this book and article due to its subject and popularity.
All the three versions of Persian,English and Urdu language of this book are freely available online. So deletion of this Article is Absolutely wrong. Even the respected User:Kashmiri is clearly unaware about its original language and historical aspect.

39.34.111.102 (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was written only by two editors, one being yourself editing as Nainntara. All of the the remaining edits were purely of technical nature (repairing links, formatting references, etc.). The English translation fails WP:NBOOK as well, please take time to read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. kashmiri ^TALK 18:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this book is so historically and significant See Sultan Bahu 182.178.143.229 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed the section heading from this !vote as it messed up the numbering in the AFD log page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sultan Bahoo's 350 years old famous,popular book Risala Roohi Shareef,is put to deletion line by User:kashmiri.~~

Risala Roohi Shareef is 350 years old and very popular book in Persian language of sultan bahoo and already translated in Urdu, English and Arabic. The subject translation is in Urdu and is the best translation in Urdu as well as printed edition.

User:kashmiri entered a war against the holy saint sultan bahoo, the readers of sultan bahoo, teachings of sultan bahoo, sultan bahoo school of thought, followers and lovers of sultan bahoo and sarwar qadri order due to his personal issues with this school of thought and personality of sultan bahoo.The argument of User:kashmiri is not an argument based on knowledge but this has become a battle with sultan bahoo's school of thoughts.

~~He has used Wikipedia policy for his evil aim. Punjabsind82 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

Delete The book fails WP:GNG as there don't seem to be any independent sources establishing notability at all. The citations currently in the article are either tied to organizations printing and selling the book or promoting the religious revival movement, or to blogs. Online searches reveal books mentioning this book, but with content ripped off of Wikipedia or said websites; essentially just self-published, non-academic fluff. This simply appears like an attempt to promote an otherwise non-notable publication. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published book Shii (tock) 15:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~; WARNING~~

@ User:Shii This is not a self-published book for God’s sake check out Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. under which the book has been registered. The page clarifies that “Sultan-ul-Faqr Group of Publications was registered under the Intellectual Property Organisation Pakistan. It was registered by the number 278040 under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Section 33(4).”

@MezzoMezzo You really need to get your facts right. This book is available all over the internet through free download and without any cost. Hence, you cannot possibly name this a commercial promotion. The content has proper references with books and websites on spiritualism as a whole and without any limitation to one source. So, at least be truthful about your claims as they are all false. Also, this book is very famous and is quite NOTABLE being translated by so many people. So, you can brush up your intelligence by checking out the REFERENCES listed within and below the article. There is absolutely no harm in RE-READING the article. They are not even limited to any one particular website or even one book for that matter. You also seem a little CONFUSED. It is not a religious movement but is in fact a SPIRITUAL movement. Spiritual beliefs are not only respected by all religions, they are also accepted by them. I am quite sympathetic that Spiritual Beliefs, Mysticism and Tasawwuf are not your area of specialization and you are having trouble editing this article but you are not obliged to edit this article or related articles anyway. Quite honestly, only those editors connected or specialized in the teachings of Sufi saints and Tasawwuf and mysticism are the rightful editors of such articles and can take such responsibility. Merely indulging in EDIT WARS would not do you much good as an editor.

Clearly User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo do not belong to the field of mysticism, caste and school of thought but are trying to step into this as an arena of TEASING other users who contribute to authentic and rightful Wikipedia encyclopedic content. The role of editors is to contribute to articles and not to LIMIT content or HARASS other users. The LACK of knowledge regarding SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and Tasawwuf pours out of the comments given by both the usernames i.e. User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo. Both the users have no specialization in the field of Spiritualism.

Also, User:kashmiri is a notable user in EDIT WARS especially after recent unnecessary edits for the article Gujjar. Your edit records show that you do not work to make the article better or work with editors to make article better by having a discussion on the talk page. All you know is placing objections and to revert other people’s contributions and efforts for your own interest. Of course debates are welcome but never for personal preferences. What you do is not discussion. It is an edit war.

Unfortunately, none of the arguments you “bunch of editors” come up with are substantial and cannot be justified. So, here is some advice, let Wikipedia be the judge and stop acting like you can control or violate Wikipedia as per your own interest.

~~Neyn (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 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 04:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stan (fan)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing currently here is pretty shoddy, with most of the content coming from unreliable blogs and Urban Dictionary(!!!). Several sources used here, including in the sections "Fan bases of stans" (the bulk of the article) and "Celebrity reaction", do not mention the term "stan". That leaves coverage in one New York Times article and passing mentions in ESPN and MTV blogs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From a spot check of sources, they really don't seem to be discussing a fan called a "stan", though they are tangentially related. The parts that are actually about a phenomenon that references Eminem's song can probably be merged to that article. Otherwise, the rest of it could probably be merged to fandom or cult following. Honestly, I'd rather nothing get added to cult following, though, because that article doesn't need any more rambling, poorly-sourced content. I swear, some day in the next few years, I'll get around to rewriting it. Some day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a close call, though I found a decent piece from The Wire, which is connected to The Atlantic. With that and The New York Times, it can warrant a separate article. However, I do agree that more sources should explicitly mention stans. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are pretty good. I still think it could be merged, but a keep vote seems reasonable, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 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 (inform) @ 20:53, 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 10:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this isn't really an encyclopedia article about a phenomenon — it's just a dictionary definition of a term, whose most substantive content is a list of the various subterms that particular fandoms use for themselves. That's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, and the referencing here is for crap, to boot. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a good article about this, but this version isn't a good article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fan stalking is a clear and well defined notion, studied like in Kerry O. Ferris, Through a Glass, Darkly: The Dynamics of Fan-Celebrity Encounters, 22 December 2011. --Dereckson (talk) 22:45, 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 keep. Rough consensus indicates that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Census Day[edit]

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

Not sure this article belongs in Wikipedia. This "day" is the day when the census takes place. Is there any more detail than that? Not sure if there's much significance to this day. Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 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 (inform) @ 20:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree there's not much here at present, but it could be the germ of a worthwhile topic: listing for many countries the time of year, day of week, how long Census lasts (in some countries e.g India, it extends over months), what factors determine the decision and who decides, and how these things have varied over past periods. All this should be sourceable: Noyster (talk), 13:59, 30 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 10:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At first I thought WP:OR, no way that secondary sources could be found for this. But if you search on "celebrate Census Day" you find governors declaring it a special day, people gathering in parks, the Victorian Society celebrating the 21st modern census [1]. This seems to be a real thing. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:02, 31 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. Number 5 7 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Rwanda relations[edit]

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

The last AfD had far from convincing keep arguments. The whole article is based on a one off business delegation visit in 2012, there is talk of potential and "want to co-operate" type statements than actual co operation, but there is no significant trade, no visits by leaders or ministers, no embassies, no agreements LibStar (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable according to the general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this !vote makes no genuine attempt to establish notability. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomian, you may want to actually read the sources before making such a claim. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are on the bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Rwanda and they have significant coverage on this thing. Thus it satisfies the general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't and no they don't - they all relate to a single visit and don't come close to WP:GNG with regard to the "relationship" between these two countries (unless said relationship is limited to one visit, ever, which makes it completely insignificant anyway). All that can be verified by those sources is that one visit, making the rest of the article synthesis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making this thing so complicated? One visit, two visits, doesn't matter. All of the sources discuss about the bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Rwanda. The general notability guidelines only says that there should be multiple sources with significant coverage on the topic and all of the sources have significant coverage on the Bangladesh-Rwanda relations. Nomian (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not complicated - there's only been one visit. Somehow that single visit is being synthesised and extrapolated to suggest a broader diplomatic relationship between the two countries where one doesn't exist, let alone is notable. The sources discuss that visit. To suggest that on the basis of one day worth of coverage there exists a notable diplomatic relationship between two countries is crazy. That's not "significant coverage". The visit wouldn't even pass WP:EVENT. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't even a state visit. LibStar (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the suggestion this meets the general notability guidelines is nonsense. 3 of the 4 sources were produced on the same day as a result of the same door-stop interview the previous day from the same one-day visit in May 2012. The 4th is a deadlink. A single one-day diplomatic visit does not a diplomatic relationship make. There is no evidence of a long-term, significant, substantive relationship between these two countries, certainly not one that has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Invented (see WP:OR) diplomatic relationships between randomly selected countries ("x - x relations") are not notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Off topic but I don't know what the "maybe" would be for this type of voting. But on topic, there are some interactions but I still don't know if the page is needed or not. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackninja5, you've mistakenly pluralised "interaction". You are welcome, of course, to remain neutral. It doesn't serve much of a purpose in determining consensus but it demonstrates that others considered it and couldn't come to a conclusion which may be of assistance to some closing admins. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess my vote doesn't count until I do make a decision. I will just add this to my watch list to see if any arguments change my mind. Jackninja5 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator hates this class of articles with a passion. Consensus has generally found that most countries of a certain size have had chronicled, verifiable international relations with more or less every other country on earth. I suggest that Bangladesh is probably big enough to meet this criterion although admittedly this pairing of countries is arcane. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

carrite, that's an WP:ADHOM attack, I don't support the ones with no real coverage, the vast majority of existing bilateral articles (in the 100s) should stay. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, there are a few of us who fall into that category. I've actively supported (as you probably know) the retention of genuinely notable diplomatic relationships and have created plenty of myself, not least of all as merge targets for silly embassy and consulate articles. Consensus has found that where they pass WP:GNG, they should remain. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm starting to see how these little stubby bits fit into the big picture. This is a sub-article of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. It is part of a web of articles. Admittedly a stub, but Wikipedia is not paper and ripping this out by the roots doesn't make Wikipedia better. Quite the contrary. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's synthesis based on a single event. Ordinarily I would suggest this be merged into Foreign relations of Bangladesh but in this case, merging a single event into a broader article about foreign relations would instantly create a WP:WEIGHT issue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the second nomination of this article by the same nominator this year. It closed as Keep the first time around. Notability is not temporary nor have community standards changed. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd in 11 months, so if I nominated next year it would 2nd time in 2 years. The first AfD had such generic keep votes. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But consensus can change, especially if the opinions offered up in the first discussion were just plain silly (at least one of which has been blindly repeated here). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't change in 11 months. It is now what it was then. Get back to us in five years... Carrite (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 years as a recommended timeframe between nominations? you have to be kidding me. As stalwart correctly points out I took into account the very weak keep arguments last time. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest consensus can but hasn't changed - it's just that nobody happened to notice those nonsense arguments last time or bothered to argue against them. Those sorts of comments in these sorts of AFDs produced some silly results and LibStar is going back and re-nominating some of them, actually rebutting some of what it asserted. The most mild of prodding (above) reveals exactly how weak some of those arguments really were/are. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:32, 31 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, Sandstein 09:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We already had a nomination this year and the result was Keep. WP:DELAFD states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." and implicitly suggests that the nominator be blocked in such cases. As for the topic, no-one seems to have noticed that Bangladesh sent the largest contingent of troops to Rwanda to keep the peace after the genocide. This seems quite significant and there are certainly plenty of sources which cover this in detail such as this. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously want me blocked, 2 nominations in 11 months is disruptive? LibStar (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Andrew Davidson. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the changes I just made. I added that bit that Andrew D. mentioned about Bangladesh sending 900 troops to the 1994 genocide. I also found some articles from yesterday and today about a trade delegation Rwanda sent to Bangledesh and Bangledesh promising to return the favor in the near future. Lastly I checked the UN treaty database and found they have no bilateral treaties so I added that info. It seems they have minimal relations but are talking about developing a more extensive partnership in the future. I feel we should have an article on this on-going developing friendship. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the fact that they don't have a relationship substantiated by bilateral treaties is evidence of a relationship? That has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I've seen in favour of keeping one of these diplomati-spam articles! St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Bangladesh were just one of more than 40 countries to commit troops to that broader UN effort, apparently well short of 10% of the overall contingency sent, much of which was after the fact. Just more lazy synthesis of minor claims glued together to suggest a notable whole. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing friendship based on a one off business delegation visit in 2012, where lots of promises were made but no action in ensuing years. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Foreign relations of Bangladesh — There isn't clear general notability of these relations as far as being substantial enough for a standalone article, and there's plenty of space and convention for this in the existing article. While several others have cited that this is a stub, an actual stub implies that there's the ability to expand it with significant amounts of content that already is available. That does not seem to be the case here; this seems to be all there is for now (which is an issue of WP:CRYSTAL). As a side note, a year's delay is more than sufficient for a re-nomination, even moreso when the first AfD was a non-admin closure with small turnout. --slakr^\ talk / 22:01, 10 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. Michig (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism[edit]

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

This is a very good book, but it fails all five criteria at WP:BKCRIT and is not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. White Whirlwind 咨 06:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took some serious digging, but I eventually found gold in them thar hills. I've found some reviews and an article or two, so it should pass notability guidelines now. It definitely needs some work by someone familiar with the book to flesh it out, but notability shouldn't be an issue now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. There is independent media coverage of this book and online library sources are saying people are reading / checking out this work from actual physical libraries. It is not self-published promo. -Augustabreeze (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is clearly sufficient thrid party coverage. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 6 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. Michig (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FK Milutinac Zemun[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, as the club appears to be only a year or two old. Being named for a famous footballer does not make the club notable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A fairly new fifth-tier Serbian football club that fails notability guidelines comfortably. Even the league they play in doesn't have an article, and the two "notable" players that play for the club simply happen to share the same name as some actually notable people. WP:TOOSOON at its clearest. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article is not about the club, but rather about Milutin Ivković from who the club got the name "Milutinac". The club never played in first or second tiers, and I cant found him anywhere in the cup. FkpCascais (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see any evidence of the team having competed in the nationals stages of any competition, which is the usual benchmark for club notability. A case of too soon at best. Fenix down (talk) 10:23, 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 WP:SNOW keep. As it stands, after some 60 comments with a ratio of about 5 "keep" to 1 "delete" opinions according to the automated count, it appears very unlikely that this discussion could even after seven days result in anything but in a consensus to keep the article, and a consensus to delete appears inconceivable. The discussion is therefore prematurely closed. Whether the article should be renamed, and how, can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Renominating the article for deletion some time after media and public interest in the case have waned and its notability in the light of WP:BIO1E can be more comprehensively assessed remains a possibility, if there are still genuine notability concerns by then. Sandstein 19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leelah Alcorn[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is a classic example of a WP:BIO1E. Although Alcorn "wanted her suicide to create a dialogue about the discrimination and abuse of transgender people" wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Also, even if Alcorn's suicide was notable, the article should not be a biography. St Anselm (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that death had any lasting significance on society. Article can always be re-created if that should eventuate. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE. Wikipedia:Single-purpose account contributions presently total 13. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable event. Alcorn's death and the reaction is receiving coverage in multiple major media outlets (Daily Mail, Rolling Stone, Yahoo News, International Business Times, Huffington Post, etc) and spurring discussion and debate on Twitter. Regardless of whether Wikipedia is a place to right great wrongs or not, this is coverage of an event that came with the motivation to do so. Biographical style issues can be fixed; they were caused by someone removing the 'Reaction' section of the article, a change I plan to undo. Reddon666 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But even if the event is notable (and I don't think it is), that doesn't follow that Alcorn is notable. St Anselm (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what the community determines, the article can be retitled to Death of Leelah Alcorn rather than deleting it. Death of Eric Garner follows a similar pattern of a otherwise questionably notable person's death sparking media coverage and popular commentary. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple independent sources (refs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 are mainstream news sources that clearly meet WP:RS). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems notable enough, per Reddon666 and Scott5114. Maybe it should be moved to Death of Leelah Alcorn though, being primarily about a single event. Too soon to say for sure. Chessrat (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Belongs as an article, whether it's about the death of that individual or the person themselves, the event/person is ultimately notable. Whether to move or merge should be established in a later talk page discussion along with consensus. But in either situation, they're ultimately notable. The nomination needs to take account that we should not rush to delete articles and if they have a bit of good faith, would rescind the nomination. Tutelary (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my !vote, the subject and/or revent meets the general notability guideline, and as such should not be deleted. There's more than enough reliable sources to establish notability. Tutelary (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is her death receiving coverage from multiple mainstream outlets, but legislation to ban conversion therapy has been proposed in her name, and a petition supporting it has been gaining signatures at a rate of, I think, about 10,000 per hour. Her death has triggered more than discussion and media coverage. It has triggered social movement and activism, which makes it a notable event. I would support renaming to Death of Leelah Alcorn. Coffee joe (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is international meat-space activism (https://www.facebook.com/events/758679260876563/?notif_t=plan_user_joined). Can we be done debating notability yet? Coffee joe (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd agree that renaming to Death/Suicide of... is a good solution, but let's delay a speedy AFD until things settle. Hemsath (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Then move it to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Seriously, Anselm, this is one of the worse AFD nominations i've seen in a while. It violates the event expectation of waiting a week before nominating an event for AfD, to see if there are lasting effects or not, not to mention that your entire deletion statement boils down to moving the article, something which doesn't need an AfD to perform. This is an utter waste of time. Silverseren^C 09:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Silver seren, it's only a waste of time if an administrator simply counts votes. If the closing administrator enforces our policies and ignores votes that are at variance with WP:PRIMARY, this will be deleted, because all of the "keep" votes that address the sources are functionally saying "here are all these news stories, so this must be notable", even though news stories about the incident are primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd argue that news articles reporting on the death itself are primary sources. However, the news articles that are about the suicide note or talking about the resulting advocacy are not. The suicide note, in that case, would be the primary source. Also while this page is the first article I've edited under this account, I've made numerous contributions to other articles ranging a variety of topics in the past on my old account. I made a new account under my new name when I transitioned, since I too am trans. - erisrenee (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recommend against move to Death of Leelah Alcorn - this person's notability is not determined solely by her death, as there has been sizable media coverage both of the death itself and of her life proper. See refs 6 and 7, which meet WP:RS and establish notability of her life before her death. Jhugh95 (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. The woman is not notable right now, but the event of her death certainly appears to be. Any coverage of her is always given in the context of the death. If coverage isn't sustained after this initial flurry, then fine, an AfD would be justified; but right now, it isn't. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is also irrelevant here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe notability of this person is not established at her death, persay, but by the resulting coverage and reactions it triggered. While this event may ultimately prove to be a small footnote in transgender relations, I think it still retains enough to stand on its own as an article based on the attention it drew. If an AfD should be pursued in future, I say wait and see what ultimately becomes of this media attention and if it leads to any greater changes/impact in the transgender community and the world at large. (Iuio (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Commenters should remember that depth of coverage is an important criterion, we merely have the same news on the death repeated in several sources. This in an encyclopedia and we have suicide among LGBT youth to cover the issue. Wikipedia is not the news and not a memorial site. Hekerui (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn -- the event has evidently received plenty of coverage and will continue to do so for a while at least, and we have plenty of sources by now. It would be silly to delete it and recreate it shortly after. The event is notable, as these headlines say: Leelah Alcorn suicide note sparks transgender discussion and Suicide of Transgender Teen Sparks Heightened Advocacy for Trans Rights. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that death had any lasting significance on society. Article can always be re-created if that should eventuate. This is a classic example of a WP:BIO1E. Although Alcorn "wanted her suicide to create a dialogue about the discrimination and abuse of transgender people" wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. At the least this perosn had no notability before death and thus the article should be retitled if kept to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. I think this article should not be deleted. Her story is important and is currently in the process of making history. The transgender community has been fighting hate and bigotry for so long it takes a toll on the community. It makes a lot of trans people fear to come out and often that can end in suicide. Allowing Leelah's story to be shared here could make a difference. --Boomboomwiki (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— Boomboomwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, but move it to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn since the article should really be more about the event and the reaction to the event than her actual life. However, that brings up the question of other kids who committed suicide, many due to bullying, like Kenneth Weishuhn and Jadin Bell. Wikipedia tends to be inconsistent on this matter. - erisrenee (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— Erisrenee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, the case has been strongly made in this space: Notable event covered by multiple reliable sources, lasting effect given the dialog and legislation on conversion therapy. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come back if secondary sources appear. How many times do I have to remind people that news articles are primary sources about their subjects? It's not possible for secondary sources to exist about this subject! Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.But move to "Suicide of Leelah Alcorn" But should be included as that because it is receiving coverage in multiple major media outlets (Daily Mail, Rolling Stone, Yahoo News, International Business Times, Huffington Post, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickmind (talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wikipedia and those who run it can insist all they want that Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs", but the simple fact is that Wikipedia is the most-used repository for human knowledge in the world, and also the most respected by the majority as an authoritative source. An event of this significance must be given a space on Wikipedia, or else Wikipedia, and those who run it, are nothing less than accessories to the further abuse of children such as Leelah. This information must be available to the world, and the only place where such availability is guaranteed is here, on Wikipedia. If that isn't what you want for your website, make a new website. This one belongs to the world, not you.174.21.172.56 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— 174.21.172.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep for the time being - This is an utterly pointless AFD. It happens every time some event goes viral, the premature creation of an article, and then the premature AFD. Alcorn's death is notable for going viral, we have other articles on viral events, some deserving so, some others probably not. Her death has not yet generated the enduring notability as required by WP:NOTNEWS, and while it may highlight the brokeness of conversion therapy and the prevalence of suicide among LGBT youth, it is probably better handled in those articles. That said, it is utterly impossible to arrive at any conclusion aside from no consensus when there is so much traffic incoming to the article during peak-viral. - hahnch e n 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - I'm honestly surprised there isn't a WP tag that amounts to "Let's see how notability plays out" for various current events and people which shuts down deletion but automatically re-initiates it a fixed time after article creation (maybe 1 year?) in order to give time for evaluation. Seems like a WP tool that would be worth having, especially if these deletion debates over current events are common. HCA (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because deleting something for it being viral, isnt entirely plausible reason for washing out LGBTQIA History. There is a lot of information you can get from this. Not only suicide among LGBT youth and conversion therapy but also, the effects of Religious Families on their Children. Among other things. Her death is a profound ripple in the LGBTQIA community. And its so far worth being notable. Its an initiative for acceptance and tolerance. We learn from history and its stories.--OddlyDorkish (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — User:OddlyDorkish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete or Redirect to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn per nom: only notable for one event. Avono (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment I would like to vote for Delete, following Wikipedia guidelines for notability and breaking news Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Breaking_news, both the article creation and nomination for deletion are premature. Wikipedia isn't a sounding board for pushing social and political issues, as much as they need to be talked about. Furthermore, notability isn't established by a bunch of news outlets simply rehashing the same story over and over. A good test would be the inclusion of secondary sources, which I could not find. Wikidan829 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Why would you delete this. If is a true story and should be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swinters56 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — Swinters56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Apparently the person involved has created massive media attention and on social networks and community sites. Thus, i see no reason why to delete this article, in fact this article is helpful to bring attention to the topic. Disclaimer: I want a Wikipedia as close to the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy, as possible - thus deletion is most of the time a big no no for me. Happy New Year prokaryotes (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "This is a classic example of a WP:BIO1E" - No it is not. What is notable here is not the one event of the suicide, but the discussion this suicide generated which are multiple events. In this sense the argument that the article shouldn't be a biography but an article about the events surrounding this suicide has more value - albeit I personally are not convinced the suicide itself is the notable event. However WP:NOTPAPER. We can take our time. The even is hot. This AFD is badly argued and on a bad basis. So keep. We can move it later if that is the consensus then. --Cerejota (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. And shame on the nominator for pointing to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, when certainly no one here would want to include an article for such a reason. Everyking (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources found in the article are but a small part of those that can be found online. There are plenty of articles on people whose suicide sparked a strong public/media reaction. Gothbag (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Seems to pass GNG, and I can only imagine this event will attract even more sources in the future. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page name is just fine, reducing the life mention of Leelah to strictly her suicide is a bit pervert. prokaryotes (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pervert? I really don't think that's the word you're looking for, not that it would be a policy-based comment even if you used something more sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the word - because a person/bio page which are named to just reflect a particular event, instead of the persons chosen name is disrespectful and pervert to per se associate a person with only a tragic event, instead you could make an article on transgender suicide. prokaryotes (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That... is not what pervert means. I'm presuming English is not your first language? It also isn't disrespectful, as we're using the name she chose and referring to her as a woman primarily, exactly how she wished. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are not aware of the many meanings of the term pervert, here i used it as noted to describe a misrepresentation of a peoples life. Also im fine with the page name atm, thus i can not follow your last point. prokaryotes (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Prokaryotes, I think you mean 'perverse' - an adjective meaning something like 'unreasonable' - not 'pervert', which is either a verb meaning 'distort' or a pejorative noun meaning 'deviant'. Given that you're voting 'keep', I imagine you would wish to avoid the latter implication in particular. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But rename to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn, she is only notable for her death and the article should reflect that. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being I disagree with talk on delete an re-create if needed: I think it is far better to keep the article and delete it later when notability does not arise. Re-vote in say 3 month. Krischik ^T 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Every non-SPA argument for keeping the article so far seems to be that the story has generated a few news stories and might have some kind of long-term effect on LGBT issues. Might is not enough to support an article like this one, in either form. The subject is not notable, and wasn't before their death. Wikipedia is not a memorial or the place to right great wrongs. Maybe in 6 months when a valid case can be made for a lasting impact then an article could be put together. So far as far as I see this is already falling off the news cycle. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you. The argument in favor of keeping is more than a few news stories and potential for impact. The impact, even this soon after the event, can already be seen. Already legislation is being lobbied, and marches are being organized. The intent of the article is not to memorialize Leelah, nor is the intent to right this wrong, as that's not possible. The intent is to document a notable event. Coffee joe (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply -- for an obvious reason. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if for no other reason than common decency. You don't "delete" a person who has just committed suicide from abuse and bullying. Unless you want a political disaster.24.57.218.21 (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Common decency" is no reason for keeping an article, or else we can go create a few million articles for every other person that commit suicide. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced, notable, relevant. Skyerise (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could help society go in the right direction. She is an inspiration to other trans youth, she could also bring pro lgbt+ change into countries with out any pro lgbt+ resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.193.131 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2014 — 108.180.193.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep For Time Being - As this is currently developing in both culture and society, the notability and impact of her suicide won't be clear for at least a few months. I do think that in some page or sub-page Leelah's story does need inclusion and coverage in some ways. Right now it should be allowed to stay and gather more sources, facts, and impact. Gwenhope (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — Gwenhope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - The subject of the article is NOT notable. The only arguments in favor of keeping this are that it got news coverage which is not the same as being notable and that some people agree with his opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.227.147 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — 75.143.227.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Leelahs' death received international attention and has been reported on thousands of news websites, therefore she is a notable person and the article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.138.174 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 December 2014— 49.183.138.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, sources indicate notability, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per articles indicating mainstream notability. Additionally, ulterior motives for the article's deletion on the part of the user WWGB have been demonstrated on the talk page of nominating user St Anselm. The disparaging comments made concerning the "weeping" of those voting to keep are included therein under the heading "Too soon?" would seem to indicate bias on behalf of the parties requesting deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:102:79F0:DC21:182A:7EC8:73FD (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — 2601:5:102:79F0:DC21:182A:7EC8:73FD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As much as I disagree with the nominator, I think it is unfair to tar them with that particular brush; the inappropriate comment was made by WWGB, not StAnselm. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, however the commentary's place on the talk page of St Anselm could be seen as indication personal bias driving the push for motivation. As WWGB was one of the original contributors to this AfD after the initial nomination was made, and appears to be in communication with its original nominator, I believe that this could be seen as relevant information. This contributes to the appearance of a lack of neutrality on this subject matter, see: WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:102:79F0:DC21:182A:7EC8:73FD (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; WP:AGF is a core policy here, and StAnselm hasn't really given us any reason to think that they have an agenda. WWGB, however, certainly has, and I would strongly recommend they retract that attack statement as being grossly inappropriate. Just sharing the same viewpoint that Leelah/her death is not notable isn't exactly a smoking gun. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The depth of coverage that she has received shows notability. It might be more appropriate to move the page to an article about her death per WP:BIO1E, but that's grounds for renaming the article not deleting it. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 23:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- not really sure what you mean by "depth" - primary sources do not = depth - we need secondary sources to prove notability - you have seen some tell us - i have seen zero.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." In the case of this article, I think it would be accurate to say that the primary source is Leelah's tumblr post, her mother's Facebook post, the actual tweets being reported on, and similar content provided by the people directly involved. Additionally, the death announcement could be considered a primary source, since it is an original material close to the event. However, the numerous sources cited on the article that are focusing on the reaction to the suicide, as well as the suicide note, are not primary sources. Those are secondary sources. In addition, there is no original research being provided on this page. Editors have been trying to add links to Leelah's reddit account, drawing conclusions that were not explicitly mentioned by her suicide note nor any reporting news agency. These edits have been reverted. All information on the Wikipedia page follows Wikipedia's guidelines. - erisrenee (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - erisrenee, that's correct. Being news doesn't make something a primary source. If a reporter relayed his or own experience with the event, that would be a primary source. But news articles that interpret and analyze facts are secondary sources. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of secondary news sources available. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is her death receiving coverage from multiple mainstream outlets, but legislation to ban conversion therapy has been proposed in her name, and a petition supporting it is well on its way to qualifying for official White House acknowledgement. This is an historic event in an important area of social change. [[User:Robinmonk| talk 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)— Robinmonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry but online petitions are not notable. I am still waiting for that Death Star. Avono (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Death Star? T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. Many valid points have been made above, and I feel like this could be a very important event in the fight for transgender rights, and therefore it should have an article. However Leelah herself was not in the public eye untill this event. If it turns out to not be as influential as is thought now, it can be removed at a later date. CianMurphy98 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC) — CianMurphy98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn. It's the most logical solution. Cognissonance (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes plenty of sources discussing Leelah's death and its impact; it's only two days after the fact, and there's already international coverage discussing how her death is impacting the transgender rights movement (which satisfies the need for secondary sources, and rises well above WP:NOTNEWS). It's too early to say what the long-term impact of her death will be, since she only died a few days ago, but by that logic we wouldn't have any articles about ongoing events. (The article probably should be moved to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn, though, based on WP:BLP1E and precedent.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn MameTozhio (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I say preserve the article, but delete for now because there is no guarantee that this will have a lasting effect. Josh Alcorn is not the only victim of bullying that has committed suicide, but if his death will become prominent later, then recreate the article. Yes, his death is tragic. But the coverage from a few news sources isn't notable enough unless he plays an important role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegetaSaiyan (talk • contribs)

I think you mean 'Leelah' and 'her'.AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All three of the major U.S. networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) featured her story on their national nightly news programs on 31 Dec. 2014 as a "top story" of 2014. In addition, all of the news channels in my local market (Sacramento, CA) highlighted it, too. To claims this is NOT a notable news story is just plain incorrect. While it may be an inconvenient fact for some who don't believe that trans people and stories about them are worthy of notability, Wikipedia is a place to document news of all types, not just ones that are in political favor at the time. I am against renaming due to Wikipedia:Articles on suicides, and I think that is the wrong focus anyway. The "human interest" focus of the news articles on Alcorn was all the stuff going on in her life leading up to the suicide and the impact of her life and death. To focus solely on the suicide (which the changed article title would imply) would give short shrift to the full story. —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 01:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^ This. prokaryotes (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read Wikipedia:Articles on suicides (which I didn't know existed), I now believe this entire AfD is in bad faith, being intended to cause distress for those who value it. The evidence can be seen in the "delete" votes, many of which misgender Leelah Alcorn and use her given name, which, again, seems solely intended to cause distress to other people reading this discussion.174.21.172.56 (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have changed my mind when it comes to the move on this basis. Great arguments. Cognissonance (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's too soon to delete over lack of notability especially considering the national and international attention this young woman's death is receiving only two days after her death. It's also very suspicious to me that people who are voting for deletion are calling her "Josh" and referring to her by male pronouns, or saying things like "this is not a place to right great wrongs" or "we'd have to cover every suicide". This young woman's suicide was not the result of endogenous major depression or grief following a natural loss or disappointment--she died because she was abused by her parents and by society due to her gender orientation and she is becoming a symbol for the transgender rights movement, which means...she is notable.Yaeltiferet (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (Redacted) Yaeltiferet (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Already fallen off the front page of Google News. SteelMariner^Talk 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a horrible rationale for deletion, Notability is not temporary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't even earn significant coverage when it was notable. It's sad that a bunch of skeletons have taken over this AFD and pretty much ensured that this non-notable article will be kept. SteelMariner^Talk 03:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'skeleton' is not a synonym for 'activist', or even 'transgender rights activist'. skeletons are a hate group, and many members are transphobic. The skeletons in the Leelah Alcorn discussion were the people trying to do 'callout posts' for a dead 17 year old girl because of her views on certain subcultures (yes, this happened), not the people trying to pass laws and spread awareness. Reddon666 (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"skeletons are a hate group" - citation needed! AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really because I just opened my Google news and found an article about her from NBC news. I don't know what Google news you are using, regardless just Google her name and you will find hundreds, probably thousands by now, articles about her. If you are gonna argue for deletion atleast give me a reasonable rationale! JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say give it a few days. If people are still talking about his death in say, two weeks, then maybe the notability factor of this could be raised. Gay/transgender suicides happen commonly, and even though it's a tragedy, there's no reason to think that Josh/Leelah Alcorn will be about as important as say, Tyler Clementi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.52.229 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. As long as the individual/event has passed the general guideline for notability, that's that. No need to have a discussion about whether they're notable or not. Leelah Alcorn obviously has already passed that point. There is no requirement to have ongoing coverage to be considered notable, else we'd have to delete a movie from 2004 because it likely hasn't received coverage in a long while. Tutelary (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the link you guys keep posting, it says: "As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." So in a week if, as is likely, it isn't news, I'll re-open the AfD again. SteelMariner^Talk 04:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen more moronic !votes in my time but by far this beats them all - Congratulations you've just made yourself to be a complete and utter dick!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the most moronic votes are among the keep sheep in this thread. "Her story is important and is currently in the process of making history.""She is an inspiration to other trans youth, she could also bring pro lgbt+ change into countries with out any pro lgbt+ resource." Do either of these things even remotely resemble the qualities that are supposed to go into a wikipedia page? SteelMariner^Talk 04:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you jealous or is this related to Transphobia? prokaryotes (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jealous? Yeah, I'll go kill myself right now. No, I'm just wondering why so many people came out of the woodwork to defend an article which has clearly not met notability guidelines. How utterly dull to accuse a dissenter of transphobia. SteelMariner^Talk 04:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above, several users pointed out to you that notability is met, thus your argument is moot. prokaryotes (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, prokaryotes. In one comment, you've just outed your intentions for keeping this article, and it clearly has nothing to do with being encyclopedic. I'm not sure how anyone here can take your comments objectively and/or seriously at this point. 24.191.234.181 (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion possibly comes under the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions relating to Sexology. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute for further guidance. Editors should exercise caution. St Anselm (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the debate is over whether or not his death is notable or not. We haven't decided yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.52.229 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please do not disrespect this individual by using the male pronoun. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article documents a major event that is having a profound effect across social media, especially non-mainstream media such as Tumblr. Leelah's parents are noteworthy for their extreme ignorance of their daughter (not even knowing her age) and the effects reparative therapy has on people, thus she is a notable case study in what can go wrong, and thus her page should be kept here for research and documentation purposes - it appears that this is likely to be a case that will be studied for years to come. StarlitGlitter (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its obviously an important event for the transgender community globally and will remain so. It may make sense to change the title and redirect. Haminoon (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person this article refers to and their passing is not merely part of a social media viral "fad". Thousands of transgender youth take their lives by suicide each year but on this occasion (by virtue of her poignant suicide note and the reaction to it) many commentators are predicting that Leelah's suicide may in the future be reflected upon as a catalyst for social change. Remember please the "Arab Spring" began as a "Twitter Revolution" and that many years ago a tired lady named Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus would not have been considered noteworthy. Keep it moderated and properly academic of course, do not let it be politicized but keep it - Gyxx (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)— Gyxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think Mohamed Bouazizi may have been more important to the Arab Spring than Twitter. Haminoon (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider retitling to 'Death of Leelah Alcorn'. This topic has received widespread news media coverage, and appears notable on that basis. This vote was premature. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but only as - Death of Leelah Alcorn - as I can see it is only a likely suicide at present, the coroner and investigation is not complete yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article from WCPO-TV outright states that a national dialog has begun based on this event, which means that it is in the process of satisfying WP:EVENT. Since the event seems to be the source of notability, then I would support a move. I agree that there are a lot of SPAs who are not voting based on policy, but there are policy-based rationales to keep beyond "righting great wrongs". As long as we keep to secondary sources that describe the ramifications of the event (yes, they exist), we can prevent this from becoming a memorial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has now frankly moved beyond WP:EVENT and WP:BIO1E. The level of media attention now indicates this is not a single event or any danger of this becoming a memorial. The name change may be necessary and I wouldn't object to that. We just need to be vigilant about how the article is written and maintained. freshacconci talk to me 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Death of Leelah Alcorn per WP:BIO1E.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important story for many people out there. The amount of suffering this young girl had to go through should be enough for her to have the right to be remembered. Plus her memory is a fortress for many people who are the object of extreme prejudice for the most irrational reasons. Diogo sfreitas (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E is policy, Leelah Alcorn meets all three BLP1E conditions: a person (1) covered only in the context of a single event, (2) who was otherwise a low-profile individual, and (3) the single event was "not significant". (1) and (2) are surely undisputed, and (3) is the case because her suicide has not led (and is unlikely to lead) to any substantial changes. The suicide of a child is always sad and shocking, but currently is of little consequence, and transgender suicides are unfortunately nothing new. Of course, if her death does in the future lead to some sort of legislation (not sure what?), protests, or coverage in academia, then the article should definitely be re-created. But I can't see that happening – given the circumstances of her death, she seems likely to be just a footnote in a few years' time. I noticed above someone mentioning the article Suicide among LGBT youth – it could be argued that her suicide is only notable within that wider topic, so perhaps a redirect there might be useful/appropriate. IgnorantArmies 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E only applies to living persons. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn - Leelah Alcorn herself was not really a notable figure, but her suicide was a notable event. Given this, the page should be moved to Suicide of Leelah Alcorn Cam94509 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: Please keep comments civil. This is not the place to argue for or against gay rights or transgender rights. Please discuss whether the page meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability, whether the page should be renamed, whether the page should be merged into some other page, or if the page should be outright deleted. Reasons should be based on Wikipedia policies, otherwise your opinion will not carry much weight. Welcome new editors. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the discussion to move the page require a move request? prokaryotes (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and move - Plenty of coverage. Shouldn't be too controversial to close this soon. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:57, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:G8 -- page is dependent upon to a deleted article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat ar-Raqqah (ISIL)[edit]

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

Wide community consensus against sister titles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL) Please search the name of this redirect in quotes and find me just one reliable source. Its 100% terrorist websites in my results except one news site quoting a terrorist website. Scary. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 20:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 20:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per former discussions. Some Admin notice boards topics and requests are opened to avoid the self promotional creation of such pages. This redirect should be deleted per WP:G11. Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Donovan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:RS establish the notability of the subject. See WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he is just not notable; very run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Roles such as a stand in for a notable brother, minor roles in others don't establish notability. Cowlibob (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Number and significance of roles don't qualify under WP:NACTOR. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:56, 31 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 merge to Chinabank. (Non-admin closure)--114.81.255.37 (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China Bank Savings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article that fails WP:NCORP. Last discussion ended in no consensus, with the closer blaming lack of participation for it. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chinabank, which already has a paragraph on CBS. It would improve that paragraph to list the services in the lead of this article. In general I think it would improve the Chinabank article to have more information about CBS. For example the Plantersbank acquisition was notable, and the description is incomplete without noting that Plantersbank branches will be absorbed by CBS. They really belong together. However, I think 2 or 3 paragraphs on CBS is enough. We don't need details like service names and branch locations. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:15, 17 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 14:40, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I suppose. I'm not convinced the company is notable but if there is an appropriate target, marging a small amount of information there doesn't hurt anyone. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chinabank--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: Agree that merging to Chinabank is a good idea. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:11, 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. The article can be moved at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Mills[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NCORP. Last discussion ended in no consensus because NO ONE participated in the discussion other than myself. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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 14:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move with redirect to Acme Mills Group. There is enough available for all the divisions combined to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Keep changed my mind based on input below; the cited articles are available to New York Times subscribers via the TimesMachine. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC) - I hate to see an article go when it is for a company that's been around almost a century. However, I dug pretty deep through online sources and could not find sufficient reliable source material to support an article. Likely that the only way of keeping this will be to pull out some physical library assets. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 31 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 03:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may not be much coverage available readily online, but for a U.S. industrial firm of this nature (size, age), there will be extensive historical coverage in reliable sources in major regional and national newspapers, and company histories, and more. About financings, and products, and building and closing plants, and so on. What they did during World War I (making uniforms? who knows?) and during World War II, and so on.

Right now I am unable to see the complete articles, but in historical New York Times database (and NYC is far away), articles with hits on "Acme Mills" include:

July 26, 1917: *NO SPECULATION IN WOOL.; Smaller Demand as the Supply is Gradually Decreasing."
February 27, 1927: *"MAJORITY OF NEW STATIONS USE LOW-POWER OUTPUTS; Kentucky Is Home of Latest 1,000-Watt Transmitter -- Other Newcomers Are Less Powerful -- Changes in Waves and Ownership", including sentence "AMONG the new stations reported by the Department of Commerce as having begun operation during the past week was WFIW, Acme Mills, Inc., Hopkinsville, ..."
March 14, 1920: "CUTTING OUT OF NEEDLESS WASTE; Typical Instances Showing How Large a Factor This Is in Increasing Costs.", including imperfectedly text-converted sentence "the acme mill un executive, worried by . the extent of the waste, recently tools a Qom, tour around the machines. At each of is a In W hick the waste silk is ..."
and it is named as a debtor in a few articles on bankruptcy proceedings of companies,
and there may be more coverage even within New York Times as I am not sure of how my search access is working.

I think there would be more coverage in national and regional newspapers closer to Acme Mills' midwest location. If we really do know reasonably well that coverage exists, the right thing to do is tag the article, not delete it. --do ncr am 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the AcmeMills.Com "history" page states "Founded in 1917 as a textile supplier to Ford Motor Company for the Model T, the Acme Group has been creating creative textile solutions for their clients for 96 years"and and a bit more, including mention of divisions: Acme Mills, Fairway Products, Great Lakes Filters, and Ervins Group. So for notability, search also:

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

--do ncr am 20:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I interpret VMS Mosaic's "move with redirect" as "Keep" plus intend to move/rename. Moving/renaming to more clearly cover the whole company is fine of course.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fear Itself (TV series)#Episodes. List of Fear Itself episodes is itself a redirect to the "Episodes" section of Fear Itself (TV series). Content may be merged at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community (Fear Itself)[edit]

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

Television episode of unclear notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I guess a boldly redirect would be enough as it's unsourced since 2008, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Fear Itself episodes. I created the article, but separate articles for each episode of a one-season summer replacement series probably aren't necessary.Bjones (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 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 14:46, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fear Itself episodes - No sources means there wouldn't be anything to merge, and as this article is presently only a plot summary it would be undue to include when that page does not otherwise have plot summaries. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:42, 31 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Front Porch Republic[edit]

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

Minor blog which does not seem to have attracted the requisite attention from anybody. Orange Mike | Talk 04:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Does seem to be cited by several conservative websites, but I'm not seeing either (a) substantial coverage of Front Porch Republic as a subject itself or (b) sufficient use by major publications. Willing to change !vote if sources can be found. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let it Live - As the creator of this page, I'd like to see it stay intact. While I admit this blog is on the lower end of what Wikipedia aims to cover, I do think it is worthy of this small page. Here and here, you can see Front Porch Republic mentioned in the NYT. Here the NYT address it more directly. And here and here are some articles on the ongoing rivalry between Front Porch Republic and the Postmodern Conservative at National Review. So while the blog it doesn't need a long history, I consider this short entry justified. Agent Devlin (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think it's more of a webzine than a blog. Anyway, I am going to !vote keep because it has been written about in some depth (for example here) by Rod Dreher, who I think is one of the more important writers on politics right now. As Dreher says, 97% of conservatives don't care about these debates, but the size of the audience doesn't necessarily correspond to their influence. It's a modest article, but I think it deserves to survive. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:07, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm probably in the same place as Rhododendrites, but I do appreciate where Margin1522 is coming from. My concerns is that subject has really only been written about by those who probably read about it and write about other similar things. It's still coverage but its very "walled garden" sort of stuff - everybody writing about each other. Probably 50/50, leaning toward deletion without some proper significant coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:53, 31 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. Sandstein 20:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masakazu Sakai[edit]

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

Alleged to be a db-bio article, however he is listed as a CEO for a company that has an article here, so I think he may have cleared the requirements needed to have an article here. I leave that part for the community to decide. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise the best way for solve problem on Wikipedia policy. I need your kindly advise. Sn3246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn3246 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A man with a succession of jobs: insurance, dealing Mercs, promoting martial arts. There is nothing in the text that indicates encyclopaedic notability nor does his work at the martial arts promotion firm inherit notability. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A port of ja:酒井正和. Judging from jawp and its quite plenty sources, Sakai seems more notable for back-end work in professional/hybrid wrestling fields, having close ties with Smash (professional wrestling) (representative) and Hustle (professional wrestling) (ex-top consultant), and being the current CEO of Pancrase subsequent of its 2012 buy-out. I would suggest scraping off most other (mostly unsourced) things and keep the focus to pro-wrestling. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps userfing or moving to the draft spaces would be a better alternative to deletion then. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be better to start over. That way the promotionalism is not in the history. AndI do not think that having "close ties" otto a company is even appropriate to include, unless more precision is possible--in any event, for most companies only the CEO is notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth to demonstrate adequate notability. As it stands, this is a WP:BLP violation, and also smells like a promotional autobiography. --DAJF (talk) 12:29, 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 keep. Sandstein 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Maupin[edit]

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

It's not clear to me that this person is notable. Appears not to meet any requirement of WP:AUTHOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with what is being said by user:Justlettersandnumbers Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist, not merely a writer. WP: Author is not the proper category. He frequently appears on various television networks. He is one of the most well-known and active Communists in the US at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.150.62.36 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — 157.150.62.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Maupin is a reporter for Russia today and press tv. He is very important as he has made an imprint in the journalist community. After all, he has made it to two big site for journalism, even making it on Russia Today's broadcasts numerous times.

It should be Motioned that we keep him on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mas2500 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 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 16:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He is interviewed frequently. It's hard to tell what the references are because they are not properly formed. I will try to get time to add publishers and dates to them so it's easier to see what is cited. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, the entire article has been created and edited by 3 single purpose accounts, which does not bode well. Most of the references are in local, not national, papers, but I will continue fixing them so that we can get a better look. Oddly, despite the SPAs (who probably at least know him personally) we have no date nor place of birth, and little background information. Such information could come from a non-third-party site, but I don't find this information even on Maupin's own sites. LaMona (talk) 21:01, 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 02:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a rising member of the Workers World Party, I don't see how he is any less notable than other WWP members who have their own wiki pages. His notability is further enhanced IMO by his prolific media appearances, particularly on RT.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The keep arguments above are mostly invalid (being interviewed doesn't make one notable, nor does being a "rising member" of a fringe party), but this article in Cleveland Scene represents significant coverage in a reliable source, per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 23:21, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keel (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete There appears to be little independent coverage of this software. The article was proded and Afd'd shortly after its creation in 2010, with little participation and a "no consensus" result. There is no claim to notability. The essay at Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion does not suggest any basis for retention. Using KEEL software as a educational tool: A case of study teaching data mining (2011) by the software authors has been cited twice, both passing mentions. Several papers mention using Keel software but without further comment. The only independent discussion seems to occur from a group in Wrocław, Poland who have published Lasota et al. (2008) "An Attempt to Use the KEEL Tool to Evaluate Fuzzy Models for Real Estate Appraisal" and Graczyk et al. (2009) "Comparative analysis of premises valuation models using KEEL, RapidMiner, and WEKA". The software appears to have developed no other following, and fails the general notibility guideline. There is no claim of historical or technical significance and no evidence of that has been found. I note that the hits on GoogleScholar include many that result from authors who are named "Keel". --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldnt find any sources on this to say its notable. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, having given due consideration to the previous discussion. Igor the bunny (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, If wanted this can be shoved on the Spanish 'pedia since no gives a toss about notability over there!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability to pass GNG. -- Calidum 05:52, 31 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 ⨹ 02:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punctum Books[edit]

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

A very small, newly established print-on-demand business run by two people, nothing notable whatsoever. Vanasan (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be an awkward attempt to promote a new business using Wikipedia. References 7 - 25 are from clients confirming the company prints their work. That's not evidence of notability whatsoever. The other references are almost entirely not independent of the subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as WP:TOOSOON. I think it's an interesting project but aside from some interviews of the editor (Eileen Joy) I wasn't able to find much in-depth coverage. The journals were well produced and I like the open-access idea, but the articles didn't get many cites in GS. The journals are new and it's still early. If anyone else wants to check for cites, here is a list.

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

– Margin1522 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:46, 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 no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macadamia nuts controversy[edit]

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

Content fork of Heather Cho; the latter page is already mainly taken up by this topic. Yoninah (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to that article. In theory selectively merge but Heather Cho seems already to contain enough detail and as a current/ongoing even it can be expanded and updated from sources such as news sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't forked that page. Shii added the contents on Dec 25 to Heather Cho. — Revi 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notable for a stand-alone article, spoilt girl throws a wobbly is not that rare or notable. If she is arrested and charged with being stupid then that can be covered in her article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne....William 12:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heather Cho, no need for two articles covering the same minor incident. WP:ONEEVENT applies. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a content fork, as the article is much longer and more detailed than the summary in the biographical article. Notability is clearly not an issue: there are plenty of reliable sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, Fortune, The Economist. The affair is, however, wider than one person (Heather Cho). Regarding the merge, which should've been first discussed through merge discussion (but wasn't), I believe that the controversy has individual notability, is larger than the biographical article (She sparked it, but it is not limited to her. Here is a report that some government officials are stepping down. The incident led to the publicity and sales boost for macademia nuts: [2], [3]. And some articles focus also on the significance of this event for the Korean society: [4], [5].), and finally - merging this large article into the relatively tiny bio would create an even bigger focus from her bio on this one incident, raising some BLP issues. Splitting this into a separate article and keeping the summary of that incident in her bio is a better solution. (In fact, it could be argued that if any merge should happen, we should merge her article here: the incident has more visibility than her own person). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable plus WP:NTEMP. Who's gonna talk about this incident in two months?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reviewed this article at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Macadamia_nuts_controversy. The person at the center of this controversy is Heather Cho, who may or may not be notable. I do not think this event should be merged to the article about her, because this event incited discussion about the control of very rich families ("Chaebol") in Korea. It would be WP:undue to merge this social debate about rich people into her biography, despite the fact that her actions sparked this iteration of the debate. These sources do not treat this event as an isolated incident, but rather as a part of a greater tension between socially elite people and the rest of society.

"Why 'nut rage' is such a big deal in South Korea". Washington Post.
"Korea's Nut Rage scandal ends with victory for the little people - Fortune". Fortune.
"'Nut rage' exposes the many cracks in South Korea's elite". The Independent.

The coverage that this event has gotten passese WP:GNG. Here is the event in United States news today, continuing three weeks of media coverage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of coverage but there's also an article Heather Cho which exists because of the same event; she's only newsworthy because of it. So we don't need two articles. Keeping the Heather Cho makes much more sense, first as it's more comprehensive (it would make less sense to shoe-horn her bio in here), second as the event though newsworthy doesn't have a single name – it's not "nutgate" for example – so doesn't have an obvious title, it's not clear where the current title is from (a search turns up almost nothing), and it would work as well as part of Heather Cho.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne I am not sure. Heather Cho to me seems notable for WP:BLP1E. I thought in such cases it is more common to cover the event than the person. Nothing new has been said about that person after this event, but the impact of this event has been covered in contexts removed from her biography. How would you feel about all of this information being moved into her article? Would that not be WP:UNDUE? I regret when people say "move all this content to the other article", then when it gets to the other article, other people say "there is too much WP:WEIGHT on this issue". Is it your intent to cut coverage of this event to a small part of a biography, or do you think that this event can be covered to reflect reliable sources even as a subsection of that other article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As painful as it may sound, both articles do not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. Heather Cho is a WP:BLP1E and Macadamia nuts controversy fails WP:NTEMP, as Jetstreamer points out. If there is really a topic here, it should probably be developed as part of Chaebol. Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, but I disagree that this is a clear case. Already we have an event that is published in major news media in at least 5 countries repeatedly from three weeks ago when it happened to present. The story was reported then revived at least twice to report two different perspectives. I see no way to merge this rather long article into any other article without deleting most of it, because as soon as it is merged into another topic someone will rightly recognize that the full length of this article would be undue to include elsewhere.
Yoninah, if this content is merged elsewhere, would you want it merged in entirety, or would you want it cut to be just a few sentences? There is a lot of content here which is coming from 18 sources now. If this was in Chaebol, my opinion is that 2-3 sources and 2-3 sentences would be the expected summary. Is that much content deletion really what you think is merited? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is so important, I think someone should develop it under Chaebol. This would involve some serious research and writing to bring examples of many kinds of chaebol, this one among them. Mention of the Macadamia nuts controversy would probably be limited to a paragraph in that case. The fact that it has so many sources now is because it's part of the news cycle; in 6 months' time, I'm sure it will be supplanted by another hot news story and fade from the media memory. I understand your concern that this is a well-developed article, but it just doesn't meet WP:NTEMP. Yoninah (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah As you say, if this content goes to chaebol then almost all of it will be deleted. There is a full Wikipedia article here. You say there is no room for it here, and we know there is no room for it at chaebol, so it seems like this is an issue that you feel has no place for full coverage anywhere on Wikipedia. In my opinion, this story is also part of the history of Korean Air, either or both Heather Cho and Cho Yang-ho, and could be referenced in Category:Scandals in South Korea. If this article is deleted then that would mean that the short description of this story would need to be forked somehow in those articles, rather than just briefly linking them here.

What is your personal standard for passing WP:NTEMP? For me, I see about 20 sources published in five countries and three languages over three weeks. To me, this passes both WP:NTEMP and the broader requirement for significant coverage. Are you expecting more sources? More time passing? Coverage in more countries? More languages? Perhaps a journalist's or researcher's review? Can you help me understand the deficiency you see here? I know that we do not need to apply strict numbers to things, but I that this is one of the most broadly and extensively covered global news stories of the last year, in the sense probably not more than 10% of all news stories leave their country, get reported a month after the fact, and are translated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heather Cho: She's the prime cause of this, if there was like 2-3 or more people doing this, then fine. But it belongs on her article for the most part. Tibbydibby (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You'd have to be totally ignorant about Korean culture, and arrogant, to want to delete this. This was probably one of the top news stories in Korea this year and will have a lasting impact on public perception of the chaebol. Shii (tock) 18:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FYI (tock), I've been to South Korea, one of the ebooks I have written and sell at Amazon is set there, and I contribute to a blog for Korean and military topics. Please read up on WP:NPA and don't call people ignorant or imply that they may be racist....William 18:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's fairly irresponsible to throw in a contentless vote without even bothering to comment on importance of this topic. I mean, this was in the headlines in Japan and I'm sure it was in China as well. Shii (tock) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heather Cho and/or Partial Merge with chaebol given arguments above regarding the biographical article focus under WP:UNDUE - A few years ago, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd abused an Air Force flight attendant on his VIP jet and reduced her to tears because he wasn't satisfied with the meal prepared for him. It received at least a weeks worth of media attention in Australia as well as being covered in New Zealand and the UK. Yet this scandal was not notable in the long term as per WP:NTEMP nor is it mentioned in Rudd's biographical article. Bearing this in mind, the "Nut Rage" incident should consider Subjective Importance as per WP:LOCALFAME - Shii (despite pushing the boundaries of Wikipedia:Civility) makes a point that this incident is culturally significant, but to say "This was probably one of the top news stories in Korea this year and will have a lasting impact on public perception of the chaebol" doesn't stand against WP:CRYSTAL. Also, bear in mind that outside of South Korea, and possibly Japan it would be difficult to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS as the reporting of the incident in English speaking countries (this is en.wikipedia after all) did for the most part not discuss the cultural consequences of the incident in any great detail, certainly not more than what can be covered in the bio and mentioned under the main chaebol article. Dfadden (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your analogy isn't very good. Your incident could be mentioned in the PM's article, but this story is rather different -- it's an issue about the Korean Air chaebol in particular and Korean society more generally. If you understand the context this isn't crystal ball gazing at all. Shii (tock) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or Partial Merge with Chaebol per Dfadden. Changing !vote to Keep (see below) Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nutgate is big issue in South Korea. Kanghuitari (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this event has spurred considerable social commentary, as evidenced by the links provided by Blue Rasberry. Analysis like that is the hallmark of an event that goes beyond a "temporary news story" to a topic of lasting importance... Many of the above arguments are just plain wrong. For example, the amount and nature of English language coverage is completely irrelevant. Any language is acceptable - it is the nature of coverage that matters. (See WP:N: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.") People saying it should be covered at Heather Cho are getting BLP1E backwards - the event, not the person has preference in most cases. And people citing NTEMP ("Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage") as a reason for deletion are either very confused or didn't read what they cited. It is a guideline that only makes sense as a keep argument (normally used at a date well after coverage has ended). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, @ThaddeusB:, I am mis-citing WP:NTEMP. I should be citing WP:EVENT, especially WP:LASTING. From the point of view of WP:EVENT, the past month's coverage could be considered "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time". If it tapers off a year from now, the page could be nominated for AFD under WP:LASTING. I am changing my !vote to Keep. However, I think the page name should be changed back to Nut rage or whatever it's popularly called in the press, because Macadamia nuts controversy leads you nowhere. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should probably be titled Nut rage (which redirects to the current title as of now). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I acknowledge that this event is clearly significant, and I agree with @Yoninah: on the application of WP:LASTING. I will concede that while I read reports of "Nut rage" here in Australia, it was framed as a humorous/ridiculous incident with minimal emphasis on the wider cultural issue in those reports, so I may have been a bit ignorant and hasty in my assessment of its significance (thankyou, Mr. Murdoch!) I maintain that the content should be kept, however I feel that unless the article is likely to be expanded further the context would become more apparent for those not familiar with Korean culture when tidied, merged and read as a subsection of Chaebol. Dfadden (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heather Cho who is notable now. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: please read WP:BLP1E. Yoninah (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The event was significant and has continued reports and followups. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:23, 8 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 02:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Albanese[edit]

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

Article is a WP:PROMO piece by a naked WP:COI (the subject's agent). No argument is made for encyclopedic notability. Subject appears to fail WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSBIO. No sources are cited and external links are entirely promotional. Article thus also fails WP:BLP and WP:V. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the N bell. In a sane world this would be a speedy delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that points to the subject of the article meeting WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. — sparklism ^hey! 06:00, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:22, 31 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 ⨹ 02:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MuLab[edit]

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

No real notability shown for this software, and the article is only referenced to company site and press releases. Wording is rather promotional in places. Peridon (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. This PC World article is fairly in depth, but with download links is not entirely independent, and a search did not turn up any other significant RS coverage, just blogs and incidental mentions.Dialectric (talk) 11:25, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Not one of the most major applications in this field. There was this review on MusicRadar, which seems to be a high-ranking site for musicians. Together with the PC World review, it might be barely enough to scrape by on RS. It was also ranked in the 2014 MusicRadar poll of The 19 best DAW software apps in the world today. The MusicRadar review could be used to tone down the promotional wording. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Based on what sources are linked and what I was[n't] able to find on my own, I think it falls short of WP:NSOFT. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability even compared to other DAWs. On a related note, there are a few dozen rather un-notable articles for similar pieces of software listed at Digital audio workstation. Should they be considered for deletion? Piboy51 (talk) 21:48, 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 Heidi Game. kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi moment[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO. Not a common term. ...William 12:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, it's an interesting and informative article. Czolgolz (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. Pishcal (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another attempt to back-door trivia into Heidi Game without actually putting it on there; outside of the two notable NHL examples, the rest are just hidden viewer whining under the guise of trivia for events of interest to only a few, contractual issues, or pure technical difficulties that no network could help. Nate • (chatter) 15:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heidi Game. The individual incidents are trivia; all that's needed is a sentence in the other article to the effect that "cutting off a sports event that's running overtime to show the next program gets called a Heidi moment now." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per William's nomination statement and Mr. Schimpf/Nate's rationale. There is nothing to differentiate the term "Heidi moment" from "Heidi game," and there is insufficient noteworthy content to justify a stand-alone article for the former. This appears to be an excuse to generate a trivia list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a list worthy of inclusion and it appears there are some sources to support it. Merge is an option, but it's a big enough list with enough detail and potential to grow that I think we'd be better off keeping it as a separate list rather than including it in another article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:25, 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, Mr.Z-man 17:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting subject, sufficient references support the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Further, there are more sources here and googling the phrase "heidi moment" (site:sports.yahoo.com OR site:espn.go.com OR site:sportingnews.com OR site:sportingnews.com OR site:foxnews.com/sports OR site:usatoday.com/sports OR site:cbssports.com OR site:bbc.com/sport OR site:dailyamerican.com OR site:si.com OR site:sportspromedia.com OR site:sportseventsmagazine.com OR site:skysports.com OR site:goal.com OR site:football365.com OR site:football.co.uk OR site:boxingnews24.com OR site:worldboxingnews.net OR site:boxingscene.com) will yield more sources. An in-depth source here. Further, my sense is that the term Heidi game refers to a specific game in which the coverage was interrupted by the movie Heidi, while the term Heidi moment refers to other games with the cutaway coverage problem, which is why I think keeping the article is more accurate than a redirect, although I suppose my second preference is redirect (last preference is deletion).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:38, 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) 00:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Never heard of the term, but it seems to be sourced enough it could be merged into the main Heidi Game article, albeit without each individual instance of something like that happening. Jgera5 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main Heidi Game article already had that information excised from the article as WP:TRIVIA, so it would be re-creating a problem we thought was nipped in the bud the first time before this fake term was created. Nate • (chatter) 22:34, 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 redirect to Naeem Baig. I spy at least one book review that can be merged. czar ⨹ 02:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kogan Plan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Merge to Naeem Baig. —Swpb^talk 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naeem Baig. There is not enough meat other than plot summary. No claim for particular significance. Mediocre review coverage. Actual citations to reviews rather than general newspaper urls would have helped when attempting verification. Fails WP:NBOOK for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, and for no claim to notability --Bejnar (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 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) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Nothing to Merge, Also those book infos should be removed & converted to a list. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Naeem Baig. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:53, 6 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) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

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

My only concern about this article is it only lists down the radio stations owned by the network. I think this article should be deleted for now for I think there are no chances for the article to be improved. —theenjay36 20:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I agreed this is a poor article, and needs much improvement, but it is not sobad that we need to start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand theenjay36's reasoning here. There's not much here yet, but this could clearly be vastly expanded. Just look at the history here. The company has been subject of legislation, which promises the existence of secondary sources. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:43, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Samuel J. Howard, there looks to be plenty of scope to widen this article and make it much better. theenjay36 may not have seen the whole thing for what it could become. Expand, don't excise :) CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 01:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expanded. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit the article could do with a huge expansion but imho improving the article's better than deleting, Also there are alot of sources on Google (It's 5am and I really can't be bothered in copying & pasting 10 different urls). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Samuel J. Howard. -- Calidum 05:53, 31 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.