Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 February 21 February >

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 redirect to Inglourious Basterds#Cast. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shosanna Dreyfus[edit]

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

Non-notable movie character. Any information would essentially be repeating information from the Inglourious Basterds article. Tempaccount040812 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Inglourious_Basterds#Cast. At this point in time all of the coverage about the character has been in relation to the movie. There hasn't really been any coverage that focuses on her as a character specifically. She's mentioned a lot since she's one of the main characters, but we don't have coverage in the same way that say, Princess Leia or Katniss Everdeen has. The character might get it in the future, but right now the coverage is limited to mentions in relation to the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect at present. The existing article is just a plot summary with no analysis or background/production information. The main article on the film is quite long so spinning out sub-articles on the characters isn't ridiculous. And it's certainly possible academics, critics, or film historians would discuss Dreyfus as an interesting character. But right now it fails WP:NOTPLOT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Inglourious_Basterds#Cast. Does not receive significant coverage independent of the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article and Redirect the name to Inglourious_Basterds#Cast. Not noteworthy enough for a stand alone article.Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 21. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 19:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Martinez[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Prior AFD withdrawn over bundling issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 February 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. The big question here seems to be whether the Urban X Award is a significant enough award to confer notability. That fact that we have Urban X Award hints that it probably is, but I don't see any clear consensus on that either. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leilani Leeane[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO, only one of the AVN noms isn't scene-related, and the other awards/noms fail, by repeated consensus, the well-known/significant test; negligible reliably sourced bio content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another one of the many bios in this general category that fails notability guidelines, the type that was mentioned in another AfD discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO because she won the Urban X Award for Female Rising Star. "Consensus" established by users who have given no reasoning besides "WP:I just don't like it" is not a legitimate argument for degrading the value of the Urban X Award. I have seen AfD's in which recipients of these awards were deleted and I would like to know what the problem is with this particular award. Can someone please answer that for me? The only difference between this and other well-known and significant industry awards is that the Urban X Award is entirely focused on ethnic pornography. I'm not familiar with music WP articles, but I doubt that the Latin Grammy Award is excluded from consideration in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really is in appropriate, "Rebecca". You don't provide a shred of evidence to support your dishonest insinuations of racism, and you know there isn't any. The determination that this award wasn't sufficient to establish notability was first made nearly five years ago, based on an argument advanced by an active member of the pornography wikiproject, and has been repeatedly sustained at subsequent AFDs and DRVs. See, for example these discussions,

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_24#Carmen Hayes
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherokee_D'Ass_(3rd_nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaiya_Lynn
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Victory (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirra Lynne

where no one, even in the more heated discussions, advanced the gratuitous accusations of racism that "Rebecca" was so quick to trot out here. For good reason.
The Urban X ceremony is a coatrack of an event, meant mostly as an excuse to sell tickets to an event to "civilians," not a bona fide honor. It is neither well-known, nor significant. nor an industry award. It is certainly not "well-known"; the article on the award itself has no independent, reliable sourcing, and neither GNews nor GBooks searching turns up any substantive coverage. It is not an industry award; it is not sponsored by any industry group or organization. Instead, it is a personal moneymaking project of one Giana Taylor, a non-notable Suze Randall model and one-time Playboy Cyber Girl. Its lack of significance can be measured not only the constantly shifting of awards categories, reflecting the promotional needs of each year's ceremony's paying sponsors, not only by the fact that award categories were up for sale, so that paying sponsors could be assured of awards categories that only their productions were eligible for, not only by the fact that the awards were (said to be) based on a website poll where anyone could vote an unlimited number of times, but by the fact that in the award's five years of existence, a whopping 36 awards have gone to one Alexander Devoe, the husband of award founder Giana Taylor and his production company,[1] with at least another dozen going to Taylor's producing partner, Brian Pumper. This award is barely more significant than Pathmark's "Cheese of the Month", or McDonald's naming the Big Mac "Hamburger of the Year". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think five years is a long time? Those AfD's have become outdated with the increasing coverage of the Urban X Awards before, during, and after every show. The show began about five years ago so of course it didn't have enough coverage to demonstrate notability back then because it was just WP:Too soon. The most recent AfD you listed was the one on Cherokee D'Ass from June 2013, a discussion which had an equal amount of delete votes and keep votes. And you think EVERY adult film industry award is run by a PR business and that wins/nominations are purchased by the recipients. You've made the same argument for several other awards, even AVN and XBIZ. So what if Alexander Devoe has a 36 Urban X Awards and he is the husband of founder Giana Taylor? Devoe is an AVN Hall of Famer[2] and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO regardless of how many Urban X Awards he has received. What relationship, if any, does Giana Taylor have with Leilani Leeane or any other recipients. I bet there must be many Urban X Award recipients that Taylor hasn't even met in person. I do believe that you have demonstrated an obvious WP:Conflict of interest on WP, particularly against the porn industry, not black people. I never accused you or any other WP editor of racism. All I did was point out the only difference I noticed between the Urban X Awards and other adult industry awards. The Urban X Award is like the adult industry's Latin Grammy or BET Awards. I believe it was created with a genuine interest in recognizing a group of people who faces challenges that white performers don't. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also yet to see any evidence that the Urban X "award categories were up for sale, so that paying sponsors could be assured of awards categories that only their productions were eligible for". Guy1890 (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guy's observations and would like to offer one of my own. Part of the problem with editing anything porn related is that none of us (at least as far as I am aware) are actually in the industry, so its difficult for us as Editors to have an accurate read on how various awards are perceived. I am a subscriber and fairly frequent reader of AVN magazine, but even I will admit that reading the articles does not give me the insight that being a performer or industry worker has. Furthermore, as a former Entertainment industry employee, I know people who currently or have worked in the Adult industry and chat with them on occasion, but I'd still be hard-pressed to make any kind of claim to understand what its like to be in the porn world. Also its unfortunate that the Editors who I have reason to believe are connected to the industry, are lambasted for being shills or having a COI. We should be looking to them for their insights, but instead we seek to discredit them based on assumption. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or noticeboard for any business sector. Instead of relying on the personal judgements or original research of editors connected to the business, we should make decisions based on coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca1990.--109.188.125.37 (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article abysmally fails WP:GNG, because AFAICS there is no evidence of any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Some editors seem to regard GNG as a sort of technical obstacle which can be circumvented by a specialist notability guideline, but that misses the point. Wikipedia articles must be based on independent reliable sources, and unless those sources exist, any page should have no content. If the subject has won a significant award, then include that fact in an article on the award and/or a list of winners. But without the sources, there should not be a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO without a significant enough award win. An Urban-X Award is not enough per editor consensus. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. My own search yielded one paragraph in an AVN article. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While GNG is not the be-all and end-all that's etched in stone, the fact of the matter is that regardless of what guideline is used, there is insufficient notability to be found here. Also, it should be noted that the bad faith of some of the !voters above is absolutley appalling. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly endorse The Bushranger's concern about the bad faith of some of the keep !voters. Those editors should be aware that if that sort of conduct is sustained, it will come under close scrutiny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She won the award. I asked a few days ago where the discussion was that concluded that Urban X was a non-notable award ceremony, and no one has pointed to such a discussion (and anyway, wouldn't Urban X Award be deleted first if that were the case?). Also, BrownHairedGirl, I'm a little confused...the subject of an article who actually won the award has been brought to AfD, yet the "keep" !voters are being accused of bad faith? (And please let's not hear anyone respond along the lines of "stop casting aspersions", "stop personalizing things", or making arguments in all bold text.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Hope[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG as the nominator states. No substantial reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - generally known in the world, many nominations. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     11:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Muppet Show. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppet Show Theme[edit]

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

THis article was created on 26 September 2011 with no coincidence that the band OK Go released their single "cover" of that song on that date. WP:PROMO, WP:AD. This adds very little over what is already at the main article The Muppet Show except for the WP:PROMO. I have removed the PROMO under WP:BRD but seems to me fairly obvious if the article was created in the same week as the single was released, it is WP:PROMO. A single by a relatively new band is not in itself notable. Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reference (155 at time of writing) at OK Go's article is to the "Webby Awards":
  • "Viral". "Webby Awards". 2012. Retrieved 20 February 2014.
That itself is a non-notable reference since it constantly changes and the specific content is not listed there, although mentioned there. The same reference was also at this article I propose for deletion, because I deleted it as not WP:RS and to take it to WP:BRD, but since nobody ever these days takes time to look at talk pages of articles I bring it here swiftly (or am I being too cynical? I leave loads of comments on articles' talk pages and have never had a response to any unless I have invoked process). I forgot, as usual, I probably should have let it pass rather than actually check references.
I could be wrong but I didn't think a "viral" reference via online sources counted as WP:RS, but I am happy to change my opinion if I am wrong. I have no doubt the band itself is notable (seems to be anyway) but this cover version of itself isn't. Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doubting that OK Go are notable, only that a cover version of a single which is a promo article on the week the single was released, is not notable. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. On reflection, this should be merged into The Muppet Show as a separate section, and OK Go can have their place in that section without being (as I see it) WP:UNDUE. I would take this out of AfD and do a {{proposed merge}}, but having brought it here I don't want to pull the rug from other editors' feet, so will leave it here while it is being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mike V • Talk 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards won by Saturday Night Live cast members[edit]

List of awards won by Saturday Night Live cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable list with no sources, lists awards won by cast members of a particular show OUTSIDE of that show. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably delete It's no coincidence that the first source is a website called funtrivia.com. It would be reasonable when discussing the show and its cast to mention that many have gone on to great things, winning Oscars, etc, but this list is trivia that would only be useful in a very obscure quiz. If people believe that the SNL cast is notable enough that this page can exist as a spin-out of that article, that might be possible to argue. But as a separate entity, this is too arbitrary to pass list guidelines (SNL cast members aren't really a unique group of human beings, and there's no relation between being on the show and winning awards later). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Evans[edit]

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

Vanity, no sources but Amazon.com — goethean 22:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with the nom. Looks like pure vanity. Can come back later with better sources if they ever materialize. Google does not give any evidence they exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riecoin[edit]

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

There is no indication of significance. I'm not sure if this fulfills Notability criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. Links provided are developers' pages and forums and do not establish notability. A search did not reveal any significant RS coverage. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coin is brand new, and proves to be a great tool for scientific research:
See Phys.org:
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-virtual-currency-riecoin-math-problem.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.69.75.196 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - this coin falls flat on it's ass faster than Bitcoin's own market value in terms of WP:GNG. Prime example of WP:PROMO. Citation Needed | Talk 03:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agyle (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems like a violation of WP:IINFO. I do not see the significance in the length of less than one mile, and US state highways in that category. There is no lead (save for a restating of the article title) and I don't think there is any additional content that could be added due to the specificness of the list. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as unmitigatable trivia. Why cut it off at one mile? Also, I look at the lengthy Maryland listings, and I find that for the most part we're talking about unposted scraps of state-maintained roads whose existence has been deduced from a state list and whose descriptions are deduced from Google maps. The articles can't even agree one what they are: the Maryland sub-lists go by numbers, while this article counts each segment of the discontinuous routes separately. I'm also suspicious that differences in the way the states account for state maintenance of roads plays a part: it wouldn't surprise me that all those unposted roads in Maryland wouldn't even be assigned a number in many states. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia. As Mangoe says, there are major differences in how different states inventory roads, and so even a more useful sortable list that gives the length of each route would be an apple-to-goat comparison. A list of shortest signed state highways might be more useful, cutting off at an arbitrary number rather than length. Note that this argument does not apply to articles like List of state highways in Kansas shorter than one mile, which are (IMO flawed but perhaps necessary) merges of several standalone articles to satisfy deletionists. --NE2 16:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete - it may be prudent to revisit Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_14#Category:State_highways_shorter_than_one_mile. The category seems a more appropriate logistical method for indexing these routes. One mile is perhaps arbitrary, but WP:SAL, WP:LC, MOS:LIST, etc. etc. all point towards the concept that an arbitrary cut-off is not in of itself original research; what matters is that the items on the list can be verified as meeting the inclusion criteria. That said, I think a category is a better solution for quickly finding all of these routes, and quickly adding new ones. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial and arbitrary list Dave (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Succint list of state highways shorter than one mile. If there is any appropriate page to redirect and mege this into, it may be worth investigating. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anyone needs this information, should be able to be found in the lists of each state's highways. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary to have list of highways shorter than an arbitrary length. These lists are only useful if they are holding places for describing routes in a state that are less than a mile and would otherwise be permastubs, such as List of state highways in Maryland shorter than one mile (2–699). Dough4872 01:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge – This is just a page listing highways that are based on arbitrary criterion (for example, all highways in the list are supposed to be less than one mile, but it looks like it's better off being a category instead). Also, the article is totally unreferenced, save for a single reference to Minnesota, and no exact lengths are given. If it's merged at all, it should be merged into List of longest state highways in the United States. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article has issues as well, some of the same general arguments raised here in favor of deletion apply there.Dave (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This violates WP:IINFO and there is very little context. Whether there should be state lists of this type (that is, just lists of links without context) for routes shorter than one mile can be debated elsewhere, but a national list is not necessary and not helpful.  VC  19:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the understanding that we're keeping the "less-than-one-mile" lists for each state that has one or will have one in the future. Those are actually more useful for listing highways for which the articles would otherwise be perma-stubs. TCN7JM 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiple gold medalists ranked by share of won Olympic events[edit]

List of multiple gold medalists ranked by share of won Olympic events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It makes sense to have articles about multiple medalists at Olympics or even medalists at single events but this particular list seems a bit arbitrary. And it is weak in sources, bordering OR. Tone 21:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While there is talk of medal inflation,[3] to actually calculate and rank the percentage of medals won compared to the total number of medals in all events is WP:OR. It's also OR to lump gold, silver and bronze medals together. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as pure OR. Nno need to give it credibility to stay on here for a week. And lock it from recreation as many wont notice it without Olympic years (though ive just gone and doen a BEANS)Lihaas (talk) 01:01, 24 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beth (UK singer)[edit]

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

Questionable Notability Zero Serenity (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No depth of third-party RS coverage to establish WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability seems to be based on a single link of somewhat dubious reliability that asserts that she had a minor hit on a Dutch and a Belgian chart, without actually specifying which charts they are. I wasn't able to find anything else to confirm this or indicate any other notability. I'm not convinced she meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria at the moment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner De Witt[edit]

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

Non-notable company that does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Contested proposed deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only 57 hits in Newsbank. All of them are passing mentions, mostly of the form "According to X, a partner at Tanner De Witt..." Therefore fails WP:CORP as noted by nominator.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated, there's no indication of sufficient notability. It also seems that much of the previous and remaining content somewhat had the underlying intend to be promotional, probably due to conflict of interest. --Cold Season (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 February 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. j⚛e deckertalk 21:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ogborn[edit]

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

notability not established Ysangkok (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Jygost (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of reliable sources establishing nobility are available. This is a clean-up job. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sportfan5000. I added a few sources already. There are more, which I will be adding soon. She meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Refs look good now. Pburka (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 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 nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ///EuroCarGT 01:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Acton[edit]

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

This is an article that has no sources and nearly no content, and the subject is non-notable. Epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should withdraw this now. Epicgenius (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy is owner(Ex) of Whatsapp which processed upto 32billion messages a day, and just sold WhatsApp at largest recorded price for a company 19billion to venture capitalists (facebook). Very worthy of mention at wikipedia.
  • Keep. He sold his user base, including their data to Facebook Inc./Zuckerberg! 78.35.192.217 (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He founded a company that lacks an article. Not all company founders are notable, nothing about him seems to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WhatsApp you mean? That has had an article for a few years now... Fram (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm done, and has some credible sources. Could be cleaned up and made more presentable, but it should be fine. DDima 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at the very least redirect to WhatsApp. Stayed out of the limelight before now, but has been the center of a lot of attention these few days, wand is very likely to remain so (this is not some one-off news event without lasting importance, this is the kind of story that will develop and will be used as an example for years). While there are plenty of Internet millionaires, Internet billionaires are still quite rare and get enough attention to warrant their own articles. Fram (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WhatsApp has known huge popularity and was definitely a game changer in the history of mobile communication. It's co-founders definitely deserve a page. This one is very basic I'll admit, but is bound to be fleshed out in time. CVince33 07:48, 21 February 2014 (EST)
  • Keep. While not every company founder is notable, WhatsApp certainly is notable. Since he help found the company, that is certainly at least one notable thing about him. Kenny 12:45, 21 February 2014 (EST)
  • Keep Plenty of coverage to establish notability. I have tidied up the article and regularized the references. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WhatsApp is not just another company. the merger with facebook is one of the biggest tech aquisitions in recent history--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WhatsApp acquisition and the subsequent media coverage clearly make Acton notable. GabrielF (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outerloop Management[edit]

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

Apparently a non-notable management company. All currently cited references are to passing directory-level mentions. On a Google search I found only similar directory mentions, blogs, press releases, and self-published content, and one interview with one of the principals of the company. Not enough to establish notability, in my view. The article is not promotional in tone, but it's mere presence serves to some extent as promotion, if my conclusion that the firm is not notable is correct. DES (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable per WP:CORP, no significant coverage beyond press releases, directory-type sources, and niche music industry sites. Skrelk (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wholly non-notable based on text and ref's. Persons involved not notable either. DP 00:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcell Felipe[edit]

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

Autobiography with mostly affiliated sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wiki, and I did not realize the policy on autobiography, the objective was to develop a series of articles/profiles of Cuban exile leaders, particularly those related to US Cuba Democracy PAC, and the CLC, which have been defined by the Cuban government as its most radical and strongest opponents. I started with Marcell Felipe because I have the informaiton, but there are about a half dozen such biographies. These folks have been responsible for the development of most of the current US Policy on Cuba, and have influenced the foreign policy of other countries on Cuba. There is plenty of sources to verify the contents, one just needs time and familiarity with the system to upload. And while I did not initially include it, there is definitely plenty of opposing view articles on the web on Marcell Felipe and these other individuals, including articles that accuse these people of manipulating US policy, financing Cuban dissidents, and otherwise engaging in what the Cuban government calls subversive operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcellfelipe (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gray (writer)[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe writer; no evidence of any specific relevance within his community. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not enough references to pass GNG after a search of article databases. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a non-notable fringe theorist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than a brief mention in this book, I can't really find anything to show that he's particularly noteworthy. Even the community of which he's a member don't seem to have taken any particular notice of him, not that we could normally use any of those as RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIf he's very influential within his own community and this could be clearly referenced that might be enough to confer borderline notability on him. My AfD was put up because he seems to have failed that test. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Gang[edit]

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

Only one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Gang_(politician) is available in wikipedia so not required now. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 14:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just to be clear this is for removing the disambiguation page and pointing it to Yang Gang (Politician) as a redirect, right? Because if so I support. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've now created an article for Yang Gang (journalist). The disambiguation page is clearly needed. -Zanhe (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep From looking at the incoming links to the dab, and using the search box, I quickly found three other entries. As journalist had incoming links, it was a valid entry before creation. Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: in its present state it is a perfectly valid dab page. PamD 15:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram Caruthers[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. The article reads like a CV for a non-notable school principle. It was also created by someone with a close connection to the subject matter, based on their username, who's had no other notable edits outside of this article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google search turns up the sort of routine local coverage you'd expect for a school administrator, along with a mention in a book about his high school that notes he was the first black principal of the elementary school that's now named for him [4]. These are worthy accomplishments but without more, they don't seem to rise to the level of notability that we generally require for biographical articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I made significant edits to this article a while back, but could not find more about this person than what's in the article (1 newspaper reference and 1 biography from the school board). He was certainly an accomplished and well-respected school administrator, with a school is named after him. I would suggest that his biography be merged into that school's wiki article, but it was an elementary school. His notability doesn't seem to cross the threshold. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously a great person for the community, but I'm not seeing the notability necessary for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Would change my position if it were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandton (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Boyd[edit]

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

Article about an activist in the Scotland Independence movement. Speedy deletion was declined by another editor, though I can't see the significant coverage in reliable sources myself. She gets mentioned in a couple of news sources, while the redflag.org article is co-authored by her, not about her. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Looking at the available third-party sources, either cited in the article or found through my own search of newspaper articles, I'm only seeing brief passing mentions, not enough to build a biography. (There are articles about her in the Daily Mail, attempting to discredit her, but my understanding is that the Mail is not viewed as a reliable source, per consensus at WP:RSN.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! If I'd known there was a national press campaign against her, I may not have raised the AfD. The DM is a trashy rag but its still read by several million people. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She gets mentioned in passing in articles about Scottish independence, but there is no significant coverage. I would prefer that we avoid sourcing The Daily Mail. It's not a reliable source by any strict definition of the term, and we don't want to create a biography out of negative propaganda from a tabloid. It's probably too soon for an article on her, though we may not have to wait long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is an activists. She has not done anything notable. We should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep as withdrawn.~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francesc Homs Molist[edit]

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

Re-created after deleted by BLPPROD. Non-notable politician, fails WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I was desperatly looking for policy on politicians, somehow managed to miss it. Everyday's a school day. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep as withdrawn.~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Espadaler Parcerisas[edit]

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

Re-created after deleted by BLPPROD. Non-notable politician, fails WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I was desperatly looking for policy on politicians, somehow managed to miss it. Everyday's a school day. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 01:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burn It Down Tour[edit]

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

Redirect to either to either Jason Aldean or to Night Train (Jason Aldean album). I'm not sure which. Let me explain the whole story.

This article was created by Rquidone0717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

For at least the past few months, he seems to have been the only user contributing from 69.141.238.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I originally suspected paid editing. But then I looked through his contributions and did some Google searching. It appears that he is a young contributor in his late teens. His interests seem to include escalators, trains, public transit, car repair, and country music. It's theoretically possible that he's a sophisticated paid editor who's forged an entire online identity, but I think this is very unlikely. I no longer suspect paid editing anymore.

The creator means well. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand notability. Plus, over time, he seems to have been almost completely unresponsive to user warnings posted on his talk page. I have noticed one exception: before Talk:Rewind Tour was speedily deleted, I saw him write "This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The Info is Correct)" there.

Callanecc rightly pointed out at AIV that complicated cases like this must be taken to AN/I instead. But, instead of further pursuing a block, I would rather first try to engage Rquidone0717 in conversation.

Dear Rquidone0717: WP:NCONCERT makes the following clear: "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms." But, it continues, if you can prove only that a concert tour happened, it is not notable. This seems to be the case here.

And so, Rquidone0717, I vote that we should redirect this tour's article to one of the targets mentioned above. After the community decides upon a redirect target, please merge all the content yourself. You can find it in the article history.

Rquidone, do you now understand that you should not create articles about concert tours by country musicians? Please leave a comment below.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking around, the tour seems to be getting good coverage. Enough to pass the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:22, 20 February 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, with noted hesitations but a clear "keep" consensus, currently. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pelling[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting our notability guidelines is present in the article. The only sources given are self-published books and blogs. The subject activity edits here and likes to promote himself as a expert on the Voynich Manuscript and other things, using his own blog and self-published books as sources. Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did indeed make some edits here (a modest 13 edits out of 67 total edits, over a seven year period), but the other 54 edits were made by other people entirely. I have been interviewed on television and radio about the Voynich Manuscript and other cipher mysteries a good number of times, and have been cited and quoted in numerous books, magazines and newspapers (e.g. The Sunday Times two months ago). I did write many computer games under the nom de plume "Orlando M. Pilchard" (I removed them all from the Wikipedia page in response to a previous criticism, but other Wikipedia users have since reinstated three, apparently believing them notable), and I did invent the word "gamification". Nickpelling (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide citations to these sources so they can be added to the article. In the absence of citations to independent articles that establish your notability, your article should be deleted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. A little confusing because there are other authors with the same name. if there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources please provide it for consideration. thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep if only for his production of some landmark games I grew up playing. I found his page whilst researching Arcadians, and if arbitrary deletion had taken place I would never have been able to track down the other games made by him for Acornsoft, etc. His fifteen minutes of fame were more like 15 years, eclipsed and forgotten by time perhaps and maybe too old for some editors here, but this is far from a vanity bio and the person does clearly meet the notability guidelines IMHO. (@bashpr0mpt on Twitter, welcome invite to add me, I follow back.) BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability must be established through reliable secondary sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pelling's blog on mysterious ciphers is wonderfully creative and well-written. He is in the top rank of Voynich specialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAg54 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not criteria for having a Wikipedia article. Notability must be established through reliable secondary sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm coming here from Talk:Voynich manuscript, where NP stated, "I am currently trying to find clickable versions of the 20+ newspaper articles where I have been interviewed and quoted at length." The claim, in and of itself, seems to confer notability. However, I looked at WP:Notability (people). WP:BASIC seems to fail. Pelling's claim is newspaper interviews, and interviews would not be secondary sources. An interviewer is usually not critiquing his subject. Newspaper interviews about technical subjects would not usually have the interviewer being an expert in the field. Primary sources do not contribute to notability. WP:ANYBIO seems to fail: there are no awards and there does not seem to be any widely recognized achievement. Coining "gamification" can be covered in that article; the book Gamification: A Simple Introduction by Andrzej Marczewski mentions Pelling in passing in the foreword, but apparently nowhere else; the comments suggest others developed the field. Being an early game programmer needs context. Are the games significant in their own right? Writing a program or developing a product does not imply notability. Trevj's comment re Acorn can go either way: is it stature from other gamers or more newspaper-style interviews. Is it a narrow trade pub? The comment by Bash raises a question about NP and Acornsoft: is NP one of many programmers developing the games or is he the sole developer? NP is not pointing to significant achievements in game programming. NP is not claiming patents or significant developments. The article uses computer games to claim notability, but neither Pelling nor Pilchard are mentioned in that article. Neither is there mention in BBC Micro. The game Elite (video game) (not developed by NP) is mentioned, and that article did not have trouble pulling up sources (the game was put on many platforms). NP holds himself out as an expert and a researcher on the VM, but nothing suggests that WP:Notability (academics) applies. I don't think there's any claim to writing referreed papers for Crypto or other significant cryptographic pubs. WP:AUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE does not seem to hold for VM (regarded as an important figure; widely cited; peers/successors reference his work; significant theory or technique). Blogs and self-published works are not evidence for N. Where is a secondary source that confers statutre on NP? Maybe there's a little more for gaming, but I'm ignorant there. I suspect there have been many books written about programming games; if NP was prominent, then why isn't he mentioned in them? I'm leaning delete. Glrx (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment pretty much summarizes my view. I'm not a deletionist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have tried and failed to find secondary sources that confer notability. Folks have mentioned here that his blog is good or that he knows a lot about Voynich, but these are not compelling arguments for the subject meeting our notability standards. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 11:48, 1 April 2008 version of the article includes numerous games, although it is accepted that there are no sources and therefore we don't know the extent of the subject's involvement. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say keep, but I don't see a clear path (other than IAR). I'd like the newspaper articles and such to do it, but I'm not comfortable with that given the WP advice above. There's a claim above that NP has "been cited and quoted in numerous books". That looks good, but when I followed the book link, there were books that republished/mirror WP content; books about VM were prior to the selfpub. One of the computer game articles suggested that the computer game resembled an existing arcade game. There's lots of weak stuff; just give me something solid. Glrx (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I've peeled back several layers here and I just keep finding self-published sources and self-referencing bits of information. Just being interviewed or contributing to video game development does not confer notability. There are hundreds of people that work on these things and they're not notable. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a distinct difference between "video game development" as we now know it in 2014 and individual videogame authorship (solely or largely by a single individual) of the '80s (and in some cases '90s). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hopefully your question can be answered and the sources can be located. I would have no problem recreating this article with secondary sources even if it's deleted here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It's a shame that the sources are so patchy. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some historical cipher-related interviews: (2001) New Scientist (Catherine Zandonella) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17223174.900-book-of-riddles.html (subscriber pay-wall), (2003) Nature http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031215/full/news031215-5.html , (2013)http://nautil.us/issue/6/secret-codes/the-artist-of-the-unbreakable-code . Sadly, all my (non-retro) computer games press interviews predate the modern Internet. Yes, I agree it's patchy, but the twists and turns of a person's real life rarely arrange themselves in the neat patterns that would make them useful. Nickpelling (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions (directed at article subject Mr Pelling) Of the video games you've worked on (I have no direct knowledge of later aspects contributing towards notability), for how many (or for what proportion) were you basically the sole author? And what references (if any) do you recall that home computing (or other gaming) magazines, etc. noted your personal involvement and/or interviewed you, etc.? (I accept that the answers could amount to original research, but they may provide direction for further searches for sources.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My original self-designed / self-developed computer games were Frak!, Firetrack, and 3D Pool / 3D Pocket Pool. I was the sole programmer and main developer on more than 10 others, some of which (like Atom Galaxians, Arcadians, Zalaga) were inspired by existing arcade games; conversions of licensed arcade games (Enduro Racer); conversions between platforms (Dandy (though Mike Bryant helped keep me awake), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (with Carl Muller), Monopoly, Bart Simpson meets Radioactive Man, Wing Commander, Duke Nukem (with Paul Shirley), etc); and original publisher-owned titles (Loopz, Bangkok Knights, Battlemaster). These were all reviewed in the computer games press at the time, but where in the loft the folder containing my copies of them all is I don't know. Beyond these titles, I worked on more than 20 other titles, often brought in as a specialist to work on particular hard-to-get-right technologies (data compression, soft-skinning, speed optimization etc) - that's just the way the industry went over that period. Here's an interview with me from 1996: https://web.archive.org/web/20050306232855/http://www.beebgames.com/npinterv.htm Nickpelling (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I recall reading that was the case for Frak! and Firetrack. The beebgames.com interview seems to be a self-published source with apparently with no editorial oversight, so is unfortunately of little significance in terms of demonstrating notability. Maybe I'll be able to locate something else from BITD, but I can't bank on either (a) finding time to do so within the foreseeable future; or (b) actually having copies of the relevant magazines here where I live. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very weak keep As sources exist for the gamification stuff he should probably get a stub for that. But the Voynich self-pub shows no signs of notability so I removed that section. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CREATIVE. I've located an interview dating to 1987, and have also added a source to Frak! (although the review there doesn't mention the programmer). I sincerely doubt we'll get any better online sources than this (about the computer games aspect) before the end of this discussion, which is typical of such topics of the era. I've not mentioned the software company, Aardvark Software, although that's referred to in the interview. I've also not attempted to incorporate any of the gamification refs I noted above (mainly because my personal knowledge is lacking there). If the subject wishes to undetake further edits to the article (in accordance with the COI guidelines, I don't necessarily see a problem with doing so. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment: Pursuant to the links Nickpelling has posted, I'm leaning toward keeping at this point. Unfortunately I won't have time this weekend to modify the article to integrate the sources. Can anyone help? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say 'yes'. But if so, it's unlikely to be before the AFD is closed (or relisted). Sorry. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPMT Basic Program[edit]

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

Program itself does not appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG: There is only one link to an independent source which only appears to mention the program in passing. Wieno (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition.Iniciativass (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FPMT Masters Program[edit]

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

Program itself does not appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG: There is only one link to an independent source which only appears to mention the program in passing. Wieno (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition.Iniciativass (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Tech[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Sources are primary and or trivial thus failing WP:RS. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please stop flagging this article by mistake. Certainly it meets minimum requirements. If you think it's not following rules, then why is this alike article still approved : Shahrad Network. For the record, what you do is not fair and it's based on your own personal taste. Asia tech is a well known nation wide Iranian company which does not need global attention. As you can see it has a page in Wikipedia Persian as well. Regards. Sa3er (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on Shahrad Network since it didn't appear on my NPP queue. In any event that comes under the heading of OTHERSTUFF and is irrelevant. You keep saying it meets the guidelines but you are not demonstrating how. Please read WP:42. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can see none of the sources on the Persian Wikipedia denote notability either, and realistically any secondary sources would be in Farsi. Wieno (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What I'm saying is that what you do is not fair, cause none of ISPs listed on Category:Internet service providers of Iran have the requirement you're currently asking for, so they could get considered to be deleted as well. All resources on their pages are linked to their own website or some poor local website. Why don't you recognize Ripe.net and NetIndex as a qualified resource? After all, considering your past judgments on your talk page, guess that was just a bad luck to lay on your NPP queue! With all due respects. Sa3er (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a large business and there are almost certainly sources circulating in the Iranian print world that we don't have access to. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:39, 9 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: Stuartyeates'... Unfortunately we don't operate on a 'seems like' basis. The motto of Wikipedia should be "show me the money," or in this case sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The basic policy remains that we are not a directory. It is possible that none of the firms in this categry meet our requirements at this point, in which case there will be no articles either. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just really disappointed at Wikipedia to let guys like Ad Orientem easily ruin fundamental Wiki Foundation goals. Dude, I'm not even a user of that company and there's seriously nothing in it for me rather this articles gets approved or not. I was just shocked that such a famous and big Iranian ISP like Asia Tech was not even listed in Wikipedia English, while other not so well known and small groups like Shahrad Network and Sepanta are surprisingly approved and listed. If you still have any doubts you can ask your friends at Wikipedia Persian about the company legacy and how come they approved آسیاتک which is the Persian version. In the end, I think it's well said that : “Never argue with low people cause they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”. It is just information, I have nothing more to say, do whatever you feel is right. Regards. Sa3er (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Sources are partially primary, partially secondary, comprising indices (one by Ookla, for example) of varying ISPs. Rarkenin (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. We're not a directory and I can't find any sources that do other than list this company. If there are sources in Farsi I assume someone will discover them at some point, and then the article can be recreated. But given what's in there now, and, more importantly, what's NOT out there now, this company fails WP:CORP.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 21 February 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 to delete. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kompromat[edit]

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

Nothing but a dicdef for a Russian word for "defamatory materials" supplied with a random connection of refs about defamation in Russia, added after the article was deleted for the first time. - Altenmann >t 07:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is hugely relevant to the subject of high-level politics and not only in the former USSR. It also appears to be well sourced. There's no rule I know of that an English WP article has to be translated to an English word; it's an ethnic word of art. It has at least been transliterated to the Roman alphabet. I WOULD support a merge of this if some "smorgasbord"-of-similar-concepts-across-national/ethnic-lines article already exists or later is created, also a common occurrence at WP, where the similar concepts are then distinguished from one another. And THAT article WOULD probably have an English name.Paavo273 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A random collection of examples is not a reference for a concept. The article is even wrong in its definition: 'kompromat' is a generic term, irrelevant to victim (politican or not). It clearly shows OR of a person who even does not know Russian language. There is no encyclopedic article about the concept. Blackmail in Russia is a moderately silly idea, just as Sincerity in Russia, Gluttony in Russia ((any abstract cxoncept) in Russia; you got the idea); Petty theft in Russia, Pissing on the toilet walls in Russia, Adultery in Russia, Running red light in Russia, etc. Unless you have a scholarly source that analyzes the concept, to assert the notability of the topic, the article is nothing but WP:SYNTH, a WP:COATRACK of examples. - Altenmann >t 09:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Popular term, page is well sourced in terms of references, and notability. If there is disagreement with the term, it can be added on page. OccultZone (Talk) 09:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popular term in Russian language, yes. But this is English wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DO you really think it is a great idea to populate English wikipedia with aritlces about russian "popular terms", such as Kaznokradstvo, Mzdoimstvo, Krasnorechie, Velikodushie, Razdolbai, Molokosos, Pidoras, Ministr, Komandir, Gruzovik, Voyennaya kontrrazvedka, chinusha, avtoritet (disambiguation). Do you really want them? Yust say yes, and I will make you happy very fast, and with plenty of nice looking reliable sources, too. - Altenmann >t 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Not a dictdef, plenty of sources, easily capable of expansion. --NSH001 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 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 speedily deleted by User:Callanecc per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DWWQ[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station. I can't find any reliable sources. THe article is written like a promotion. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Campus Radio's article - It has no real notability (barely any coverage at all), but at least it exists: a redirect to its parent article wouldn't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no third party sources and most of the article is a program guide. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German model[edit]

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

Looks like another WP:CFORK of social market economy (SME) [9][10][11] using alternative terminology. It doesn't even link to the latter and has very little actually referenced content. If it intends to be a description of factual data (rather than of ideological underpinnings) then it's a fork of economy of Germany. Either way, a third article (besides the SME and the economy one) can't really be justified. The final part of the article (the only part with some inline refs) is basically used as a WP:SOAPBOX mostly for unrelated matters. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:32, 2 February 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(talk) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Social market economy. Social market economy and this article do probably constitute a content fork so far as the named subject goes, but they do so surprisingly little in terms of actual content. While, by encyclopedic standards, Social market economy is mostly by far the better article, it is badly lopsided: it describes at length the motivating theory and the politics leading to its implementation in West Germany, but then touches only briefly on describing what was implemented in practice (and got described as "the West German model" and later just as "the German model") and not at all the rather fierce academic and political arguments over the past twenty years or so on whether (and to what extent) it failed from 1990 onwards and whether (and to what extent) it still applies to the current German economy. In explanatory terms, this first half of this article covers the basics of what was implemented reasonably well, though admittedly by the standards of Wikipedia articles when it was written in 2005 rather than current standards. I have now reintroduced a couple of the sources linked to, and apparently used, in the early history of the article (they were apparently removed because they had been sourced to the authors' own websites rather than to the academic volumes they had been published in), this time using them for inline citations. More can certainly be done, but probably by others - I don't have much expertise on the subject. The second half of the article at least partly indicates, and references, the more recent arguments. Finally, while merging the two articles is in principle probably the best solution, doing so will produce quite a large article - if the resulting article looks like being too large, it might still be better to keep this article as a separate spin-off one. PWilkinson (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:06, 20 February 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 University of Nottingham Students' Union. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TEC PA & Lighting[edit]

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

Exact recreation of a PRODded article, which was deleted in October as lacking notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I've addended my !vote. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 14:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Syed Khan[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. Shovon (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Held a relatively junior office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable person. May be a local hero but nothing more than that. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 20 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marzouq Zaki[edit]

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

Contested PROD, player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Contestor of the prod cited this and this neither of which appear to be lengthy enough to be considered "significant coverage" for WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Nfitz: - are you actually able to tell us what any of these links say. Ignoring the fact that link 1 and link 6 are the same, these are all very short articles of no more than a 10-15 lines each. It's not very helpful simply to dump a load of foreign language links in and claim GNG. It is clear he is mentioned quite a few times, but you haven't provided any context or attempt to translate any of these very short little articles. I still don't see anything in these links, from their layout at least, that would indicate significant coverage in terms of interviews / articles. If these are interviews then there doesn't seem to be much more than a couple of questions in each one and if they are articles in general about the player they really don't go into any depth at all. WOuld help if you could provide context and translation. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It says he is notable. They are all easy enough to read, right-click translate to English. Sorry about the dupe ...Nfitz (talk) 04:57, 12 February 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(talk) 11:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the Kuwaiti Premier League is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources. Kuwait is a member of the AFC by virtue of geography, not professionalism. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support your claim with reliable source. I have posted a reliable source.Hitro talk 20:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is part of AFC, this discards your claims about geographical virtues. Hitro talk 20:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter given the sources provide prove that he meets WP:GNG? Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be, but until there is a consensus to include the Omani league in the list of fully pro league, I act as if it isn't included in the list. Might be wise to close this as "no consensus" and re-nominate it if the consensus of that discussion was to not include the Omani league in the list of fully pro leagues. Mentoz (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. slakr\ talk / 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alliancen[edit]

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

PROD contested on editor's whim that they would prefer an AfD. No indication of notability in the article whatsoever. WP:GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment Is it necessary to (again) violate WP:FAITH in the nominating statement? I expressed concerns that the team may be notable. Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No good faith issues here. You clearly stated that you would rather see AfD than a prod without providing any evidence for notability. Please provide some links to sources supporting GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article needs expanding, but seems to be similar to Stævnet, and played in front of large crowds. Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 February 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(talk) 11:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would be happy with a redirect instead of my initial nomination. There has been no indication of GNG other than simply saying it is notable, but I accept that as a representative team, it is a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this team is likely to be notable, as it is similar to Stævnet or London XI. The article could need some more sources, but it isn't easy to find online sources from that period. This shouldn't redirect to Football in Denmark unless it is actually mentioned in that article. Mentoz (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something other than keep, in a weakish sort of way. This doesn't seem notable to me. I agree with @Mentoz86: that Football in Denmark would be a poor merge target because that article doesn't mention this team at all. I'm wondering if maybe there's a place for History of Football in Denmark, as a common collection point for information about teams which don't exist any more. Individually, they may not be notable (although, I'm sure you can point to particular examples of no-longer-existing teams which were notable on their own), but collectively, they might make a good article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Ba-Masilah[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has four caps for the Omani national team. This is factually incorrect. While he has been called up to the national team, and named to the substitutes bench four times, he has never been capped, which is what is required to meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Nfitz:, can you find a source that indicates he has played. Article indicate he almost certainly has but currently Soccerway has no details for him playing matches and that is the only reference. Would be happy to change my vote if you can. Also would be worth starting a thread on the Footy talk page to get this added to the FPL list. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Fenix down: Here's a game summary for an AFC Cup game in Jordan ... which may not count, but does note that not only did he play, he was the captain. [21]; here is another [22]. Presumably if he was captaining ACF Cup games, he'd appear in regular season games ... though Omani League match summaries are hard to come by ... but I can search more later. Nfitz (talk) 11:49, 5 February 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(talk) 11:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination, will flag for G12 copyvio since the only non-copyvio is unsourced (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabbel[edit]

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

nn selfpromotional bandcruft Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a little bit of independent coverage out there in a reliable source ([23][24][25]). If more could be found then I would possibly !vote to keep this article - I'll keep searching. The band released full length albums on Kittridge Records and Three Ring Records, but although we have articles on both of these labels I'm not convinced of their importance in the grand scheme of things. — sparklism hey! 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, as it stands, the article is a direct WP:COPYVIO of [26], so should probably be speedily deleted in its present form. Thanks — sparklism hey! 15:26, 3 February 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(talk) 11:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Corlett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. This person has only had a significant role in one notable TV show: Dinosaur Train. The subject has apparently also appeared in a 2005 short called "Company Man", which doesn't appear to be notable. I'd be okay with redirecting to Dinosaur Train. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 January 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(talk) 12:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the significant roles in two notable productions guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 05:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W. Michael Garner[edit]

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

promotional article for not particularly notable attorney, liting all his cases and speeches. The listings as best lawyers, etc., are the only possible sources for notability , and are not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a leading authority in the field of franchise law, the article on attorney W. Michael Garner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to its policies and guidelines. In addition to writing an authoritative three-volume legal treatise on franchise law, Garner has edited the American Bar Association's franchise law journal and franchise desk book. The Wikipedia article includes ISBN references and 20 links to reliable sources. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 February 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(talk) 12:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are sources, but they don't establish the subject's notability. Court cases do not prove the notability of the attorneys arguing them. I could probably buy a spot a "best lawyers" list, and I'm not a lawyer. The closest we get to notability is "his writings" being cited in a U.S. Supreme Court case. That could go toward establishing the writings' notability, but not his. And I can't find any sources online that do establish notability. Lagrange613 04:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. As its author, I apologize for not including more sources. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate any suggestions you may have for improving the article so it complies with Wikipedia's standards. I'm in the process of finding reliable third-party sources for W. Michael Garner's most important cases. As soon as I have the citations, I will add them to the article. In the meantime, I can assure you that it is not possible to buy a spot in the "Best Lawyers in America," the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Best Lawyers in America seems to have higher standards than other lists I've seen. But just because they claim to be "the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession" doesn't make it so. It seems comparable to Who's Who. Certainly not all or even most of its 50,000+ lawyers are notable. Lagrange613 17:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to satisfy Wikipedia standards regarding citations to reliable third-party sources, I added links to court decisions that have cited W. Michael Garner's writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to adding links to numerous court decisions that have cited W. Michael Garner's writings, I have added links to key court decisions throughout the attorney's career. The article now includes reliable sources to support W. Michael Garner's standing as a leading authority in the field of franchise law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Court decisions/records are unacceptable sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Court documents are primary sources when the topic of the article is at issue in the case before the court. Here, court orders cite Garner's law journal articles to support points about cases that don't involve Garner. That makes them secondary sources; the journal articles are primary. But I still don't think it's enough to prove notability. Maybe if the cases were higher-impact, or if the orders' reasoning really turned on something Garner had written, but they aren't and they don't. If a few minor references to your journal articles established notability, WP:PROF would look very different. Lagrange613 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the numerous citations on the page meet the requirements of WP:BIO, which requires person be subject of secondary sources (not quoted or something along those lines). Article sounds like WP:PROMO and likely some sort of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, as MNWriter is a WP:SPA that has written this article almost entirely by him/herself, there is a WP:COI in voting here. The additional citations act only as a WP:MASK. mikeman67 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati X[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Fails on WP:BAND. Hitro talk 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 January 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(talk) 12:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 slakr\ talk / 22:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CJD Feuerbach[edit]

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

Former German volley-ball club. No references. No evidence of any special notability. Fails all relevant notability guidelines  Velella  Velella Talk   20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • References were added. The exactly same article is since years in the German language Wikipedia. And there is also a French Wikipedia version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Jeremias (talk • contribs) 13:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable as winner of national championship and even European level championship. The nominator has not stated which guidelines are failed. I think WP:CLUB is met by the new sources. —Kusma (t·c) 12:23, 3 February 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(talk) 12:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CLUB refers to non-commercial organizations, not sport clubs. Criteria that would apply here is regular WP:ORGDEPTH. Based on that, there are no sources here that establish any depth or substantive coverage beyond list of victors from league. None of this establishes that there was significant coverage as required. mikeman67 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. slakr\ talk / 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Arctic Biology[edit]

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

This AfD is based on a discussion copied from the talk page that started after a PROD of the article by me. Once there was a serious objection by an editor who neither removed the PROD himself nor convinced me of the notability, AfD seemed like the best good-faith option.

PROD rationale:

Non notable research group. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

Talk page discussion:

This article contains valid encyclopedic content describing scientific research programs of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. UAF isn't notable merely because it has "University" in its name. UAF has fallen behind UAA in enrollment in recent decades. What has kept UAF "on the radar" within Alaska has been its emphasis on scientific research, particularly in the fields of astrophysics, biological sciences and oceanography. IAB and the Geophysical Institute have been at the forefront of that research for most of the university's existence. Additionally, included amongst biological research but not mentioned in the article is the Large Animal Research Station, whose viewing area along Yankovich Road is a major Fairbanks-area tourist attraction. This falls within one of the pillars of UAF's mission statement, namely public service.
In summary, I reiterate that this is valid encyclopedic content relating to a notable entity. The real issue here is whether it belongs in its own article or somewhere else in the encyclopedia. There has been an ongoing problem of haphazard content forking in coverage of the University of Alaska. It should be obvious why, as there are far fewer warm bodies working on this sort of thing compared with, say, Disney or The Simpsons or South Park. I don't have time to fix everyone's messes for them. I barely have time for this, but the mad deletionist bent I've witnessed across Wikipedia lately resembles spiteful trashing of the contributions of certain editors (mostly long gone and therefore not in a position to defend their contributions) more than anything else. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on wikipedia is defined in terms of our notability guideline which talks about evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and secondary sources. This stub has neither. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care to repeat myself. However, since it's obvious that you're not listening, let me repeat myself. You're proposing to diminish the encyclopedic value of coverage of the University of Alaska Fairbanks because you have a bug up your ass about the construction of this particular article. UAF isn't notable merely because it has "University" in its name. UAF is notable because it does things which makes it notable. Biological sciences research ranks right near the top of the things which UAF does which makes it notable. Is there a problem with understanding this? The notability guideline isn't going to read Wikipedia content and deduce that it lacks credibility. Real people out in the real world, however, are going to do just that, so it's necessary to keep them in mind, too. When coverage of the University of Alaska has devolved into a series of POV forks about its hockey teams and student governments, because people who obviously don't know any better and don't care to know any better have trashed the rest of the coverage in the quest of satisfying their deletionist hard-ons, don't come crying to me to fix it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]
Please remember that, as a policy and one of the Five Pillars, civility is not optional. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator, as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Alaska Fairbanks – I see an issue here of whether coverage of a particular subject should properly reflect the subject, or only reflect what editors feel like working on. As outlined in greater detail above, the reality is that research conducted under IAB and other research in hard sciences ranks very high within the context of UAF's notability. That editors would rather work on expanding coverage of UAF's hockey team is no excuse to push coverage of UAF even further in that direction, which is exactly what will happen if you go about deleting content such as this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is a great idea. Maybe what we need is a University of Alaska Fairbanks research centres article which we can merge and redirect this, Arctic Region Supercomputing Center, Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research and International Arctic Research Center to, without deleting any content or breaking any links? There maybe Alaska Native Language Archive could be merge and redirected to Alaska Native Language Center as well? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 January 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(talk) 12:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most famous research institutes on the subject on a world-=wide basis. I think such high importance is a requirement for research institutes like this, and I think this is one of the rare cases where the requirement is met. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable independent source that calls it [O]ne of the most famous research institutes on the subject? I can't find one. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per lack of substantial covereage in reliabel independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 432,000 hits on Google News. 64,000 in Google Books. Nearly 5K in Google Scholar. A lot of it is in the credentials of associates, so it is possible this institution is known best by its members, but I believe there is some substantial coverage as well. Eg even the Toolik Field station got coverage from across the country: Scientists at Toolik Field Station investigate a warming Arctic-NJ News Anarchangel (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Earlier today, I just closed another AfD on some minor Pokemon character as a merge. If this is a case of WP:IAR, so be it, but I refuse to believe we're writing an encyclopedia which considers some dumb Pokemon character to be more notable than a scientific research station. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OldApps[edit]

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

There is no indication why subject is important to be included and non reliable third party sources. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I fixed the nom and am neutral. Ansh666 21:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 31 January 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(talk) 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Survé[edit]

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

This began as a userspace draft at User:IqbalSurve, which came up at MfD. Consensus there was to move to mainspace and list at AfD. Please note that biographies on this person were PRODded at Dr Mohammed Iqbal Surve and Mohammed Iqbal Surve in 2010. This is a procedural action on my part, and I am neutral on the question of deletion at present. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 January 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(talk) 12:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a lot of minor material here, but ono single part of it is notable, andthe sum of many non-notable activities is still non-notable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amyt Datta[edit]

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

Flunks on WP:BAND. Article fails to explain why the subject is notable or worths an encyclopedic article. Ocean of flippant, frivolous and trivial references with external links which are not enough to establish any sort of notability. Current state of the article comes no near to the General notability guideline at Wikipedia. Hitro talk 17:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:47, 30 January 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(talk) 12:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability standards like Gold charts as seen in the notability criterion does not apply to India as it doesn't have one. Upon some googling, artist seems to have a fair share of albums and is definitely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwan07 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 February 2014
Fails on WP:BAND, if you think he doesn't then explain it why and with some sources. I have nominated him after googling. References are frivolous that is one of the reasons for this nomination. Hitro talk 18:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Anderson (actress)[edit]

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

Unreferenced because there are no reliable sources about her LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:46, 30 January 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(talk) 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She does meet the letter of WP:ACTOR: she starred in Summer School Teachers and Fly Me and is mentioned in some reviews of T.N.T. Jackson indicating her part was significant. But there's very little about her online. Based on the films she made, I'd expect her to be covered more now in books and websites on cult cinema than she would be in the 1970s when the films came out. So it's whether failure of WP:GNG overrides pass of WP:ACTOR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Copa Catalunya[edit]

2012–13 Copa Catalunya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football tournament, failing WP:GNG Precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya (2nd nomination) JMHamo (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

‪2013–14 Copa Catalunya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "four-team football tournament"?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I've corrected it now. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - there is consensus at AFD that individual stagings of this competition are not notable, and I see no reason why these two are any different. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unlike the previous deletion, there are no lack of recent articles from various publications demonstrating that this competition meets WP:GNG (simply because there seems to be a lack of Catalan articles available on line from a decade ago on any subject!). Some examples are [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2012-13 - per Nfitz, there certainly seems to be international coverage of this tournament. There needs to be significant work on the article to add sourced prose however as both contravene WP:NOTSTATS at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. There are many reliable sources are shown above. NickSt (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per precedent and Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 8 February 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(talk) 12:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see anything worth keeping in either of these articles. – PeeJay 20:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although not well known, and in need of some expansion it seems to have ok cover in the links listed above. I don't see how this is worse than having a list of <obscure items>; the cup itself is notable, and this round of the cup have cover at least for the finals and semifinals, possibly also some of the other matches (disclaimer; sources translated with Google translate). Bjelleklang - talk 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2015 Pan American Games[edit]

Football at the 2015 Pan American Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, with the following reason "This is a routine article, and will be created sooner or later - see previous years. That the tournament will happen is of no doubt. Facilities and athletes village approaching completion. Qualification starts in about a year. Meets WP:GNG easily." It fails WP:Crystal and is unsourced JMHamo (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the massive, daily, significant media coverage (at least around here) about the 2015 Pan Am games, and various events, I can't even begin to comprehend why we are here. Clearly meets WP:GNG [42] [43] [44] [45] Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. @Lugnuts:, since there is a qualification phase to take place prior to the actual event, no information can be provided other than than that it will probably take place at the moment. @EuroCarGT:, completely agree that this will be a notable subject once there is something that can actually be written about it. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the coverage over the controversy over the change in venue from Toronto to Hamilton, Ontario, the controversy over the reconstruction of Ivor Wynne Stadium, and the controversy over Canada's (who have qualified) plan to take a B-team, there is information that can be added. Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 2 February 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(talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Apart perhaps from the fact that the event will be held, any content that can go in here at this point would be speculation at this point. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : this proposed deletion is taking WP:CRYSTAL way too far. The future holding of this event is obviously notable in and of itself, and has been definitively confirmed in terms of date and location. There may not as yet be much to say about the subject - but there are some useful pieces of confirmed information, the subject is notable, and there is no realistic quality of 'fortune-telling' or prediction. this is a confirmed event - the only speculation would be as to some of the details. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Omielańczuk[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:MMANOT which requires three fights in a top tier organization. Subject has one scheduled in a couple of months but even then will not meet the criteria.

Subject also has not met any other criteria for notability with all the sources pointing to routine coverage in MMA-centric publications SQGibbon (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet 3 fight criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not seeing any reliable Polish refs outside what's already present in the articles (here and pl wiki). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Does not meet WP:NMMA but he's likely to in the future. I know that's WP:CRYSTALBALL, but since he won his first UFC fight he's likely to get at least 2 more (barring injury).Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm in the delete camp on this one as I think there are too many assumptions when the candidate only meets 1/3 of the track record required for notability. Aside from injuries there are so many potential outcomes that could affect his career at UFC that until they're at least scheduled I would consider re-creation. Mkdwtalk 07:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:50, 20 February 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. Consensus to keep following twice relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 11:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Adkerson[edit]

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

I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing; the more detailed mentions are promotional in nature. It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what he is notable for. A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Ireneshih (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irene - I see where you are coming from but he is an influential character in the mining industry and regularly features as a subject of mining related articles. A few examples -

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/02/01/freeport-facing-uphill-struggle-lobby-government.html http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/indonesia/2014/02/02/399681/Freeport-struggles.htm

A single purpose account is also quite a strong term to use for my profile, my aim is to help the encyclopedia provide bios on important businessmen and women around the world. When I find a topic that interests me more, I will act upon that. I notice the sum total of your contributions to this website is to delete material from it. While I understand that it is necessary to prune the bush, so to speak, don't you feel you should contribute more to the encyclopedia rather than just deleting things all the time? Thanks Aardvark112 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find enough ghits to establish notability. Cited sources are not independent of the subject. The Bloomberg Businessweek mention is more like a directory listing.Iniciativass (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg Businessweek has user-submitted executive summaries. It's basically a resume service for the corporate world. Having a Businessweek profile is not proof of any notability at all.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Yes, I'd say he was notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Head of major company, and of major professional society, and major awards. I am consistently skeptical about sub-national level society leadership positions, and sub-national level awards, but national level awards have always been considered notable here in everything. WP does cover the business world, when we can get decent NPOV articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twins Days[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, not enough coverage on media Monni (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 3 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-known convention of twins. FWIW, I am a product of a multiple birth. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG.[46][47][48][49] FWIW, I'm not a product of a multiple birth. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A subject of international press coverage ([50] and [51]), with a major claim of significance (see second link). SuperMarioMan 05:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 20 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coquitlam Search & Rescue[edit]

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

Article is nearly entirely copied and pasted from the CS&R's website (therefore a copyright violation) and no evidence it meets general notability guidelines. Hwy43 (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article's creator has indicated he is "on the executive board of this organization and have provided all text and images from the organization's archive." He has a conflict of interest. Hwy43 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hwy43 has stated that this is a conflict of interest but since this only applies to business or financial interests as defined by wikipedia I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Coquitlam Search and Rescue is a registered non-profit and charity. All members are volunteers (including myself) as stated on the Wikipedia post. The content is factual and does not attempt to convince or market anything. There is no conflict of interest as the facts as published by the BC Government are being referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsell (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previously responded to this here. I'm not the first to express the concern either. Regardless, the page is proposed for deletion because of no evidence of meeting WP:GNG and its content being WP:COPYVIO. Hwy43 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless? Really? So you now admit it is not a conflict of interest but "regardless" you want it deleted? Seems a bit strange to me you would use this language. What sort of evidence is required to ensure [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines are met? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsell (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have misread. I have not admitted that. I have reiterated that it is GNG and COPYVIO are my reasons for deletion. The COI is just an FYI. Hwy43 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I read the words correctly. Okay so if your new reason to want to delete this page is Copy Right violations then I already have referenced the pictures as owned by Coquitlam SAR with links to CSAR Flickr site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.210.98 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when I Google the article title I see news items like this this, this and this in just the first two pages of results. There seems to be an abundant amount of significant coverage out there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi Shawn in Montreal, wouldn't you agree that this topic is run of the mill? There simply isn't any indication that this S&R outfit is any more notable than any other S&R outfit in British Columbia, Canada or beyond. This is no different than how almost every municipality has its own police and fire departments. These departments inevitably get mentioned in the news, but this is routine coverage of these ordinary departments just doing their jobs. We therefore don't create articles for every municipality's police and fire departments. Further, given the amount of text the editor has copied and pasted from his S&R website (which are copyright violations, and look at the history of deleted copyrighted images as well), it is obvious that this is self promotion to spread the word about this S&R outfit, whether the intent is financial gain or not. Financial gain isn't the only reason to promote things. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Monfret[edit]

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

There is no indication that this person meets Wikipedia notability guidelines for musicians. No claim of any notability at all. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 05:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hello, Willy Monfret is not only a musician but also a model, actor and the ambassador of Guadeloupe Islands. I checked the guidelines and he has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. He had a guestmix in a Japanese radioshow. Could you tell me if this is enough? And maybe how I can solve the problem? User:Rosaenv —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: If you can find any sources for it, it _may_ be enough, depending on the source. Bjelleklang - talk 14:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I agree with Bjelleklang. If you provide citations to reliable sources to support these claims of notability, that could be enough. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A tourism "ambassador" is not the same thing as the diplomatic kind. The diplomatic kind is the only kind that's potentially notable enough to be in Wikipedia because of the "ambassadorship" itself — the tourism kind might imply other notability, in the sense that the tourism board isn't likely to ask someone who isn't already at least somewhat famous, but it doesn't confer notability. (And even the diplomatic kind still has to be sourceable as far more than just existing to qualify for an article.) How you could solve the problem is by adding better sources that pass the rules necessary to get him past WP:GNG (i.e. real, substantive coverage of him in reliable sources — not blog entries, not press releases, and on and so forth.) As I explain in depth below, all but one of the sources you've added so far fail one or more of our criteria for good sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 20 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sent messages to all non-bot editors of this article stating that the article has been relisted and inviting comment. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was actually waiting for someone to reply the questions I've asked earlier. See above. User:Rosaenv —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There has been one answer to your questions today. I will add more now. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable actor/model/musician. Will reconsider if User:Rosaenv can find sources to verify claim above. Bjelleklang - talk 14:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guadeloupean-French Supermodel Willy Monfret Says “Let Me Show You My Islands”, He is an ambassador for the tourist board. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So in other words; they are paying him to be the guy everyone sees in the ads, at various events and so on. That job by itself does not make him notable, and I don't think that article announcing the start of a new ad campaign is either. Bjelleklang - talk 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that's a press release by the tourism board itself, and thus a primary source that cannot properly demonstrate his notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This answers the question as to why someone presented him as an ambassador. He was one but as part of his modeling work. He became a spokesperson for the tourism board is a more NPOV way of looking at it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. these are clean-up issues, plenty of reliable sources to work with. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable as actor, non-notable as musician, non-notable as model and not an ambassador as claimed in the article. It still looks like promo. Number of Google hits remarkably low, even with all the social media included. The Banner talk 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is an ambassador, but only for the tourism board. i think he does meet GNG when his various careers are added up. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article gives the suggestion that he is a diplomat as ambassador, while he is nothing more than a goodwill ambassador/sign board for a group of islands. The Banner talk 15:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case "ambassador" simply means paid spokesmodel. It does not necessarily add to his notability. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 15:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • He remains notable as a model and DJ, although he's too new to pass the musician guideline. He certainly passes GNG. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like almost everybody else, what I'm not seeing here is good sources. Going through them, #1 is a Blogspot blog (unreliable source); #2 is an article about somebody else which merely contains one single solitary mention of Monfret's name (not coverage of him); #3 is an "everybody working in this field gets a page" database like IMDB (potentially a valid external link, but not a reference that can demonstrate notability since, again, everybody who fits the criteria at all gets a page); #4 is an article written by him (self-published source) in a publication that fails to pass our RS rules in the first place; #5 is a YouTube video; #6 sources a fact about the Minaj video but does not mention Monfret at all (thus failing to be about him); #7 mentions him only in the context of an events calendar (thus failing to be substantial coverage); #8 is an unreliable source that contains only a single mention of his name; #9 is the only substantive source in the entire set (though I had to leaf through it to find the content, as the link was to the back cover of the issue rather than directly to the actual article about him); and #10 is a press release by the tourist board itself. So we've got one quality source here, but one quality source isn't enough to get a person past WP:GNG (which requires multiple sources.) If the sources were there, I'd be comfortable saying keep — but they're not.
As always, it bears remembering that an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the topic ever having a Wikipedia article — we have plenty of articles on here where a bad, poorly sourced early version got deleted, but then a later version was allowed to stay because it made a better demonstration of the topic's notability and/or sourceability. Deletion doesn't mean he can never have an article, it just means this article isn't good enough — if someone can create a better article about him in the future, with better sourcing than this, that version would be allowed to stand. But this version is a delete, I'm sorry to say. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. Claims to "ambassador" title appear to be in reference to a minor non-diplomatic position. Sources fail to establish any claim to WP:N. As with previous posters I am open to reconsideration if WP:RS sources can be found that make a viable claim for N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ambassador situation has already been explained and addressed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The references provided may not be overwhelmingly definite, but still they are there for scrutiny and to my mind, clear notability. the editors did somewhat a poor job in the way they presented the article, but still it is quite comprehensive compared to many other articles I've seen. And kudos and my appreciation mainly to user colleague Rosaenv for trying real hard and collecting all this evidence about his work. I am improving the article as we go along, and with great pleasure if I might add, as I am part of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. So this is right in my territory (so to speak) as an article. By the way, I don't know why all the discussion is concentrating on him being a touristic ambassador. We all know he is a sort of spokesman, a sort of a pin-up boy, a pretty face, for great seashore and a life in plenty promise with great sexual overtones for needed tourists to come in. Clearly as a Guadeloupian, a very small nation entity, they would be proud of "their" Willy Monfret, a drop dead gorgeous model. The editor didn't claim he held any diplomatic position. Usually people from very small places like Willy Monfret will not have a flood of media newsbites as any even much smaller stature models from USA would get. This should be put on perspective. This is just a two line section in a page full of many diverse career aspects. This is the Guadeloupe island Tourist Board trailer for what its worth. What is not being discussed for example is his sporting career in the national team of France, juniors and taking part in international events as an athlete. His modeling career can speak for itself. He is known on a massive scale for being the main male act in the music video of Katy Perry called "Right Thru Me" (See long music video. My comment is just this appearance is home for notability for me. The video has got 48 million views. My personal comment is Oh my Goodness!. Please do read the detailed description in the Music video synopsis section. Of particular musical notability is his involvement in "Fux" by GLOWINTHEDARK and DJ Chuckie. "Fux" music. This version is quite well known in Europe music venues. See also reference on the GLOWINTHEDARK discography section on this track. As a model, he is building up as a veritable gay icon. See for example: Homorazzi, The Real Twins of NYC, We Heart It. I am not saying we use these sources from gay blogs, but isn't this indication of definit notability as well to be "added to" his notability elsewhere in many aspects? A clear indication of notability is his appearance in Dieux du stade: Le making of du calendrier 2004. This Dieux du stade has a huge following in Europe. In France, it is a veritable phenomenon annual event and has spearheaded as a shining role example for the "get naked for charity" trend by athletes and celebrities. Him appearing on Dieux du stade (The Gods of the stadium.. for those unaware of French) as early as 2004 is an additional indication of notability. And I am not exaggerating. See IMDb cast for appearances by great names on the calendar for a good cause. How about his acting in Love Bug in lead role being shown at Tribeca. Here the trailer by Ramazan Nanayev. This guy is written notable all over the article section after section - music, DJing, acting, modeling, sports, a vibrant personality with very iconic aspects to him. Let alone he is drop dead gorgeous. I mean... how do you have the heart?.. LOL In all fairness, keep and improve is what I say. werldwayd (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nowhere near enough coverage in reliable sources. Lots of content, so as Werldwayd said the article is fairly comprehensive, but much of it is unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG. Jinkinson talk to me 17:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Article has been overhauled, and sources added, i think notability and referencing concerns, as well as accuracy in reporting, have been addressed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite that new responders take into consideration that many of the misgivings oroginally expressed have been adequately addressed, specially regarding references. AfDs are sometimes a good thing as they serve as an opportunity to improve and save articles. I feel this is one is exactly such a case. werldwayd (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, reviewed the article again but I keep my delete opinion standing as I am unconvinced. The Banner talk 15:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same here. I also get the impression that most sources seem to be interested in him for the music video, not for his own accomplishments. Bjelleklang - talk 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that quite a few additional sources have been added, but I still don't see a noticeable improvement in the number of reliable sources; rather, I still see entirely too many citations to blogs and YouTube videos and IMDB, and not nearly enough to publications that actually pass our reliable sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those video blogs, and other blogs, are generally direct interviews with the subject and are used to verify unexceptional claims, perhaps not the most idea sources, but certainly reliable ones. I think we have met GNG concern even if we can't prove this world-travelling DJ and model meet other guidelines. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the editor who created the original listing I still have to say I am also still unconvinced. The new sources have the same reliability issues as the original sources. Also, I would consider any site with a link that says "You too can publish yourself" (or words to that effect) to be, by definition, a primary source. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it weren't for the world traveling to dj in various countries, and his profound modeling portfolio, also global, I might agree. But those sources remain acceptable for the uses here. Taken as a whole, I think it's far beyond most articles at the month mark, and at an acceptable level for an article that is starting out. I don't see us reporting anything exceptional without sourcing, and I feel it's a decent start of an article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being a model who travels the world is not in and of itself in any way notable for an encyclopedia. Please read the notability guidelines more carefully. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that all sources are reliable, which they are not, you still have not proven notability. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 04:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a general rule I ignored radio and television sources, although Monfret was represented in both. If someone wants to add some of those interviews, at least a dozen of them, it would help. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, my friend, I think you don't understand what reliable sourcing is. In short: a source is considered reliable when it is an independent, third-party, prior-published source with good reputation. Social media like Facebook, Linkedin, IMDb, Vimeo en YouTube are not considered to be reliable sources. Interviews with the subject of an article are considered primary sources and are not considered valid sourced for determining notability. The Banner talk 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's interesting, I see interviews being used on well sourced articles all the time. Especially when there is a preponderance of them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Published interviews can be used as sources for facts, they can not be used for for determining notability. So first prove notability, then use interviews for facts (but only when no third-party sources are available). The Banner talk 11:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing too much notability here; not enough reliable sources, just press releases and the like. He's worked with some famous people, but that doesn't make HIM famous. --TeamPrenda (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dickinson[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, refrences are routine. Simione001 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with articles from several countries over many years such as [52] [53], [54], [55], [56]. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL as there are no fully professional football leagues in New Zealand, but that doesn't matter as GNG trumps NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - per Nfitz, who provides four examples of reasonably lengthy interviews / comments from the player on his career. My concern is that the first two are regional reporting (the fifth is just a WP:ROUTINE match report), however, they are all of significant length. Would help to see the article expanded with this content to show GNG. User:Fenix down
  • Yes, the fifth is routine. I should have mentioned that ... was trying to find recent national-level coverage ... and all the coverage I can see in the last 2 seasons has been routine. Nfitz (talk) 15:01, 2 February 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(talk) 09:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely self promotional BlitzGreg (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given other editors have claimed that it meets WP:GNG and with no refutation being explained, perhaps you could explain why you don't think (most) of the references supplied don't support the player meeting WP:GNG? Nfitz (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:48, 20 February 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 Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations[edit]

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

Non-notable pair of diplomatic missions. No refs. No claim of notability. Google search shows LOTS of passing mentions, but I'm not seeing any in depth coverage in independent sources of the mission as a diplomatic mission. Despite being written as a though there were a single Permanent Mission, there appear to be four, NYC, Geneva, Paris and Vienna, so a rename is probably in order even if kept. There is a comparable article Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations which has sources, but no independent sources with in depth coverage. No other Permanent Missions appear to have articles. Rather than deletion there are a range of merge / redirect targets including Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations (also lacking in independent in depth coverage), Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations, Public diplomacy (Israel), Foreign relations of Israel and List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_Israel (the last being my preference). PROD removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under some title or another. Israel's presence and activity at the United Nations is far from non-notable. We have an entire article on the more specific topic of Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. This article seems like the right place to describe the history and activity of Israel's mission to the United Nations. Pburka (talk) 02:33, 24 January 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(talk) 19:27, 31 January 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(talk) 11:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:47, 20 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsshoes.com[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This company fails WP:ORG and has not been the subject of significant, independent, reliable coverage. The fact that it was founded by a notable person is irrelevant, as notablity is not inherited. GiantSnowman 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – fails to establish significant notability. C679 12:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Needs secondary sources, I did a cursory search and didn't find anything. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I cleaned up the article a bit, but I can't find any sources to enhance it. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kvng: - the first piece is a profile about the company's owner, the second is from a local paper (although a sizeable one, and one that I use often myself), while the third is routine business news. Nothing that shows significant coverage. GiantSnowman 18:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned below, the first article does have WP:SIGCOV of Sportsshoes.com. Different editors will have different interpretations of the local sources clause of WP:CORP. WP:ROUTINE appears to apply to assessing notability of events. ~KvnG 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kvng: - do you mean AFC? C679 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, corrected ~KvnG 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Yorkshire Post article satisfies WP:GNG in my opinion (and specifically passes the "Significant coverage" test). Organisation is carrying out operations significant enough to warrant an article. SFB 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GiantSnowman: The second sentence of that criteria explicitly states that topic need not be the primary focus of the source material. The article is as much about the company as the boss. SFB 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The company and its founder have been the subject of lengthy articles. Its a 3 decades old business and while it's not huge, has achieved some significance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The sources available do not constitute significant, independent, reliable coverage. A Google search for "Sportsshoes.com" does not result in significant coverage. Also, a search in Questia (which contains several important UK newspapers) results in three articles with incidental coverage: for example "The 50 Best Summer Sports Gear" and "Yes, You Really Can Save a Fortune Shopping Online". As a result, the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the applicable guideline, because the company has not "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." - tucoxn\talk 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I see nothing significant about this company, but their size and the coverage that is there are just enough to keep it. Can someone please copyedit the "online shoe shop founded in 1982" bit though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 23 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 31 January 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(talk) 11:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am the creator of this page. The London Stock Exchange has just placed them in their database of 1000 companies to inspire britain. Link and text has been added to the page. This establishes notability. Colindiffer (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The YP piece addresses the company as much as the management. The BL piece refers to the former bricks and mortar store as "iconic". The generic name doesn't aid searches for sources, of which I am sure there are several more for a significant business of this age laying claim to being an early e-tailer. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I still don't see a solid consensus here, one more week's discussion can't hurt.
  • @Sillyfolkboy: Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. WP:RELIST#Relisting_discussions (i'm the creator of this article)Colindiffer (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for reference in future: the ping template works by putting the user name you wish to alert. In this case I assume you want to alert @The Bushranger:, rather than me. (My own interpretation is that this is a classic "no consensus" result, as general notability is being given as the main reason both for and against deletion). SFB 19:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that I am quite aware of the "relisting for a third+ time" procedures, which is why I listed a comment in the relisting note. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is definitely not a solid consensus here. 12 editors have weighed in on it. There are no unfinished conversations of other extenuating circumstances that warrant more time. The first and second relistings did not significantly change things. It is very unlikely that a third will. This listing should be closed as no consensus. ~KvnG 21:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoya Smirnow[edit]

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

Not notable on her own. Tried looking for sources to expand the article and failed. The sources provided also do not go into detail. In the first source provided, she's mentioned once in a list, and the second seems to only be a name drop as well. If it was possible to expand in the slightest surely someone would have in the eight years the article has existed. Wizardman 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 18:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 18:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of wartime cross-dressers. Being an ignored article is not her fault, it's Wikipedia's. The act of cross-dressing to go to war is amazing so it's better not to lose this information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazing or not, it does not confer notability, and "better not to lose this information" is an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no reason why they subject can't be easily merged into the list article. If this had just been merged there in the first place I think everyone would have been fine with it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of the information is verifiable, so there is nothing to merge. Even a redirect might be pushing it given that there is no mention of really anything of this era in that article. Wizardman 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Salmonson, Jessica Amanda (1991). The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. Page 236. ISBN 1-55778-420-5 seems to verify every word. There is a couple of foreign language books I can't access, on from 1917. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good deal of secondary source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly is this secondary source discussion? The two sources noted in the article only mention a name and that's it, no detail is gone into at all. Wizardman 04:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about her makes her notable. She was part of a larger group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The story was initially reported in English newspapers (plural). One paper was Secolo, can't say which others but the fact is verifiable in the 1930 book by Magnus Hirschfeld titled Sexual History Of The World War (pg. 100). This source also contains more details about the girl's story, to expand the article. A reason Zoya is the title of this group is she is the one who recounted the story to the press, she seems to be representative of the group. -- GreenC 04:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW this is one of the books targeted for destruction (burning) by the German government during the 1930s. The title page cautions: "Intended for circulation among mature educated persons only." -- GreenC 04:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If she's "representative of the group", then she needs to be merged and redirected to the group at List of wartime cross-dressers. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, she should be included in List of wartime cross-dressers. Done. This AfD is about whether this topic should have a standalone article. A "merge" to a list article would delete content and anyway a number of people want a standalone article since there are multiple secondary sources over a long period of time (contemporary WWI newspapers, a famous 1930 book, modern sources). She is representative in the sources of the group of 12, not of wartime cross-dressers generally. -- GreenC 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should have an article about the group of twelve, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are good arguments either way. The reason for Smirnow is because it was her testimony that brought the group to public attention, so she is the central figure in the story and sources, since it's reported from her POV. She has significant coverage the others don't. But there is the problem that we know nothing about her beyond this "event" (not in a BLP1E/OE sense), and the general trend seems to have event articles before bio articles. One could argue it either way. -- GreenC 14:51, 2 March 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 dimethyltryptamine. and/or Terence McKenna slakr\ talk / 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machine elf[edit]

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

The hallucination of "machine elves" is no more notable than "the walls are melting" or "hey, that dog is talking to me". That this type of hallucination has any more meaning than melting walls or talking animals is an ultra fringe theory by a psychonaut that has far less coverage than the melting walls and talking dog hallucinations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At minimum, redirect to Dimethyltryptamine, where they're mentioned. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment the title had been redirected there, (and to Terence McKenna) but the article was edit warred back into existence, hence we are here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Terence McKenna. "Machine elf" isn't notable enough outside of McKenna's writings to be an independent article. The content in Dimethyltryptamine is a good summary of the present machine elf article, but is more appropriate in the article on McKenna than the article on DMT. Plantdrew (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, Merge per Plantdrew.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote for a complete copy (merge) of all the text in the entire Machine elf-articles into the DMT-article. My primary arguments are:
* The machine elf-experience is a very reoccurring fenomen for the DMT-drug. Omitting the machine elves from the DMT-article is like failing to mention the fractals in the LSD-article. (I just noticed that fractals are not even mentioned in the LSD article!!)
* A lot of people have met with and experienced the machine elves, the fenomen is not at all exclusive to Terrence McKeena. It is just that his interpretation of them has been heard the most, and that he named them. Albert Strauss (i think his name was?) also discuss them, and probably a lot of the myths and tales about shamans meeting with Gods, ancestors and spirits have their roots in the "machine elf-experience". (All of this is already mentioned in the machine elf-article. It is easy to just copy all of it to the DMT article.)
KaosMuppet (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool, as long as all those people don't get their machine elves to participate in this AfD. That would be meat... uh... some kind of puppetry...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
elf-puppetry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We masked our presence as an alien invasion, as to not alarm you guys what is really going on. KaosMuppet (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, welcome our new machine elf overlords.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/move/merge The phenomenon is clearly notable - see Mysterious Minds, for example. As this source indicates that the creatures are variously described as elves, dwarves, imps, gremlins, spirits, &c. the current title may not be the best. We should not merge into McKenna who just seems to be one of many people who have written about this. Andrew (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly are you going to be able to write about it? "People on drugs see hallucinations. Sometimes the hallucinations are elfs or trolls or clowns or dwarfs or giants or talking dogs or talking trees or talking elephants or talking chairs or talking carpets or melting walls." Psychonauts claim without any proof, validation or reproducability, that they are actual other dimensional beings".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well it's not just any drug, and it's not talking animals per se (who mostly don't talk) or talking trees (who can't) but, as you say, "actual other dimensional beings" (not just hallucinatory furniture). McK made the putative encounters notable regardless of whether or not they actually transpired, (since he claims they have).—Machine Elf 1735 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable phenomenon written about by various authors. No reason to merge into any article; has enough sources and notability to stand as its own article. Ithinkicahn (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to dimethyltryptamine. As far as I can tell, the phenomenon is discussed only in relation to that drug, although by more than one author (most of whom cite McKenna though). Some of the excessively lengthy quotes should be trimmed though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd merge to Dimethyltryptamine rather than to one researcher's article. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumping Ground (series 3)[edit]

The Dumping Ground (series 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Too soon. No verification that a third series is planned, apart from some vague tweets by unverified Twitter accounts, and primary sources saying only that scripts have been commissioned for two episodes. Third series is so far only speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. Ruby Murray 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No official sources to even confirm there will be third series. The article is pretty much pointless, lacking relevant information and reliable references. 82.38.238.231 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 11:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 11:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuya Inoue[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - career in second tier organizations only. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide definitions[edit]

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

Various editors have proposed that lists of definitions for complex or disputed words should not exist on wikipedia. Listing this and two other articles for as wide a consensus view as possible:

Definitions of pogrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination), which resulted in no consensus. Note that the 1st nomination at this article is unrelated as it referred to a different article here ).
Definitions of fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Definitions_of_terrorism#Scholars_and_recognized_experts_on_terrorism, although a section not an article, should also be considered.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-close this vexatious Afd. Zargulon (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zargulon -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Zargulon and PBS. Lists articles are accepted practice on Wikipedia, so they should not be deemed to constitute OR per se. Second, since the "definitions" of the terms are contentious, the list articles serve to introduce and make accessible different perspectives on the specific topic for the reader, which is a valuable reference function.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only "point" here is to get wide consensus. That is the "point" of wikipedia. Surely wide discussion benefits everyone? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not instead it will waste a lot of time and that is disruptive. You yourself say these are " complex or disputed words" although I see them as simple words with complex and varied meanings, I think you have made the point of why definitions of Genocide and Terrorism are suitable as articles. I will not comment on the other articles as I am not familiar with them, but they may well be of a similar type. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the definitions of pogrom deletion discussion linked above. The objections cited are:
  • WP:DICDEF (since wikipedia is not a dictionary)
Genocide definitions is not a dictionary article. Instead it is a reference point for the academic study of genocide and if you look at the citations in the article you will see that the main sources which include such lists are from academic books and not from dictionaries. The article is a fork from the genocide article and is a common way to deal with the issue when there are multiple definitions for a topic. It is a very important point to make as different definitions cause different papers to draw different conclusions and for someone to fully understand "genocide" they have to be aware that different definitions exist and which one a particular academic or official body is using. Exactly the same problem arises with terrorism and definitions of terrorism and probably dozens of other topics. As there article on genocide and terrorism are already large it makes sense to have a subsidiary article to explain the differences in definition. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not generalise the issue over my questions. I have asked you specific questions about the article Genocide definitions.
  1. Where has it previously been suggested that the article Genocide definitions be deleted?
  2. Why have you (yourself -- not other people) raised Genocide definitions as an article for deletion. What are (your not other people's) specific objections to the article?
  3. As you have raised it. What are your copyright (not other people's) concerns with the text in Genocide definitions? BTW the usual way to deal with that is through the talk page of an article not an AFD.
-- PBS (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PBS,
1. At the deletion discussion I referenced, most comments referred broadly to such articles. I added all relevant articles to this multiafd - there is no reason why genocide definitions is the first - they are all the same.
2. Because I think this is a very subjective question and I think a wide community discussion is warranted
3. Exactly the ones raised at the copyright page: the articles are lists of "direct quotations, largely from sources which are presumably still copyright". The fair use rationale is strong but is highly subjective - the community view is important here.
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. You did not answer my question "Where has it previously been suggested that the article Genocide definitions be deleted?"
2. What do you mean by "very subjective question"? how is "Why have you (yourself -- not other people) raised Genocide definitions as an article for deletion. What are (your not other people's) specific objections to the article?" a subjective question? If that question (number 2) is not subjective please answer it, as I assume that you did not wake up this morning and decide to do this on a whim. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. You clearly know little about copyright infringement. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and more specifically Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text 2 and then if you think that there is any copyright violation follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copyright problems AfD is not the place to resolve copyright issues (which you would know if you had read Wikipedia:Copyright violations). -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion. In other words, if the community decides that the three articles should be deleted, then this section being very similar may need to suffer the same fate. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncenawhile:
  • Usually that would be dealt with on the talk page of the article that contains the section. Under what justification or president do you think that AfD is an appropriate place to discuss the deletion of a section of an article not up for deletion?
  • A more interesting question (because it will help explain your thought on the issue): Why just the section Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism and not the whole Definitions of terrorism article? I ask this because you seem to be objecting to the format not the content of the articles in which case AfD is not the correct forum. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Not sure what's going on here, but it does not make sense. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all This is not the place for general debates, it's for per-policy deletion discussions. The topics are notable, encyclopedic, subject of significant debate in reliable sources, and important; the definition of genocide is an obviously notable topic. It's not OR or a dictionary def, and this isn't the place for reporting copyright transgressions. Bundling complex articles like this isn't productive and will not help resolve complex issues. If you have a specific policy issue you think should be debated (e.g. should we have "list of definitions" articles), there are better forums for that. And you can't nominate a section of an article for deletion here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colapeninsula. Which forum do you suggest we go to in order to reach consensus on "should we have "list of definitions" articles"? Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), perhaps? If people think that's a better forum, i'd be happy with a speedy keep here, and I'll opennit up there. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, when i wrote "speedy keep", I would be just as happy with "speedy close". I just want to reach a position that User:Zargulon is happy with and also reflects the wider community's view. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Speedy close This strikes me as a classic example of WP:POINT. No actual grounds for deletion have been given by the proposer, and the articles would each need to be discussed on their merits - they differ substantially in structure. There are clear copyright issues with the Definitions of pogrom article, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Copyright concerns at Definitions of pogrom, but these may possibly be rectified by rewriting the article in a manner which rectifies the excessive use of quotations - which would hopefully also resolve the WP:NOTDIC objections raised in the recent AfD discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Why nominate at virtually the same time three articles that seem to be closely related? More than anything else, this sounds to me like trying to eliminate information/subjects that someone wants to pretend do not exist.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on whether they should be deleted or not for now, but it's clear that if one of these should go then all three should go, at least under a WP:NAD rationale and probably almost any rationale that covers one would cover the others. I think we can assume that these nominations were made in good faith. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 15:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncenawhile: you wrote at the top Various editors have proposed that lists of definitions for complex or disputed words should not exist on wikipedia. which editors where? -- PBS (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Already G3'd as hoax/vandalism. The Bushranger One ping only 12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halberd Wanderlust[edit]

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

Article lacks notability ToyFoxTerrier (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm wondering if he even exists. A search for his last name along with "Ich Liebe Meine Mutter" didn't bring up anything. Granted it's something he did at a young age, but if he was truly influential then he'd show up somewhere. A search for his name alone also brings up nothing. I'm thinking that this is a hoax, because if he were truly notable then he'd show up *somewhere* and if he was just a no-name composer then he'd still likely show up *somewhere*, even if it's just a non-usable link. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also somewhat dubious about the title "Hinter Meiner Mutter ist Rot", which pretty much translates into "My mother's butt is red". I've tagged it as a speedy as a hoax. I should probably add a vandalism tag as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy closed (Keep) per WP:BAN and WP:SNOW, all comments left in this debate advocating for deletion are by a banned user's sockpuppets, as has been the case in the past. For more details, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813. (non-admin closure)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hantz[edit]

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

Article lacks notability, previously deleted. ToyFoxTerrier (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:ToyFoxTerrier: Could u please be a little more specific on how this article lacks notability? Being that Hantz was a very popular contestant on a very popular reality/game show, and that he later hosted his own TV show (which was completely unrelated to Survivor), I don't see how he fails the notability guidelines. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article was nominated with delete or redirect consensus 4 times previously. 174.252.18.23 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the user who nominated the article for deletion for the fourth time back in September was a sockpuppet. So that whole discussion should be out of the picture. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep : Today . com, USAtoday.com, are enough for notability. OccultZone (Talk) 09:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't know why this article keeps showing up as a candidate for deletion. BLP1E clearly doesn't apply here: he was a very popular contestant on Survivor, he hosted his own house-flipping show, and he received coverage for being arrested. Seriously, how much more notability is needed before he can have his own article? It might've been deleted before, but it's been significantly reworked for notability and reliability, which is perfectly permissible. Keep per WP:GNG. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As fan cruft. Article has the same details as it did before. A non notable TV show contestant with a non-notable show. PlayChess14 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PlayChess14: Might wanna take a look at the most recent AFD nominations for Rafe Judkins, Kim Spradlin, and Jennifer Lyon. They've got less notability than Hantz does, but they were still kept because they passed WP:BLP1E. Could u explain how this article is any different? (And BTW, it's not a fan cruft either, as it's written from a completely neutral perspective). Survivorfan1995 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rafe is a writer, Kim was a Sole Survivor, and Jennifer was an actress. The article here mainly talks about what he did on Survivor and then his little known show and a couple of paragraphs on his personal life. Pretty much the same article as last time. PlayChess14 (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PlayChess14: Jennifer was overwhelmingly best known for her Survivor appearance. Her few acting roles are very little known. Pretty much the same thing applies to Hantz, he's best known for his Survivor appearances, but also hosted his own show, which extends his notability beyond one event. Also check out Bobby Jon Drinkard, Tyson Apostol, and Stephanie LaGrossa. If these are acceptable, why shouldn't Hantz be? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing, the article doesn't all have the same details as before. Many things were changed if u look carefully. WP:RECREATE permits recreation with content improvement. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: To those !voting "speedy keep": this does not meet the speedy keep criteria. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG, the rest is clean-up issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If you sift through the overkill reflist, there are interviews and such by reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Flipped Off. Still not notable to have his own article. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG. Case closed. Gloss • talk 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject was discussed in detail many times in the media with regard to his Survivor appearances. His notoriety or fame was shown to be lasting when he was cast in Flipped Off. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still not notable. 75.127.185.74 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mean, really. In addition to the sources in the article, Hantz was even discussed in the NYT in relation to his appearance on the show. He clearly meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject meets WP:BASIC, qualifying for a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:GNG and multiple seasons, so no good single redirect point. Frietjes (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Jygost (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I really don't understand why Hantz has been nominated for deletion so often. His article has improved over the years, and still will; there are people who are willing to improve this. The article has several sources, each section is detailed, and he is notable outside of Surivor (ex. his arrest, TV show). There's no point in deleting this as he is more than notable enough to have his own page. He also gets a lot of page views, which means people are interested in him. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never won, show he hosted is hardly notable. 170.35.208.206 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 198.228.200.152 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mamrie Hart[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines; all the sources in the article are of dubious reliability, and/or are local, bar AllMusic, which is about the band, not the person. Plenty of promotional rubbish in here as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor appears to be a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hart's fame comes from her online presence and her involvement in film and TV, again mostly online.
  • Mamrie Hart on Internet Movie Database. IMDb says Hart co-wrote the screenplay for Camp Takota an online film that came out last week, served as executive producer, and appeared in it as a comedy actress. Hart also wrote for a bunch of lesser productions. She appeared as herself on various TV episodes including MTV's Money From Strangers.
  • Video Ink writes about Hart in detail, especially with regard to her major publishing house book deal: Plume Books, a paperback imprint of Penguin.
  • BuzzFeed profiled Hart with regard to her YouTube popularity.\
  • The Wrap wrote about Hart and her co-stars in Camp Takota.
  • The Daily Dot wrote about Hart as "YouTube's lovable lush", talking about Hart's book deal.
  • OK Magazine wrote about Hart and her co-stars of Camp Takota.
  • Huffington Post has a couple of articles about Hart and her co-stars of Camp Takota.
  • Tubefilter has coverage of Hart and her co-stars of Camp Takota. More. [Yet more.
  • Sugarscape has coverage of Hart and her co-stars of Camp Takota.
  • Mashable has coverage of Hart and her co-stars of Camp Takota.
  • Hollywood magazine wrote about the making of the film, with emphasis on Hart and her co-stars.
I think all this coverage satisfies our WP:GNG guideline. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just added some photos, and trimmed some excessive detail which seemed promotional. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lap Dance (film)[edit]

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

This article does not appear to adhere to WP:NFILM. Most of the further reading links are coverage before the films release. In terms of the other criteria is was not widely released nor has won any major awards. I would need to see further independent coverage or reviews by nationally recognized critics. Mkdwtalk 05:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it meets the general notability guidelines. A film article can meet that and/or the notability guidelines for films. The latter tends to be for more information is limited, such as a film that is called a milestone but with very little information available online about it. This film has already been filmed, so it does meet the notability guidelines for future films, and the general coverage is sufficient for including this topic on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Senegal relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. the article states Australia intended to open an embassy in senegal but that never happened, and Senegal doesn't have an embassy in Australia. I could find no evidence of visits by leaders or agreements. Trade is relative small, with Senegal ranked as Australia's 86th largest trading partner. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Minimal content and sourced to one press release. There's no evidence that Australia-Senegal relations are even a thing. Reyk YO! 02:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've substantially expanded it, and it now meets the GNG. @User:Reyk, please can you have a look at the expanded version. --99of9 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Stalwart111 And exactly where have I "dishonest[ly]" synthesized ("A and B, therefore C")? Please cite a single clear case or retract this accusation. --99of9 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more clear - that wasn't directed at you in particular (or at all) but was more (per "again") part of an ongoing discussion about these articles in general, part of which is at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#The_bilateral_country_articles. There's been an ongoing effort to create myriad "x-y relations" articles when said relationships aren't even notable enough to avoid WP:WEIGHT with inclusion in relevant "Foreign relations of x" articles. Many simply take a couple of minor diplomatic incidents or events and list them together to suggest a wider whole. That's not the case here and my point was that this is actually different in that it does meet GNG where others fail miserably. It wasn't a reflection on you at all. Stalwart111 04:41, 21 February 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. Per WP:NOQUORUM. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vyamoham[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MOVIE. I can't find any appropriate secondary sources referring to it, though I suspect any such sources would not be in English. Wieno (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 February 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:43, 20 February 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. Deliberately putting aside the nominator's motives (per WP:AGF), there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether the sources provided show notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NERO International[edit]

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

WP:GPG - NERO International is not a notable organization, therefore does not deserve an entry. Only three references are provided, one of which is the organization's own publication, and a second is an interview with another organization's leader (Mike Ventrella), previously deemed "not notable enough for Wikipedia per the guidelines. Notability issues were noted Jan 2012, and page was not edited to reflect concerns. Brujah7783 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete no third party coverage provided or found. Ventrilla's association with the group makes the Dragon article non independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator may well be right here, but the nominators motives are dubious, as shown in this post. This nom seems to be in pursuit of an off-wiki dispute. I therefore suggest that the closer disregard or low-weight the nominator's views, and rely on the consensus of other editors here. DES (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
while the motives are clearly revenge, the rationale is solid and I was on my way to post the AfD after finding no sources, but was beaten to the punch. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is one article on HighBeam in The Boston Globe from 1991. Not sure what content is there, but it does appear to be non-trivial. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is an abstract of the same article: [60]. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Primarily per the additional source showing notability that BOZ discovered (thank you), and additionally, a viscerally negative reaction to any kind of revenge AfD nomination. "You supported deleting my pet article, so I am going to nominate your favored article for deletion" is reasoning and motivation so deeply flawed that I will give any such nomination extra scrutiny. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairway Furniture[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly keep Comment - As a 153 year old company, it's likely that pre-internet sources are available. Some source examples include:
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 14:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revised my comment above. NorthAmerica1000 02:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just 2 refs that don't establish notability. It appears to be a small provincial company of no note. Szzuk (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A story in the business section of their local newspaper and sponsoring a children's football team isn't enough surely? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete agree with comment above. Needs wider coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lansdown, Cheltenham[edit]

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

Improperly sourced and written like a resume, but primarily because it fails to establish the location's notability. Per WP:NRV, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The older parts of Cheltenham are a Regency spa town. This article is still a poor stub, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Cheltenham is world-famous for its Regency architecture and social history as a spa, and Lansdown is at the heart of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Much of the trouble with this article, and why an article on a promising topic ground to such a sudden halt is explained here: Special:Contributions/Friendsoflm, a sudden and undiscussed insta-block on the article's novice creator. Way to WP:BITE! 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nom ignored WP:Before. Szzuk (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling boy bands[edit]

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

This article is essentially unchanged from the one that was previously deleted through AFD. So this second nomination follows the same argument. Despite being a list article, it is rather an attempt to construct a ranked chart of boy bands. The are no official charts for boy bands alone, so although sales figures are cited, combining them in this way is original synthesis. The inclusion criteria of what a "boy band" is is arbitrary, with an all-encompassing and unspecified "exceptions", therefore including/excluding bands at the POV of contributing editors and affecting the validity of the ranking produced. The bands listed are chiefly those that editors have heard of; i.e. English speaking Irish/British/American bands. The article then goes on to repeat the same issues with ranked charts of individual recordings of these bands. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on this on the article talk page, with a few examples of what's wrong with it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, take your pick of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Also, as the talk page demonstrates, there is no agreement to what constitutes a "boy band", so the criteria for inclusion are also unacceptably fuzzy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation capitalist[edit]

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

no secondary sources fails WP:GNG / WP:NEOLOGISM . EXTs do mention the term, but they are primaries and linkspam too. (This article part of ring of linked COI creator articles.) Widefox; talk 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a neologism apparently created by Nambisan and Sawhney, that does not appear to have caught on beyond some limited use in marketing fluff. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Nambisan[edit]

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

no secondary sources fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO. WP:PROF would seem appropriate standard to meet. Widefox; talk 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure of expectations in this academic area, but WP:PROF#1 definitely looks like a possibility - GScholar shows an h-score of 21 and ten papers each with over 100 citations. Could someone advise? PWilkinson (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I'm not sure either. Widefox; talk 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Kush (Kunar)[edit]

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

I'm not sure what this article is about, but if there is material of value in it, it could be included in the existing article Hindu Kush. SchreiberBike talk 00:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary duplication, as I suggested above. The section I suggested might be merged has been removed by the page's creator and main editor. Cnilep (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No agreement amongst participants as to whether the coverage is sufficient to indicate notability beyond WP:NOTNEWS. A possible merge, as advocated by some, can of course continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mardan funeral bombing[edit]

2013 Mardan funeral bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:NOTNEWS, suggest deletion.--Mishae (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was added to the log for 14 February 2014. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A suicide bombing that killed 28+ and is noted in the BBC and the "New York Times" is Definitely Notable and hands down meets WP:NOTNEWS.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All sources I found were from June 2013. Sad but ultimately insignificant. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs expansion not deletion. is within notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per statements above. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theres not to expand, its to find coverage that prooves last effect. Sadly not true. Beerest 2 talk 02:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Shergarh, Mardan. In theory, for a tragedy like this the correct action would be to expand but the event seems sadly underreported. Due to a lack of coverage, I would suggest merging this to the article for the location where it took place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 20. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 06:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terrorist attack with 28 fatalities. Notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This incident is also mentioned on the page Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. The page for the incident itself should be deleted I think, but the information on the Terrorist Incidents in Pakistan in 2013 regarding this bombing should be expanded and hold more information. Adamh4 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 23 February 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 Octopussy. The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Octopussy (character)[edit]

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

A memorable Bond girl, but there's not much of anything in this article that's not already mentioned in the Octopussy article. Anything on her reception can easily be moved over to that article. Also, unlike other Bond girls with their own articles, Octopussy has made no other appearances outside one single film (has not appeared in any other Bond films and hasn't appeared in any video games or novels). So with little notability and only very few references, this page seems like little more than a Bond fan page. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selective merge and redirect unless people can find more sources analysing the character. Most of this is plot, and if you take that out it could easily be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm in two minds about this. Certainly, as it stands, there is nothing beyond a fansite look to the page, but there are other sources that examine some aspects of the character and it's depiction. If it was both a book and film character I'd probably be unhappy to see it go, but as a film character only (and a rather colourless one at that), I'd not be unhappy to see it go either. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the pertinent content into the film article. It's not much more than an WP:INUNIVERSE character bio as it stands, and if more real-world commentary were to become available then the article can always be recreated. Betty Logan (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I really cannot believe that we need more than one article about the film. Convention is tha twe merge fictional characters (eg in TV series) back to the main article or to a list of characters in it. The film article indicates that the film is an original screenplay based on various Ian Fleming short stories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 28 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden Run 3D[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Snowden Run 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I sm aware this has references. It is nonetheless totally trivial, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm cleaning the article and I noticed that several of the sources were repeats of the Kotaku source. I did remove one from Hot Hardware that didn't really look like it'd be a RS per our guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was a section in Snowden's article for appearances in "other media" (games, television shows such as South Park, etc) then I'd suggest a merge there. I have no problem with anyone wanting to add such a section to his article if there's enough out there to warrant it being added. Otherwise DGG is right- the coverage of this is fairly trivial when you get down to brass tacks. There wasn't that much coverage of the game, all things considered, and what is on the article is pretty much it for the most part. There do not seem to be any reviews in any reliable sources and a lot of the coverage on other sites tends to be just a repost of one of the articles already on this page. I have no problem with some of this being re-created in the future if the programmer's other game gets notice (although I note that the IndieGoGo fundraiser has received little attention and most of the coverage is just notifications so it's a bit soon to have an article for the programmer) but this just doesn't justify an article right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When a video game is getting dedicated articles devoted to covering a video game, it easily meets the WP:GNG. I mean, there are high level sources covering this, like CBS and CNN. Not passing mentions, but full articles on it. Sure, Reviews/Reception are a common path to meeting the GNG, but they're certainly not the only way. Is it a terrible, cookie-cutter game? Probably. But it doesn't matter, because that's not a reason to delete it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have completely reorganized and rewritten the article to demonstrate that it meets the WP:GNG. It no longer looks like garbage, and has been expanded to just more than a stub currently. (Side note: So the arguments don't go there down the road, my motivations to save the article are not politically based at all. I'm largely indifferent there. I'm motivated to save something related to video games and parody, that's all.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article was first nominated for deletion in October 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus. This second nomination, coming just four months later, is unwarranted. Edward Snowden is still very much in the news, and only this past week a $99 Snowden Action Figure was introduced onto the market, with considerable media coverage. The video game article thus remains pertinent to an overall understanding of Snowden's cultural impact. If an editor finds fault with its particulars, revise it. But there's no reason to delete it. JohnValeron (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Sergecross73. Notability is established via multiple reliable sources already, as the nom noted in the deletion rationale.... -- ferret (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the subject of non-trivial works in reputable and independent sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. As the subject of several dedicated, reliable articles, this topic meets the GNG. If no further sources arise and a better merge location appears, I'd entertain that, but there certainly isn't ample reason for deletion in its current state. And if it helps, when I think of whether a seemingly inane VG article will survive an AfD, I compare it to Microshaft Winblows 98. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar ♔ 22:58, 1 March 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdi Akın[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be one of several related articles, all of a promotional nature, created by a WP:SPA. Nothing here rings the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ad Orientem and RadioFan. The page Akfen Holding is also closely linked to this article and created by the same user, with equal lack of notability. Ithinkicahn (talk) 01:16, 23 February 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. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Bohle[edit]

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

Bohle seems to just be one of many run of the mill librarians. She has not done anything that seems to pass any of the established notability guidelines. She made a 3D film, was in some artificial intelligence contest, and is on the editorial board of an academic journal. None of these are things that establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears you are nominating the article for deletion on the grounds of notability. The article meets the requirement of notability by meeting one of the requirements. It "has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" Wikipedia:Notability_(web). The contest was an international competition run by The White House and sponsored by the Department of Defense. The contest results and summaries of the project was reported before the United States Congress. Additionally, the film was selected and shown by the NOBEL PRIZE foundation at the Nobel Museum. According to the guidelines for notability, the subject should be cited in "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports." The article has a substantial number of published citations, fulfilling these requirements and this information "can be verified through independent sources." There are 23. The article also has "the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article." Google Books: 5 listings, Articles: 15 or so. Google also shows several articles published with the journal Nature online and print version. Bides time (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure why you are citing Wikipedia:Notability_(web), as she does not appear to be a website. There is similar but not identical language at WP:BIO, a more appropriate notability guideline: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little sign of impact here. No pass of WP:Prof. Her ancestry may be estimable but notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  1. "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."

International competition run by The White House and sponsored by the Department of Defense.

  1. "3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."

FRAS = Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (elected), Consultant for the National Academy of Sciences. 184.58.103.48 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)— 184.58.103.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF, looks like it's been written by someone with a WP:COI. With regards to FRAS, fellowship of the Royal Astronomical Society is open to "any person over the age of 18 whose application is acceptable to the Society" - which means that it isn't selective - although virtually everyone in Britain who is a professional astronomer is a member, so are most serious amateurs with a telescope pointing at their attic's skylights. As it isn't selective, the fellowship doesn't meet the criteria in WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No credible claim of notability, nevermind false assertions (e.g. as a "fellow" discussed above); sources are mostly web ephemera, PR, institutional newsletters, etc; much of the article's text is actually about the subject's relatives; lots of puff, and so forth. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Election to Fellow was published in Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 53, Issue 1, page 1.39, February 2012. If you can't find it online--Go to a library that has it. Not everything is available in full-text online for free. Google search shows "New Fellows - 2012 - Astronomy & Geophysics - Wiley Online Library"..."Shannon Bohle, St Edmund's College, University of Cambridge." Anyone can be a "Friend" and have a membership, but FELLOWS must be nominated by an existing fellow and be elected by the council. Bides time (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've now !voted twice. Please strike one of these votes (though not your comments). As explained above, there is a fallacy of equivocation here. "Fellow" in the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) is not selective in the same sense as, for example, for the National Academy of Sciences. It is rather the name that RAS uses for members, for example as explained at their benefits of membership page. I'm sorry, but this line of argument toward notability is a clear dead-end. Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This is the form for the Fellow to nominate a new person: http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/members/Forms/Application%20form%202012%20Route%201.pdf Bides time (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it clearly shows that all a person has to do to support someone's application is say that they are a student aiming toward a degree in astronomy or a related topic. That's not "highly selective" by any stretch of the imagination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The remaining argument seems to be focused on the prizes that she took a second-place-in-category in are either "well-known" or "prestigious". Judging by the fact that Google finds less than two dozen unique hits for pages mentioning her and her category (which is a fairly recent event, well into the web era), it suggests there is not much attention paid to the results. I am, however, be willing to be swayed by evidence that the award is well-known and/or prestigious, even where the winners are not mentioned. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure why the question was raised. Secondary sources? Check. Awards for contests that have their own Wikipedia entry? Check. Publications and other notable contributions? Check. Elected as "fellow" of a well-established academic organization? Check. Awards? check. All these have been documented in the above entries. Finally, is she currently doing significant work, as in her Open Notebook petition? Check. She qualifies.ColoradoNaturalist (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — ColoradoNaturalist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per the keep arguments above and the nom and Agricola44. --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ColoradoNaturalist.... This person seems to have done important work, and her entry is written up quite well. I see no good reason why this should be deleted. It seems like a valuable entry for wikipedia. I vote that this entry is kept! Stevenwcronin (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Stevenwcronin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

which Wikipedia policies do you invoke to support your argument? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Added paragraph on contributions to science and technology policy, including her role (with a named citation of her work on the government page) in adoption of Dutch national government eScience policy guidelines.Bides time (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

  • delete no significant coverage in third party sources, only primary sources. there were a lot of attempts to make it look like there was a lot of sourced content, but patents by people who are supposedly her relatives have no bearing on whether or not she is notable. the "prize" has not reached any level of prestigious-ness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see any notability with this person, the article talks about what her grandparents did that was so great. This seems to be included just to make the article a little longer. VVikingTalkEdits 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note I find it interesting that the only people supporting this article are Bides Time. An IP who has made a total of 2 edits, both on this page. ColoradoNaturalit who has made a total of one edit, which is on this page. Finally there is Steven Cronin who last edited was in 2010 before coming into this discussion. Not saying there is something fishy going on, okay I am, but that is up to the rest of the editors here to decide.VVikingTalkEdits 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I put the meatpuppet notice at the top of the page. :) OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see enough non-trivial coverage in 3rd party RSs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coming in, I expected to say "keep" because of the extensive reliable sources in the References section, but most of them don't mention her at all, and the exceptions barely touch on her. Only her academia.edu profile and a Kent State news release provide anything beyond that, and those by themselves are nowhere near sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The keep arguments seems to be a-she is a fellow of a society, but that society allows virtually anyone studying the subject to join, and b-she won second prize in a specific category, in a competition that we do not have an article on. Maybe we should have an article on the competition, but I think at this point we are putting the horse before the cart with this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert and Nyttend: insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, and the prize is not significant enough to prove the subject notable in the absence of such coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice Drive by references and non references to try to make this entirely non notable person pass over the bar. Not even a good attempt. Most references(!) fail validation. Those that mention her do just that, mention her. I recommend salt, too, since this type of article spoofing someone into Wikipedia has a habit of repeating like a bad meal. Fiddle Faddle 00:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON, at best. Apparent COI resume-cum-article. Directory listings do not establish notability, and salting may not be a bad idea in this case. Miniapolis 00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTRESUME. This person has done nothing to garner coverage by reliable sources, which is what our notability guide calls for. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our notability and verifiability standards. Actually, this is a pretty remarkable article: it's clearly written to resemble a normal article and at a two-second glance even looks notable, but on examination there's nothing there. The references I looked at didn't even mention her. It's like the Wikipedia equivalent of those fake towns the army builds out in the desert to test nukes on: the structure is all intact but there's nothing there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of this person satisfying our notability guidelines, and the appearance of meat/sockpuppets is almost always a tell-tale sign that notability is marginal at best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments by every single solitary experienced editor here, especially Lukeno94. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even her Google scholar profile is padded with other people's publications (including an 1894 novel). Without them her h-index is 1. Far below WP:PROF standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an eye-opening discovery. I have not come across anything as blatant as this before. I raise the possibility that the BLP (and the GS profile) could have been constructed by an enemy of the subject with the intention of discrediting her. In any case - delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Mayer[edit]

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

I fail to see any reference making this person more notable than a small city mayor, fails to meet the criteria laid out in WP:POLITICIAN or MOS:CA#Municipal politics. 117Avenue (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It may be borderline, but I feel that he passes GNG and the links above. I have tried my best to flesh it out with appropriate references and I believe having the article benefits the encyclopedia. Oh and thanks for the notification of the AfD, by the way.. – Connormah (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete He did nothing truly notable as mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as his coverage is WP:ROUTINE. He's done nothing more notable than mayors of other cities Camrose's size and the noted events that occurred during his past mayoralship don't elevate his notability. Hwy43 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a certain amount of subjectivity in applying WP:POLITICIAN to mayors. I consider mayors of major world cities like Edmonton to be notable. I consider mayors of cities of significant regional importance to be notable in most cases. A small percentage of small town mayors are notable if they have accomplished something truly unusual or received significant coverage above and beyond the routine coverage that every small town mayor gets from the local news media. I don't see that in this case of this mayor of a town of about 17,000 people. He seems like a fine fellow, but the line "Originally entering politics with intentions to give back to his community" says both a little and a lot. The same thing can be said of 99.9% of small town mayors, and is not encyclopedic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small town mayors are generally not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors are not considered inherently notable on Wikipedia just for being mayors; while we typically allow mayors of larger cities, we typically delete mayors of smaller ones unless they make a really good claim of notability that would lift them beyond most other smalltown mayors. (A lot of people apply a population test of approximately 50K; although there's no formal policy mandating that cutoff, it is a fairly good though not entirely infallible rule of thumb for determining whether you should bother trying or not.) Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 February 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. Noting that not meeting the WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG notability criteria is not a comment on the quality of the journal itself, merely an indicator that it's new and has not itself been the subject of third-party coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics[edit]

Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's true that this is a relatively new journal. However, the journal already contains contributions from very notable groups such as Caltech, Texas A&M University, University of Western Australia, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others. It's sufficient to browse the first issue of the journal to see that it is already quite notable, given the contributions, including review articles, from the leading authorities in their respective fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Databases77 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Databases77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • That's great and may mean that the journal may become notable in the future (although right now my crystall ball is defect, so I'm not sure) and we can write an article id=f that happens. Right now, though, I have to point you to WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, based on the above comments, to say that "Notability is inherited" is misleading and is not correct. It's clearly not the case here. The only correct claim made so far here in favour of this entry deletion was that the journal is new. Nevertheless, publications of some of the world most famous teams in the journal show that the entry deserves to stay. --Mirnauki77 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Mirnauki77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a promising journal, newly launched in 2013. I was unable to find multiple independent reliable sources covering this journal and it is not yet indexed in selective indices; nor does it yet have an impact factor. This it seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals thresholds. I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for this journal to acquire reliable sources or reliable indexing. No prejudice to recreation when such sources or indexing become available. --Mark viking (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it was pointed out, it is a journal that is promising, available both in print and electronically via IngentaConnect, already indexed in GoogleScholar, and already included in the Thomson Reuters EndNote. It makes sense to keep the entry.--Mirnauki77 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Mirnauki77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Google Scholar strives to include everything. IngentaConnect simply presents everything of publishers that are members of their organization. EndNote is a referencing software package. To be useful for as large a public as possible, they include reference profiles from as many journals as possible. Hence, none of these things contributes anything to notability. "Promising" is nice, but even established publishers sometimes start a promising journal only to have it fizzle after a few years. In sum, at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 24 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher R Inwood[edit]

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

Subject of article created it. Recreation of article speedy deleted for COPYVIO reasons. Might qualify for speedy under WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11 but at the very least doesn't meet WP:GNG, plus the whole thing is WP:COS. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 02:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 02:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Craughwell[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines. Firstly, the article is referenced with one reference, which leads to an error when attempted to be accessed. Second, @Robertkeller: has claimed that the article is a bogus page and that the content was tied to a 419 scam in his edit here. Thirdly, notability is not ascertained, which becomes clear with a lack of coverage by any secondary sources when his name is searched on Google. Since this is a improperly sourced biography article, it must be deleted. KJ click here 02:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if all the claims in the article are true, the subject is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. This AfD was malformed - but both does not advance a policy-based reason for deletion, or even deletion itself, suggesting either merging (a page cannot be "eliminated" after merging, as that makes the merged content WP:COPYVIO) or redirecting. Accordingly this is an SK1 case; there is no prejudice against an actual deletion renomination. The Bushranger One ping only 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes a fictional location in an in-universe form. This information should be moved into Buffy the Vampire Slayer and this page eliminated, or else turned into a redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There is no reason for it to have a separate page. Robert (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Mike V • Talk 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GM Watch[edit]

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

Unremarkable website with no independent sources. I was able to find only sparse coverage in reliable sources, not enough to establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with OP, no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.AioftheStorm (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_February_20&oldid=1142629270"