Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 January 25 January >

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 merge to Art Alexakis. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorfinger[edit]

Colorfinger (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 for 5 6 years, and unnotable outside of being "that thing that Art Alexakis did before he started Everclear." This belongs as one paragraph in the article about Everclear, and is not notable enough for its own article. Jinkinson talk to me 22:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:22, 24 January 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) 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Edward (soccer)[edit]

Albert Edward (soccer) (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 and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the author, claiming that the player has received significant coverage to meet the notability guidelines. However, the sources appear to be routine. – Michael (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:NFOOTBALL "Players who have played... in a fully professional league,", MLS is a "fully professional league" and he has played for them. (says the article, if that is not true then Delete) CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. WP:NSPORT require players to have actually played matches in a fully pro league (which he has not despite being drafted into the MLS), and there is insufficient significant coverage for this article to WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a fully professional football league. Fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I love how anti-soccer everyone gets here, yet anytime someone gets drafted into the NFL, they automatically get a page and many of the players (such as T. J. Johnson, Marc Anthony, Carter Bykowski, Brandon Hepburn, Jared Smith, Reid Fragel, David King) fail WP:NSPORT, yet no one cares to go on a deleting rampage against them. Prizby (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, to say nothing of the fact that American football is a distinct sport so its notability rules don't enter the picture here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has nothing to do with what other stuff exists; has everything to do with a precedent being set that articles aren't being deleted when WP:NSPORTS has failed; until this is consistently enforced throughout wikipedia, I see absolutely no reason to make a change Prizby (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Not notable until evidence is presented he has received significant coverage, or until he actually plays in the MLS or another fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 12:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is ample precedent that merely being in the squad is not enough, you actually have to get some game time in a fully professional league to meet the guideline. The subject hasn't done this yet, but if and when he ever plays the article can be recreated. The alternative route to notability, that of meeting the WP:GNG, also doesn't appear to work here as I can't find anything substantial and independent on this person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - per above, has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football. Sources provided are routine and do not satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Prizby. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is merely an essay, and a poorly written one at that. If one applied such an essay on a legal front, you'd toss precedence and common law out the window! Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 16:59, 30 January 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 Roanoke Colony. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 11:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Colony DNA Project[edit]

Lost Colony DNA Project (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)

Project of little notability and highly questionable scientific merit. Seems they released a press release that got tons of coverage in 2007 but nothing since then. The group seems the total definition of WP:FRINGE they don't even have a domain name they simply host two very messy sites on free hosts. [6] [7] Ridernyc (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further digging revels that the majority of links on the groups site are broken. Not only are they broken they never worked, the URLs point to folders in a local user folder on a windows PC. The links that do work all lead to various other DNA projects all linked to FamilyTreeDNA who will gladly include you in the DNA project of your choice if you purchase a very costly kit from them. [8] There were a ton of these DNA project pages all started by the same editor, most of which have been deleted long ago. Ridernyc (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD where 3 of these DNA projects were deleted. All of them created. by the same editor that created this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harris_Surname_DNA_Project][[[User:Ridernyc|Ridernyc]] (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roanoke Colony as a short final section. The colony had settlers, who just disappeared; no one knows where or why. The project was initiated in 2007, and the lack of anything on its results makes me believe that there have been none, because the research. Some projects based on a surname produce spectacular results, implying a common ancestor. Others (dealing with common names, such as Harris; similarly Jones and Smith) are doomed to failure, becasue there will be too many people called Harry at the period when surnames were becoming fixed. I have a volume inot which somone transcribed numerous parish register entries concerning people with the surname King, but most are unrelated. The theory is that the settlers were captured by (and perhaps intermarried with) native Americans is an intriguing one, but the possibilities of (a) finding collateral descendants of colonists and (b) of local indians and (c) of picking out matching DNA characteristics, from a mass of "noise" from perhaps 15 generations of subsequent breeding must be vanishingly small. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially given that the men were probably killed along with their Y-chromosomes. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roanoke Colony I agree that this should indeed be a section there, and, if more information comes to public domain and raises notability, then it may qualify for a stand alone reference. I agree that it is important, but right now believe it would be better served to have this merged into a more thorough and complete parent piece.
Ridernyc, the project is volunteer-run group funded by meager donations. Its website is amateurish and on a free host, but I don't see this as pertinent to an AfD nomination, which is based on notability. (This page has working links; this is their facebook page). I haven't seen any published criticism of their research, so I'm not sure what you're criticizing as fringe science. The group's newsletter articles on genetics seem well-grounded, and their genealogy research seems predictably tedious. Some members of the group have different and controversial theories about what became of the Roanoke colony, and an article in The Scientist quotes an anthropology professor who works with the group as disagreeing with Estes' (one of the group's founders) hypothesis about the colony's native assimilation, but hypotheses are not claims of fact.
Peterkington, I don't see the group's lack of a substantive or conclusive discovery as being pertinent to the AfD nomination. Research like this is a slow, ongoing process.
“A press release in 2007 and nothing since then.” From what I could find, there's been limited book, magazine and newspaper coverage, and Estes published a 35-page journal article on the topic. The differing names involved may have thwarted your research; the project seems to be informally called the "Lost Colony DNA project", or more formally the "Lost Colony of Roanoke DNA Project", and is run by a group informally called the "Lost Colony Research Group", but also called the "The Lost Colony Genealogy and DNA Research Group", and more recently the "Lost Colony Genealogy DNA and Archaeology Research Group" (they've been involved in several archaeological digs as their scope expanded). Some references (some detailed, some incidental):
  • Powell, Andrew Thomas (2011). Grenville and the Lost Colony of Roanoke: The First English Colony of America. Troubador Publishing Ltd. p. 274–277. ISBN 978-1-84876-596-2.
  • Ambrose, Kala (9 October 2013). Ghosthunting North Carolina. Clerisy Press. pp. 45–47. ISBN 978-1-57860-454-8. (Mostly BS but some basic info).
  • Estes, Roberta (2009). "Where have all the Indians gone? Native American eastern seaboard dispersal, genealogy and DNA in relation to Sir Walter Raleigh's lost colony of Roanoke" (PDF). Journal of Genetic Genealogy. 5 (2). ISSN 1557-3796.
  • Grens, Kerry (1 January 2012). "Lost colony DNA". The Scientist. New York City: LabX Media Group.
  • Goodloe-Murphy, Mary Helen (8 March 2011). "Lost Colony researchers, HIGS to present Hatteras Island Family project". Coastland Times.
  • Mason, Scott (21 September 2010). "Researchers search for Lost Colony" (Flash video). WRAL News.
  • "Search for ancestors of the Lost Colonists of America in North Devon". North Devon Gazette. 21 July 2009.
––Agyle (talk) 11:37, 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) 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good research. Instead of deleting, why not add the comments here as a note to the article. Folks would be forewarned before considering paying money for anything, but the article would remain as a point of excellent information. The plan to use DNA would go a long way toward resolving a long-time and intriguing mystery about early colonization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi4911 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 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) 00:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced. Many refs are dead-links and those that remain are mostly the York University own Newspaper and re-quotes of these reports by other groups and blogs. Nothing from a substantial source.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the dead links are due to a not being archived, otherwise is fine Pass a Method talk 18:41, 19 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) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really proper to become familiar with the conditions for an individual to be considered notable, not be a scholar. Since you're new, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Being an Islamic scholar isn't the issue here because being an Islamic scholar doesn't make one notable; the criteria here is about the significance of coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 27 January 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. At the most one of the "keeps" comes from an account which has not been conclusively shown to be a sockpuppet, most of which appear to have been created specifically to try to rig this discussion, and even that one has to be suspect. However, even if we ignore that, and don't discount the sockpuppet "keeps", the result is still "delete", because none of the "keep" arguments stands up to analysis. A source, even if reliable, is not evidence of notability of an actor because it covers a film he was in, and briefly mentions his name in a credit. The "delete" comments, on the other hand, do contain clear arguments that the subject is not shown to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bryant (Actor)[edit]

John Bryant (Actor) (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:PEOPLE. No reliable references, IMDb can not be treated as a reference. Mr RD 18:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A notable actor with reliable credits third party refs have been furnished. Some commercial success, and community involvement with the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center and the city of West Hollywood. These make referencing and retention possible. MarkDavidson222 (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Evilkingzarkon (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References have been corrected. CMGLA (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Evilkingzarkon (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is sad. A promising sample: "He began writing and performing original theater pieces and this led to being cast in his first lead role for director Ela Troyano as "Angel" in the critically acclaimed[1] film Latin Boys Go To Hell[2][3][4]." It's critically acclaimed? If link 1 isn't Rotten Tomatos-style metacriticism, this is odd: providing just one source suggests that it's instead a matter of a film critically acclaimed by this or that one writer. The link is to the LA Times; I took a look. No, this article doesn't acclaim the movie so much as trash it. This of course doesn't matter in itself: you can notably appear in a terrible movie and get through it with honor intact. But somehow the transparently fictional acclaim for the movie puts the entire Wikipedia bio in doubt. (Incidentally, "critically acclaimed" dates back to the very first version of this article, which has had a convoluted history that I can't claim to fully understand.) There's much else in the biography that is simply unsourced, or sourced to a website that can be freely edited. And above, MarkDavidson222 and CMGLA add more unsourced claims -- that he "Has large fan based "cult" following among the gay and lesbian community," etc. (When I can make sense of the claims, that is. What are "Reliable community works"? What "Stand[s] alone"? In "Strong Credits End", is "credits" a noun or a verb, and either way what does this sentence mean?) Morenoodles (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been corrected and sources of notability have been furnished. CMGLA (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only make a bolded "keep" !vote once in an AfD. If you do it multiple times it may distort the actual consensus. Thanks. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only make a bolded "keep" !vote once in an AfD. If you do it multiple times it may distort the actual consensus. Thanks. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you're supposed to vote twice. The article has improved, a bit. It has some biographical info (postal workers, Brooklyn, etc). Where does this come from? There's a link to a website in the infobox at the top right; I click it but I don't see Bryant. What's the point of the link? Morenoodles (talk) 07:00, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rotten Tomatoes[9] lists numerous reviews many from well-known sources[10][11][12] for Latin Boys Go To Hell, suggesting it's notable even if it doesn't have an article. This article needs revision to remove promotional tone, as well as copy editing, but Bryant meets WP:NACTOR #1. -- Artofintelligence (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Evilkingzarkon (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Artofintelligence. Many reviews of Latin Boys Go To Hell, here's one for his new film Dark Crossing [13], and here's a music video by award winning grammy musician Kirk Franklin, in it he stars as the veteran soldier returning home from Iraq in a wheelchair. [14][15] -- JJRedfieldtalkLA (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's your definition of "review", RedfieldtalkLA? I looked at just one of your links, that for Dark Crossing. You call that a "review"? Morenoodles (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Evilkingzarkon (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable actor. He and his work have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. AmandaAmann (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Evilkingzarkon (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = plenty of sources are available to prove he passes WP:NACTOR. Many (but not most) actors of films are notable, while actors of online soap series are usually not, even if they are involved in an innovative web series developed in partnership with the LA Gay & Lesbian Center and the City of West Hollywood. Pdvarialslagunatalk (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Evilkingzarkon (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of SPA work above! The article says "He co-stars opposite Damian Chapa as "Victor Garcia" in the film Dark Crossing,[3] a movie about one man's perilous journey in surviving the dangerous world of Mexico's drug trafficking to rescue his sister who had been illegally kidnapped." It's hard to find anything about this movie, but a slightly larger graphic for it is visible on this page. The design of the graphic suggests that the two costars are Bardo and Osuna; that Bryant Davila appears in it but doesn't costar. Morenoodles (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the independent sources clearly indicate the article subject is notable worthy of wiki standards. Articles like this will improve over time after inclusion DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would be more convincing, DIZwikwiki, if you did some work towards its improvement. After all, it's not going to improve itself. Or at least you could say which of the independent sources contains material that may be used by others to improve the article. Morenoodles (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: DIZwikwiki (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hhighimpact059 (talk · contribs) and has been indefinitely blocked. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources, such as the LA Times, NY Times, and Variety articles, in the article talk only about the movie Latin Boys Go To Hell, and only passively mention Bryant. IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information, and neither are YouTube and Blogger. The rest of the sources only passively mention Bryant, or don't mention him at all. The sources do not indicate that this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Specifically, the guideline on actors. Bryant has only made a significant appearance in one possibly notable film, not enough to satisfy the criteria. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. It looks like the only significant role he played was in the film Latin Boys Go To Hell. The film may have a claim to notability, but John Bryant doesn't have the significant roles in multiple films required for notability. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems that the first discussion was nearly three years ago. Articles like this will improve over time after inclusion. He and his work have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, Variety, NY Times, Timeout, LA Times. For Bryant to meet WP:NACTOR #1 States= Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He meets this criteria. For example, he starred as "Angel" in Latin Boys Go To Hell[16], starred in two Damian Chapa films, as "Hector" in Chicano Blood [17][18][19]and as "Victor Garcia" in the upcoming film Dark Crossing. [20][21] [22] This is in addition to minor roles in many other films. "Other productions" can be understood to mean music videos, commercials, and digital media. Here too he meets the criteria. After digging around here is what I found: an innovative and award-winning HIV prevention transmedia campaign “In the Moment” developed in partnership with LA Gay & Lesbian Center and the City of West Hollywood. In it he stars as "Carlos" for 27 episodes and there is even an episode in which he enters a same-sex marriage [23][24][25] He is in yet another online web series called "Sk8 Or Die" which is a zombie/skater "Choose your own Adventure" story by Sunny Boy Entertainment. Here he played the lead role "Forest" in all six episodes [26] I found that he stars in a few music videos, such as a music video by award winning Grammy musician Kirk Franklin, as the veteran soldier returning home in a wheelchair. [27][28] and another video alongside British singer Leona Lewis as the love interest in "I Got You" [29] Finally his work includes over a dozen commercials for well known brands such as Wendy's, Freeway Insurance, T-Mobile, Wrigley's, Samsung among others. [30][31] [32] [33] [34] [35] It also includes advertisements in magazines, and found at subway and bus stations in Los Angeles and New York. In conclusion I think he's cute, and he is a good actor. I have seen Latin Boys Go To Hell and am an avid watcher of the online soap series In The Moment TV. I feel he meets the criteria as a notable actor with reliable credits. MarcusMarshallTalk (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC) — MarcusMarshallTalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hello brand new editor! You say "He and his work have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, Variety, NY Times, Timeout, LA Times." Choose any two. Provide links to pages there that provide substantial coverage of him or his work in films or commercials. (Skip coverage of those films or commercials; instead, his work in them. And skip the links to Youtube, blogs, etc.) Do that, and I'll reconsider my decision (a short way below). Morenoodles (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt considering the fact that this has gone through an AfD before, was recreated (albeit probably with more fluff), and the flood of SPAs who feel passionately about this. The sources range from truly reliable sources which make passing mentions of the subject to totally unreliable sources dedicated to the subject.LM2000 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LM2000, because the puppet play above has brought nothing new to the table. Morenoodles (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. References are either IMDb, which is freely editable, YouTube, which is a depository for self-published content, blogs, which are also self-published or newspapers, which fail the higher requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES.--Launchballer 08:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Only delete !vote was entered prior to addition of information that conclusively supports notability of subject. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Germanicus Young Tigner[edit]

Germanicus Young Tigner (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 city court judge does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO the guideline for notability applicable to biographies, or WP:POLITICIAN, the guideline for judges, since he held local rather than statewide office. Edison (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:POLITICIAN is part of WP:BIO. I think you mean to refer to WP:BASIC, not BIO. James500 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said what I meant. WP:POLITICIAN is a part of WP:BIO specific to politicians. Someone might be a nonnotable politician but notable in business, academia, the arts, or other realms of endeavor. The article at the time of nomination only said he served as a city judge. Edison (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Judge in a smallish city. Doesn't cut it notability-wise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, [36] "A man of broad capabilities, resourceful, and quick to grasp a situation and utilize opportunities, Honorable Germanicus Young Tigner has for many years been an important factor in the public life of Muscogee county...", indicates notability. --Soman (talk) 02:56, 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) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, there is also this. James500 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment' In what way does he satisfy WP:BIO or GNG? And the book you link to is just some family's book of genealogy, and the snippet just shows his name is mentioned. It takes more than that to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk)
    He satisfies GNG in that he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no indication that the book that I linked to was written or commissioned by the family in question, it contains information that is not genealogical (despite its name) and the snippet that I linked to mentions more than just his name. As for "It takes more than that to demonstrate notability": There are several pages of three books cited in the article. That prima facie satisfies GNG. Go through them one at at time and tell me exactly what is wrong with them. James500 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tigner also satisfies WP:POLITICIAN ("members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature") in that he was elected to a state legislature several times. See [37]: "In 1888 Mr Tigner was elected as a representative to the state legislature ... In 1902 he was again elected to represent his county in the state legislature, and served in the sessions of 1902, 1903 and 1904." James500 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per James500. State legislator. Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination on the basis that he served in his state legislature, a fact not mentioned in the article at the time it was nominated, when the article just mentioned his holding a city court judgeship. Edison (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That fact was mentioned in one of the sources cited in the article. Please read WP:BEFORE if you have not already done so. You should read the sources cited in an article, and, if those do not indicate notability, conduct a thorough search for sources, before nominating that article for deletion through AfD. James500 (talk) 04:24, 26 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Najibiah[edit]

Najibiah (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)

Page is about a power station, generating usual amount of power and nothing special about this particular power station. Cheers AKS 08:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:23, 6 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) 04:36, 14 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) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity Project[edit]

Immunity Project (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 promotional/vanity piece for a group looking for "crowdfunding" lacking any reliable sources, verification, or true notability. nice idea, I wish them luck...but Wikipedia is not a springboard to advertise for a "crowdfunded experiment" ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the public eye for 3 years; many national media refs this week. Basic notability. No need to include any link to a funding campaign. – SJ + 00:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Removed copyvio and promotional content. Significant coverage in national and international press to meet the general notability guidelines. Cindy(talk) 02:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant amount of coverage in sources across the globe. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. The article has been greatly improved since nomination, when "promotional" was a fair description. Thank you, Cindy. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Like SJ above, I also wish there was some "official website" we could link to that wasn't primarily a pledge drive. Also: I found a cautionary note at a science blog, which calls into question the project's expertise and approach, and suggests that raising money might be the ONLY thing this partnership does well.[38] However, that is an anonymous blog and not a Reliable Source. Even though the founder/CEO of the Immunity Project joined in the discussion, I doubt if any of it can be included in the article. If anyone else sees a way to add the criticism, be my guest. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 28 January 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) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BeFunky Photo Editor[edit]

BeFunky Photo Editor (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 , and highly promotional. About 1.3 the references are from their own site. The other 2/3 are from PR Web or similar sources, or reprinted from there--a very impressive collection of press releases, but that's all they are. accepted from AfC , which is not surprising DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Substantive coverage in Bloomberg, Complex, TechCrunch and Yahoo Finance means that this easily meets the qualifications of WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; most coverage is regurgitating PRs. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 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) 20:07, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are primary, PR or trivial in their coverage. This is just WP:SPAM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing initially looks pretty solid, but it turns out to be built on press releases and trivial mentions. There's no real significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Articles more like an advert than anything. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:50, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

María Inés Ortiz[edit]

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

Article is a memorial to a non-notable military nurse. While it is unfortunate that she was the first American nurse to die in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom, we don't keep biographies for people "notable" for just one event. damiens.rf 18:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Oh my God, here we have the first Puerto Rican Nurse to die in combat who was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal (one of the highest military decorations for heroism). Plus, she is notable enough to have a plaque placed at the entrance of the Forward Operating Base Prosperity clinic honoring her memory. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bronze Star is "one of the highest military decorations for heroism"?! Please don't make me laugh! The Bronze Star is so low it wouldn't even class as a medal in many countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bronze Star does not rise to the level of a 'notable award' as defined in WP:SOLDIER. Multiple Silver Stars would clear the bar. The Bronze does not. A plaque is not any indication of notability at all. "The first Puerto Rican nurse to die in combat" might be a claim of notability - if the WP:GNG as articulated in WP:NPERSON is met. Is it? - The Bushranger One ping only 12:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A burial in Arlington National Cemetery is rarely conceded. A burial at Arlington with full military honors is even more rare. Publication of this event in the Associated Press, plus a biography of one's life, is evidence of notability. Taken all together, I believe that notability is established here. Sarason (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MILPEOPLE. The burial at Arlington sounds like identity politics to me. Plenty of servicemembers have been KIA and/or have received the Bronze Star. Until WP:MILHIST says otherwise, it doesn't meet criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any claim of lack of notability would be based on ignorance of the facts. Captain Ortiz is notable because (1)She has an Army medical clinic named after her; (2) She was awarded the Bronze Star Medal; (3) Because, contrary to the nominator's statement that Ortiz is "notable for just one event", the Army said that she "left her mark on Our Nation, the country of Iraq, the Army medical department, the Army nurse corps, and all the soldiers that have served with her." Major General Gale Pollock was talking about Ortiz's life before she died, not during or after her death as the nominator is mistakingly implying. Clearly this is a case where the nomination has been based on limited, if not poor, information. Mercy11 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still curious to see anything about her that is not dependent on the unfortunate event of her death. The article does not covers that. Neither does the keep votes above. Does any reliable source do that? --damiens.rf 09:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mercy11, the Bronze Star award offers no notability whatsoever. Neither does having a clinic named after someone. Your comment in (3) is mistaken because the "leaving her mark" referred to, aside from being flowery feel-good language, is the WP:ONEEVENT. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure about this. The first American military nurse to die in combat since the Vietnam War may make her notable, but many of the other claims are just not enough for notability. The first Puerto Rican nurse to die in combat? Are we also to have articles on the first Italian-American artilleryman to die in combat? The first Alaskan motor mechanic to die in combat? The Bronze Star? Fourth-level decoration dished out like sweets. Not high enough for any sort of notability. We require a first-level decoration or multiple lower level decorations for notability. A plaque on a building? Oh please! Eulogies? Pretty much anyone who dies in combat gets those, and naturally her gender and ethnicity are going to play a role here. Borderline notability at best based on her status as a rare nurse killed in combat (although she barely qualifies, as she wasn't in combat herself - she was unlucky enough to be hit while walking through the base), and that's all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1. Being the first American military nurse to die in combat since the Vietnam War does make her notable.
    2. The Bronze Star Medal is the fourth-highest individual military award. It may be awarded for acts of heroism, acts of merit, or meritorious service in a combat zone.
    3. The U.S. military does not place plaques on its buildings as an eulogy. It does not honor just anyone who has died in combat. Only those who are highly notable for their actions are honored, otherwise there would be hundreds of thousands plaques all over the place. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what point you're making with point 2. Do you honestly think we should have articles on everyone who's been awarded the Bronze Star? We regularly delete articles on individuals awarded the Distinguished Service Cross or Navy Cross, for crying out loud. The Bronze Star is two levels below that. As to point 3, there are millions of commemorative plaques all over the world to people who wouldn't be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. It doesn't prove anything just because this one was put up by the US military. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Nope. It doesn't. (2). The minimum award to confer notability for being awarded would be multiple Silver Stars. When it comes to notability the Bronze Star is utterly irrelevant. (3) A plaque confers no notability whatsoever. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe there are millions of commemorative plaques all over the world, however this not the case. The United States Army named a clinic (building) in her honor and that is where the plaque was placed. The United States Army does not name a "building" after just anyone. This is a long lasting recognition and honor which is within the notability polices of Wikipedia. See: [39] Tony the Marine (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources found in the article showing significant coverage of the subject, including the Washington Post article, are enough to meet our general notability guideline.--Jmundo (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A person can be notable either locally, nationally or internationally. Just because a person is not known internationally does not mean she is not notable. She is considered a heroe and notable among the people of Puerto Rico. Antonio Martin (talk) 00:53, 31 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Li Yu (professor)[edit]

Li Yu (professor) (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)

basically a copy of CV, no indication of notability. Also the user uploading the subject's photo, claiming own work, strongly suggests conflict of interest. Timmyshin (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:PROF. ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks more like a CV than a real article. Only reference included is a link to the subject's school web site. -- Atama頭 22:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Article is basically a copy of his CV. For someone who finished their Ph.D. in 2009, they would have a tremendous career arc to be notable. 00:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above, the professor fails notability. ///EuroCarGT 04:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least two of his papers, "Multiple factors causing Holocene lake-level change in monsoonal and arid central Asia as identified by model experiments" and "Holocene environmental change in the marginal area of the Asian monsoon: A record from Zhuye Lake, NW China" had relatively high citation counts on Google scholar for such recent work (though not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. But drilling down, I find that many of these are self-cites. In any case he may well be on-track for a successful academic career but it's too soon to tell, and too soon to make an encyclopedia article. As for the likely COI, having a professionally lit portrait like that one labeled as "own work" flags the uploader for me as someone who plays fast and loose with rules — it seems very unlikely that the same person who took the photo is the one who would be writing such an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too soon. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to UmJammer Lammy. (non-admin closure) EthicallyYours! 09:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MilkCan[edit]

MilkCan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "MilkCan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Might be worth a redirect/merge to one of the articles which mentions it, but I'm unsure which one. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (redirect UmJammer Lammy) as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. I see a few very brief mentions, but nothing substantial. Since this is a fictional band, I doubt there any real coverage outside the game. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Hobbes Goodyear. GregorB (talk) 17:21, 26 January 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) 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Mouse (software)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - merge the data into the Unsanity article (although that one also has questionable notability, as well as the related Haxie article. This will never raise to the level of needing it's own entry. If someone combined all the Unsanity articles into one, it would actually probably be pretty decent. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 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, Mkdwtalk 23:34, 31 January 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:A11. Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICC Cricket World Cup (Story)[edit]

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

Not a notable story. Ethically (Yours) 16:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. May be a hoax. I see no evidence that it even exists Even if it does, it's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per talk page comments by author that reveal that he only writes these for his friends to read them. --S.G.(GH) ping! 16:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it for a speedy. On a side note, I've extended the block for the original author to indefinite. His only edits have been to either spam for his books or to vandalize another page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 26 January 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:A11 Shirt58 (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Cave[edit]

Magical Cave (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 at all. Ethically (Yours) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Another in a series. I guess I'll just copy and paste my previous rationale: May be a hoax. I see no evidence that it even exists Even if it does, it's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per talk page comments by author that reveal that he only writes these for his friends to read them. --S.G.(GH) ping! 16:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it for a speedy. On a side note, I've extended the block for the original author to indefinite. His only edits have been to either spam for his books or to vandalize another page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 26 January 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. I echo the sentiment expressed in the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eloka Asokuh; the multiple listing makes this complicated to sort out, but this one looks like all three should be kept -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eloka Asokuh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eloka Asokuh (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)

Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and has not received significant media coverage, so fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

‪Jonathan Minnock‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
‪Shane Bradley‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
‪David Bell (footballer born 1985)‬ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment - Withdrawing Bell based on Struway2 !vote below. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minnock and Bradley - all appear to fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bell - per research below which shows notability. GiantSnowman 12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 21:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Excellent research Struway2. I've removed Bell from this AfD. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the second AFD on these players, and the Admin who closed the previous AFD took people to task for lumping together these players. It's quite clear that Bell is notable, and given that Bradley played for a dozen years, some at the highest level of Irish football, with over 250 appearances, then it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't meet WP:GNG if a thorough search was done. These aren't a bunch of 18-year olds, where little material will be found, but long-term players, where significant research is necessary to establish notability. No prejudice for listing individually. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 30 January 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:A11. Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evils Back Again[edit]

Evils Back Again (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 story is not notable at all, seems like a possible hoax. Ethically (Yours) 16:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Another in a series. I guess I'll just copy and paste my previous rationale: May be a hoax. I see no evidence that it even exists Even if it does, it's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no claim of significance, probably made up.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced and non-notable story. ///EuroCarGT 04:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per talk page comments by author that reveal that he only writes these for his friends to read them. --S.G.(GH) ping! 16:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it for a speedy. On a side note, I've extended the block for the original author to indefinite. His only edits have been to either spam for his books or to vandalize another page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 26 January 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:A11 Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Of England[edit]

Tour Of England (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 story isn't notable AT ALL, possible hoax for me it seems like. Ethically (Yours) 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Another in a series. I guess I'll just copy and paste my previous rationale: May be a hoax. I see no evidence that it even exists Even if it does, it's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are loads of these now, the author has taken to adding "DO NOT DELETE" messages to the bottom of the pages though I have advised him/her to stop. --S.G.(GH) ping! 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per talk page comments by author that reveal that he only writes these for his friends to read them. --S.G.(GH) ping! 16:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it for a speedy. On a side note, I've extended the block for the original author to indefinite. His only edits have been to either spam for his books or to vandalize another page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 26 January 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:A11 Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICPL[edit]

ICPL (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)

Possible hoax? I'm really not sure. Minimally it has to be some un-notable story. Ethically (Yours) 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Another in a series. I guess I'll just copy and paste my previous rationale: May be a hoax. I see no evidence that it even exists Even if it does, it's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per talk page comments by author that reveal that he only writes these for his friends to read them. --S.G.(GH) ping! 16:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it for a speedy. On a side note, I've extended the block for the original author to indefinite. His only edits have been to either spam for his books or to vandalize another page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Pal: International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Indian nationalism[edit]

Judge Pal: International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Indian nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Only source is amazon ([40]). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Improved the article's condition. Marked it as a stub and added references. Ethically (Yours) 16:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those 3 sources, I only see coverage for the Judge and why he is notable, I see no mention at all of this book. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times source says about it in the very beginning. Ethically (Yours) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh I see now. Well, as it mentions neither the author nor the book by name...and even if it did it would only have been a passing mention...it is insufficient in determining notability. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources found by User:Ethically Yours are not significant coverage of the book, rather about Judge Pal, that mention the book in passing. If there are significant book reviews in Japanese that would be helpful. -- GreenC 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to know about the judge and the book. The references are sufficient.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability, and I agree that there is no coverage in reliable, third party sources. This article should probably be merged into another article dealing with the topic at hand or be used as a bibliography citation for Indian Nationalism. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The judge is notable, but the book is not. There is evidence of significant coverage about the book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Noting Kosboot's concern about "transparency" (and partially Smallbone's point about "notable to our readers"), information may need to be added to that article, but that should be discussed there. Other chairperson articles that may warrant deletion/redirecting should be nominated separately to allow full discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Walsh[edit]

Kat Walsh (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 mean no disrespect towards Walsh as a person, as a Wikipedia editor or as a chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am sure she is good at all these things. But the article currently contains no independent sources at all to indicate she is notable, only links on the Wikimedia Foundation's own website. I was able to find an article she co-wrote in the Washington Post, as well as a brief mention in the New York Times, however it seems to me that Ms. Walsh does not meet WP:BIO, especially as the Washington Post article isn't really independent as she (along with Jimbo) was one of the co-writers thereof. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation or Delete. However, if we delete this page, we'll probably need to clean up several other pages, too, as this is part of a series on Wikimedia chairpersons. To suddenly have a hole in the sequence is a bit off-putting, and a few of them are equally non-notable. As far as Kat Walsh goes, I noticed a few trivial mentions scattered throughout reliable sources, but there really doesn't seem to be anything like significant coverage. I'm sure she does good work, but I don't think holding a position with the WMF makes one inherently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation or delete, assuming no other sources are found. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - seems pretty silly to try to delete this, even before all the references were added. We don't need to artificially follow all the picayune rules when we know that WMF Chairs are notable to our readers (WP:IAR if you need to follow a formal rule). Well there are lots of sources now, might as well make it a speedy keep. What was the WP:POINT? Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your smug condescension is not conducive to an adult discussion. This person bio will be held to the notability standards of this project just as anyone else's bio would be; we should not carve out exceptions or name-drop WP:IAR for Wikipedian insiders. This is purportedly an encyclopedia not a clubhouse for our buddies, so yes, we do have to follow the project's rules here. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Smug condescension" is a rather terrible way to start off a conversation. I suggest you just look at the facts - e.g. the number of times she's appeared in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to strike your poorly-concealed accusation that Jinkinson is acting disruptively. — Scott • talk 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Chair of the WMF is not an inherently notable position, so we must abide by WP:GNG and WP:N. The sources before the recent additions were already lacking, and the additions have not alleviated that concern;
    1. law harvard.edu: The subject's posts to the wikimedia mailing list are cited in the footnotes for a paper, nothing more.
    2. Politico; a 1-paragraph announcement of the appointment, amidst nine other news-of-the-day blog-like posts.
    3. CBC Radio: Participant in a podcast about the Wikipedia, not about Walsh herself.
    4. businessweek.com: Just a directory listing of WMF personnel, nothing more.
  • None of this hits the Wikipedia's notability threshold. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WMF itself is news, so how much more so is its chair. Even if she (or anyone else) was not notable, I'd say for the sake of transparency, it is necessary to have information about the person and the position available. -- kosboot (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I put forward the IAR (i.e. common sense) argument above and fully believe it, I'd prefer folks just address the facts, e.g. how many times she's appeared in major newspapers. Some people don't like WP:IAR and some people are just averse to common sense!
Counting just the major independent sources there are:
  • 2 cites from the New York Times
  • 1 from the Wall Street Journal
  • The op-ed in the Washington Post (reprinted in a college textbook)
  • The twin Canadian Broadcasting Company broadcasts
  • an academic article with info from Walsh
  • a short listing at Bloomberg Business Week
  • a short piece from Politico.com
Tarc might argue that 4 paragraphs in one NYTimes article is not substantial, but
Quoting from WP:BASIC
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
  • "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."
Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also from WP:BASIC; "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", and the coverage found can certainly be labeled as that. IMO the blinders need to come off here; the heads of the WMF are just regular people who are subject to our notability standards just as anyone else would be. They are not on pedestals, they are not to be deified. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that my feelings are not terribly strong on this matter and that if a majority wants to delete, so be it. That said, I also believe and have always felt that WP's notability guidelines with regard to people is excessively restrictive. There should be more people, *especially* those who don't belong in an encyclopedia but who make a mark on life and culture. -- kosboot (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can prove that the position of chairman of the WMF establishes inherent notability. KonveyorBelt 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not generally notable. I concur with Tarc's analysis of the sources. — Scott • talk 18:10, 31 January 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 g11, promotion for unpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly daydream[edit]

Dolly daydream (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 do not believe this passes the notability criteria, an unreferenced urban legend composed mostly of hearsay and prediction. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: O#Emily Osborn. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Osborn[edit]

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

This is a non-notable character that I'm not even sure is worthwhile merging to a list of characters page, because she is only obscure trivia. There are only three comic book appearances listed, and two of those are under a different name than the article. Spidey104 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. No major media sources, only primary sources, the comic books. Spshu (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable character. Redirect per NRP - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my answer, per NRP's reasoning on a merge. That is acceptable to me. In the end, as long as a whole page doesn't exist for this character, I'm fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already sort-of merged, so redirect per NRP. BOZ (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is NRP, search isn't coming up with any thing. Spshu (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NRP = NinjaRobotPirate. BOZ (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A redirect just seems potentially confusing. Even in the highly unlikely event that anyone ever looks up this character, they wouldn't be looking for "Emily Osborn"; they'd be looking for Harry Osborn's mother. The possibility of someone looking up a more significant Emily Osborn, on the other hand, is relatively high.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with NukeofEarl that a real person with this name is more likely to get a search than Harry's mother, so we should definitely delete to avoid confusion. Spidey104 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, but... is there a real person named Emily Osborn? BOZ (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Emily Mary Osborn. It would make more sense to have Emily Osborn redirect to that article. Spidey104 01:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was not sure. BOZ (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summerfield International School[edit]

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

The school has no significance. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary schools are notable under long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per long standing precedent for secondary schools as documented at WP:OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verified high school. --Zayeem (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:15, 27 January 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sieloff[edit]

Patrick Sieloff (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 hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search did not turn up any sources to meet GNG and he also fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It wasn't too hard to find sources on him. He has moderately extensive coverage between his World Junior play, turning pro, being the youngest player to suit up in the AHL this season, and then almost dying from an ingrown hair. Canada Hky (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link Return from injury
    • Link Return from injury 2
    • Link Missing this year's World Junior
    • LinkTurning Pro
    • Link Hockey News Profile about decision to go to Windsor
    • Link Profile from his time in Windsor
    • Link Turning pro
    • Link Youngest player in the AHL
  • A couple of those would fail WP:ROUTINE and almost all of them (save the hockey news) would fails WP:GEOSCOPE in that they are local articles about a local player/prospect. And the world junior one has a single sentence about him so not in depth by any means. And one is a blog. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm biased on this one since he is a Flames prospect. He might not quite be notable yet, but I do expect he will be soon. (Crystal balling, obviously). Resolute 01:13, 22 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, GedUK  14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Djsasso's analysis of the sources provided. May meet notability requirements within the short or medium terms, but it is premature. Hwy43 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Not yet notable, but chances are good he will be soon.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've no objection to userfying the article. Ravenswing 21:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Still. The guideline linked to explain away the local sources refers to the coverage of an event, not a person. A FACTIVA database search reveals 358 separate articles. There are articles (profiles) within days of each other from papers in two different provinces (2012-12-04 Windsor Star US Gives Spitfire Sieloff a shot at world junior spot; 2012-12-05 Calgary Herald Flames prospect Sieloff a terror on Spitfires blueline). A Canadian Press Article on nhl.com (comes up in Factiva, but this one is linkable) (http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=647216) . Canada Hky (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone willing to host if it's userfied? --BDD (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will. He's a Calgary Flames prospect, which is my team/project. Wouldn't be hard to update and restore if it is decided to bring it back at some point. Resolute 23:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness though, this seems a fair no consensus result to me. I could just as easily take CanadaHky's links and expand the live article. Resolute 23:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Canada Hky's sources. No point userfying when a useful article can already be developed. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 02:06, 5 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 per WP:CSD#G7 after author blanked article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Markus Schuetz[edit]

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

Extremely poorly sourced (and apparently self-written) biography that does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion. Schuetz is a stunt actor who has had a minor role in a few films, and a major role in a few minor films, but nothing of any apparent note. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 January 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. Monty845 20:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ConIFA World Football Cup[edit]

ConIFA World Football Cup (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; the original concern, namely that this is a non-notable, minor tournament that fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, remains. GiantSnowman 12:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Biggest ever non-FIFA tournament (12 teams) with coverage in media in at least 20 countries including Swedish prime time news, national radio, Canadians largest Francophile newspaper and many more. If more sources are needed I would happily add them. Just added about 10 for now from major media in different languages. Best reason to keep it and the reason I made it is that this seems to be the biggest and most notable non-FIFA World Cup ever. It has more teams than any other, it has all the "powerhorses" and with Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia 2 of the not-recognized nations included. Regarding the fact it is still 5 month before kickoff the media echo seems amazing, too. I found tons of articles in all kind of languages about that. I am really looking forward to it. Besides there is only very vague info (tbh: only speculations and no info) in the article about the 2014_VIVA_World_Cup so that it seems this one will not happen. So this ConIFA thing is probably the "new" legit World Cup for those teams. NikauTokelau (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP . CONIFA World Football Cup 2014 is the official World Championships for teams outside FIFA. The tournament have massive global media interest and you can find huge articles about the tournament and CONIFA in general in TV, Magazines and Radio in Sweden, Canada, Germany, Italy, France, USA, Unikted Kingdom, India as examples. The World Football Cup 2014 will be produced in a high professional way: 8 HD cameras, professional TV crew and producers and broadcasted worldwide through TV and Internet and have already today a huge global interest. This is also the biggest tournament ever outside FIFA. 12 teams participating from 4 continents, a huge cultural and youth exchange program with multiple youths from Europe and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.82.227 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The ConIFA World Football Cup is not at all non-notable or minor. ConIFA has more than 20 football associations as member, it reaches hundreds of players and thousands of footballfans all over the world, from Zanzibar to the Isle of Man, from Nagorno-Karabakh to the Sapmi. There will be 12 teams at the World Cup in Ostersund. They all will send at least 25 people to Sweden. Although we are still more then 4 months before the kick off, ConIFA reached a lot off media, in Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy. There were already a lot of articles in newspapers and magazines, ConIFA got prime time on national television in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.148.100 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I must say I am very surprised that this one was even proposed to be deleted. For what reason ? I mean, how can you rate that one as not notable ? As my predecessors said it is the biggest ever non-FIFA tournament. I am a huge fan and follower of non-FIFA for a couple of yours now and this one surely is the big deal we are waiting for since day 1 of non-FIFA. Wiki community once decided that non-FIFA football in general is notable. If so this tournament is the most notable thing inside non-FIFA. Obviously the plenty of sources (never seen that many in any other non-FIFA article before) proof that, too. DJLiesel (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough detailed coverage in third party sources to meet GNG. The few non primary sources in the article at this time do not convince me of notability at this time. However that is not to say they won't at a future date.Blethering Scot 18:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a constructive criticism. I added some more sources from Quebec, Occitania, Sweden, Ecuador, Kurdistan and so on. Kurdistan Olympic Committee had loads about this tournament, too. But their homepage is down unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikauTokelau (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are very welcome to help and remove the sources you see as not reliable or not helping to prove notability.NikauTokelau (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- This was a wrong decision. WP:BOMBARD is not a fit the article. -PendingTell me I screwed up! 23:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DJLiesel. Mannix Chan (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_do_I_ref_enough_but_avoid_WP:BOMBARD_simultaneously Mannix Chan (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Refs added indicate a relatively substantial level of coverage in a number of significant news sources at national level that go beyond trivial coverage, including outlines of the tournament and interviews with some of the competing nations about the tournament. Seems a GNG pass to me. Not sure how Bombard is relevant here, it would be preferable were the multiple sources appended to the short history section used to expand that section, but they go into more detail than simply stating that the tournament is going ahead. The article needs expansion based on the sources provided not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. Mentoz (talk) 20:49, 31 January 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 G12 Speedy deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu ratna[edit]

Hindu ratna (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 explanation on why this award is notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 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, Stifle (talk) 12:47, 24 January 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. Per Someone not using his real name (non-admin closure) EthicallyYours! 09:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whiptail (company)[edit]

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

Entirely and totally based of press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and consider possibility of merging with CIsco which acquired the company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 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, Stifle (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Do press releases normally list competitors? That kind of info (the lack of which was motivation to nominate other other articles for AfD) is already present and sourced in this one. And it's obviously not sourced from press releases... The article is a bit disorganized though. There is even post-acquisition coverage [42][43] as well plenty before [44][45][46][47][48] [49] [50] [51] and that's in just one publication. The company didn't sell for nearly half a billion for nothing. Are you going to AfD Linksys next? (they were bought for about the same amount.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:44, 30 January 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 deleted by User:Deb per CSD A1, with the closing comment: "Short article without enough context to identify the subject". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 17:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EmailsAngel[edit]

EmailsAngel (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)

Would've csd but software is not eligible. Software does not appear or even claim notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, while you were doing this I speedied this on account of lack of context. Deb (talk) 12:30, 24 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Leal Martín[edit]

Silvia Leal Martín (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 why subject is important to be included as an encyclopedic content. Ireneshih (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Leal Martín is a spanish sociologist, writer and gender activist. She is managing with other women the European Digital Agenda to try introduce women in the technology jobs. She has been chosen one of the most influential women in Spain. Passionate about innovation and new technologies, she has written books and academic articles about innovation .

You can find more information in these newspapers and magazines, but mainly in the article Silvia Leal Martín:

--Otongcia (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Too little evidence of academic impact for WP:PROF#C1, and as director of certain programs within a business school several steps too low an administrative position for #C6 (dean of the school would not be enough). The sources listed above by Otongcia seem aimed at WP:GNG but the Forbes India one is by her, not about her. The other three are all interviews with her rather than articles about her, and their content appears to be entirely promotional rather than going into any detail about her life or accomplishments. So I think the WP:GNG case is much stronger than the WP:PROF case, but I don't think it's been adequately demonstrated yet. I'd be willing to change my mind if similar level publications also contained profiles about her rather than just interviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 26 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MacX Video Converter Pro[edit]

MacX Video Converter Pro (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 independent references provided; I'm not finding coverage meeting WP:PRODUCT or WP:NSOFT; and it seems like advertising to me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software of unclear notability; refs in article are all download sites, not reliable sources with not significant coverage. A search did not turn up significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:30, 26 January 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. WP:SNOW keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku[edit]

Kotaku (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)

Fair notice: I first noticed the lack of RS and coverage about Kotaku after another editor pointed it out to me, albeit not with the intention to have it deleted. In any case, the problem here is that while this is certainly a very popular site and something that you could use as a reliable source, there really isn't a lot of coverage that is specifically about the website. Popularity doesn't translate into notability, it just makes it more likely something will gain coverage. Other than a handful of articles such as this one, there really isn't anything out there to show that Kotaku passes WP:WEB. They are on a CNET list, but it's a fairly large list and not really the type of thing that would give absolute notability. I do love the website and I've used it for sourcing in the past, but I have to say that I don't think it passes notability guidelines. If anyone can find reliable sources that talk about the website in depth, I'm willing to be swayed. With the risk of launching a potential lengthy argument from fellow fans of the site, I just don't see anything that goes into depth to show that this passes GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Kotaku's Wikipedia article deleted, did Patriarchy just rear its rape head again? - Patricia Hernandez reports." --Niemti (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be civil. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought tho, I guess a redirect would avoid a red link crisis. --Niemti (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Not convinced WP:BEFORE was followed here. Passed WP:WEB as far as I can see. Brief search turned up several sources: Referenced Kotaku [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. About Kotaku [57] [58][59] [60]. A simple notability tag or talk page discussion was all that was needed, leaping straight to AFD is not the way forward. Яehevkor ✉ 11:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with keeping the article as a stub? It has three reliable sources noting it, one of them critically assessing its writing style. Diego (talk) 12:01, 24 January 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) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm pretty sure at least 2 of the sources it currently has are sufficient; besides, it itself counts as a WP:RS, not that that matters that much. Ansh666 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Rehevkor's sources. Seems like plenty to meet the WP:GNG. Also confused why the "not a majority vote" tag was place here. Minus Niemti's nonsense comment, the responses have been policy-based. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about the vote tag myself, removed for now. If it becomes an issue it can be added, as is the usual practice. Яehevkor ✉ 21:53, 24 January 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. Some of the arguments lack policy based rationales, but consensus is to keep.Mojo Hand (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy Nigoyan[edit]

Serhiy Nigoyan (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)

Sad that he died, but a dead protester isn't really notable per WP:GNG for just ending up dead. Wikipedia isn't a memorial wall. ColonelHenry (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful protester was gunshot by Ukrainian Police. This person is notable by the fact HOW he was died. People should have access to the truth all over the world about the events happening in Ukraine. Many liars would like to deny the fact of death of this person and other person. Many liars would like to present protesters as extremists or Ukrainian nazi or something like that. Existence of this article would let keep all of them silent and would help to stop them from more lie. Definitely vote for keeping this article present. --Patlatus (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? It's undoubted that his death makes a big resonance in Ukraine. Only five quotes from the Internet:

Буду добиватись, щоб площу назвали іменем Нігояна, - Бригинець
I'll strive to name the square in Kyiv after the name of Serhiy Nigoyan — MPs Briginets[1]. (in Ukrainian)

У Дніпропетровстку вшанувують пам'ять загиблого Нігояна і хочуть назвати в його честь вулицю.
In Dnipropetrovsk people are commemorating deceased Nigoyan and wants to name a street in his honor[2]. (in Ukrainian)

Фракція ВО Свобода у Львові пропонує присвоїти звання почесного громадянина міста Львова п'ятьом загиблим активістам на вулиці Грушевського в Києві, повідомляє прес-служба партії 23 січня. Повідомляється, що звання громадянина міста хочуть привласнити загиблим Сергію Нігояну, білорусу Михайлу Жизневкому, активісту Юрію Вербицькому і ще двом невпізнаним загиблим.
...It is reported that the title of citizen of Lviv want to assign to the murdered Sergiy Nigoyan...[3] (in Ukrainian)

У входа в здание они установили портрет погибшего в столкновениях с милицией 22 января в Киеве активиста Сергея Нигояна.
At the entrance of the regional government building in Khmelnytskyi protesters hired a portrait of murdered by police at January 22 activist Serhiy Nigoyan[4]. (in Russian)

Нігоян віддав життя, яке стало символом України, — Вакарчук.
Nigoyan gave his life and became a symbol of Ukraine — Svyatoslav Vakarchuk[5]. (in Ukrainian)

Yes, I agree that the article should be fulfilled and YOU are welcome to do that while it's not the best way to waste time for giving references here, not in the article, especially if there're enough interwikies where from info can be taken in more easiest way than from google search.
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
If You read the quotes, maybe You can understand that there're a resonance for that death. BTW, in ukrwiki and ruwiki there're additional articles for the lists of murdered people. As I see, in enwiki there're some lazy people for whom the easiest way is to nominate an article for deletion than to contribute it. They're even not wasting time for reading the arguments. At the evening I'll complete the article. It's a pity for me that people don't want to do something to improve the article and wants from someone else to make the article better. Maybe somebody doesn't know (or have forgotten), so I'll remind that in whole Ukraine millions people are protesting, more than 21/2 month center of the capital is under protesters control (there're no police), government buildings in different regions of Ukraine are captured by protesters. Serhiy Nigoyan is first murdered activist by government forces. The resonance of that I've described above. If it's not enough for You — do what You want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.88.150.2 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy has been #1 topic in Armenia, a tiny country of 3 million, which many people don't care about. I think he is notable and deserves an article, no less than Trayvon Martin or anybody else. I will try to improve it and expand a bit. --Երևանցի talk 04:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yerevantsi. No harm in having such an article. Plenty of sources available as well . DDima 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything that I want to say is said. KaroAramazd 00:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because, unfortunately, he is first who died during protests. It's historical event--Noel baran (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a historical event and likely caused much stronger protests over the whole Ukraine Valizka (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Donegan[edit]

Cheryl Donegan (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 sufficiently meet the WP:N/WP:GNG criteria for inclusion for artists. ColonelHenry (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep And why is that? Numerous exhibitions, multiple independent sources. - Altenmann >t 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Altenmann. This is a wave of AfDs and other poor page edits done by this user. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay O'Donnell[edit]

Barangay O'Donnell (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 have enough to justify its existence...probably needs to be deleted outright per WP:GNG, but if there's anything worth salvaging, put it in the Capas article. ColonelHenry (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 24 January 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. Monty845 20:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stichtse Vrije School[edit]

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

I cannot find anything relevant here. This is just a average school in a small town in The Netherlands. The only source seems te be the own website. There are no independent sources given. So why is this school relevant enough for it's own article? Natuur12 (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless WP:NSCHOOL can be satisfied. I haven't found anything interesting on GNews or DDG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary schools are notable by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ORGSIG states that no organization - including schools - has inherent notability. To warrant an article, a school needs to meet WP:NSCHOOL or some other notability criterion. The Parson's Cat (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus regarding Wikipedia articles about secondary schools. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) for more context. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mainstream established secondary school per longstanding precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Needs expanding per WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Amongst other things, searches need to be carried out on Dutch and local sources.The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:13, 27 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Shaw[edit]

Noel Shaw (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)

PRODed and CSD'd - removed by creator. Very minor claims to notability but unsourced (a list of the subject's publications does not assert notability). Further research fails to locate sources that satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only indication of notability I see here is the claim that he has artworks in "public collections", but this is too vague to be helpful. And the total lack of independent sources is also a big problem: even if there were an assertion of notability, we need something to use as the basis for writing an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trove shows he was an illustrator for some books (Wikipedia makes it seem like he was the author) but that's it. eg.[61] -- GreenC 05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem notable...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 30 January 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. Propper translliteration can be decided elsewhere Monty845 20:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Mitrohin[edit]

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

doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG ColonelHenry (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - You must be kidding, Colonel. - Altenmann >t 08:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Actually, this may be my mistake. His name in genuine English publication of early last century was spelled "Mitrohin", so I assumed it must be used as title. HOwever google search shows much more relevant sources with "Mitrokhin" spellings, so assuming good faith, you must have been fooled by google (with my help). - Altenmann >t 08:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but move to Dmitry Mitrokhin which seems to be the preferred translliteration. There is at least one book on his work (presumably published in Russian) and there is plenty of side reference to his importance especially WRT Arthur Ransome. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:08, 24 January 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. Mkdwtalk 23:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turpentine bath[edit]

Turpentine bath (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 reliable secondary sources to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No WP:MEDRS to back up medical claims. Ochiwar (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Interestingly, when I looked for this in GBooks I found an American mention from 1888 [63] which apparently wasn't picked up by anyone else, as all hits for it are the same text. However The Zalmanov version of this is sourced only to "his" website and gets no book hits, and given that he supposedly died in Paris a long time back, I would expect these if this were legit. As it is I think it's a medical hoax which we shouldn't be repeating on the basis of one website's testimony. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The part of this which is about Turpentine#Medicinal_elixir is true, but I'm not sure it says anything new about it. The part about Zalmanov seems either an advert or a hoax, hence to be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This sounds like a LUXURIOUS treatment. I hate to see an article like this go. BlueSalix (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above commentary. Uncited, poorly written, and of questional notability. If preserve, then merge to Turpentine and replace with reliable sources.--LT910001 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MEDRS Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:47, 29 January 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. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zalmanov[edit]

Alexander Zalmanov (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. No high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Ochiwar (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is likely that is covered by sources in Russian. Or if there is no consensus to keep it, it should be moved to draft space per WP:PRESERVE - there are no concerns of COPYVIO nor BLP). Diego (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as single-sourced hoax. There's almost no testimony for this guy other than the promotion of a quack treatment (see above) and given that he died in Paris fifty years ago, there should be western sources. All I see are a couple of passing references to his name in Italian which do not have an obvious connection to the treatment being pushed in this article. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, there are some western sources - one has to remember that a Russian living in France is likely to have transliterated his name according to French conventions. So try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Though having said that, I'm not sure how good the sources really are. PWilkinson (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked those too, and didn't find enough that way either. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if the method he invented works, there is no treatment of him in secondary sources. Wikipedia does not have an article on every patentholder nor every doctor who has invented a surgical technique, and it certainly shouldn't have one on a dead snake-oil salesman who doesn't even pass WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 3 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 close. Take it to WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 05:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Club Excel[edit]

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

Not a notable subject. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • WTF? The article Wikipedia Club Excel does not exist. It is a red link. Nor is there an article Club Excel. How can a nonexistent article be deleted? Was it spelled wrong when the AFD was created? Edison (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page in question appears to be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel, which is about the "Wikipedia Club" at an Indian school. Because this is in Wikipedia rather than article space, the correct procedure is to bring this up at WP:Miscellany for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yeah, but it's just placed in the wrong space. The proper solution is to move it--or for someone to nominate it for speedy deletion as A7. I'm inclined to simply pull the trigger on it, but since this has been around for a while (and was never moved, apparently, for reasons I don't understand).

      Edit conflict with Ansh666: this close missed the point a bit, but I suppose it's technically correct, though it misses the point of it having been created in the wrong place. So I'll just move it, and Ansh666, Edison, and CombatWombat42, you can figure out what to do then. DON'T run off to MfD rightaway. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited life experience degree[edit]

Accredited life experience degree (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 irreparable confused mess of POV and OR that at best can be redirected or merged to Recognition of prior learning although diploma mill may be a better target for the scant referenced and useful material in this article ElKevbo (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ElKevbo's suggestion of merger or redirection is too kind. At best, this is an essay providing advice -- something that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. More accurately, however, it is a POV-laden advertorial whose sources are either or both misrepresented or not WP:RS. There's nothing here worth keeping. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly referenced and too much WP:OR. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the issues of WP:OR are resolved I do not think this article should be kept in the main space in it's current state regardless of WP:CHANCE. Mkdwtalk 23:40, 31 January 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) 08:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dean XV[edit]

Ryan Dean XV (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 general notability guidelines for actors and performers (WP:N) ColonelHenry (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Note that the subject is named Ryan Dean, minus the suffix, which was added to coincide with the subject as the 15th "Ryan Dean" listed at IMDb. A search for "Ryan Dean" and "Rudderless" did not find sources to support notability in accordance with WP:CREATIVE. That said, the subject's Twitter feed indicated that the film was his acting debut. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 05:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way down the list of credits of an independent film as his sole part so far = WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no apparent notability. PamD 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this article is not deleted, please (a) move it to Ryan Dean (actor) and (b) provide a hatnote at Ryan Malloy: {{redirect|Ryan Dean|the actor|Ryan Dean (actor)}} - or create a dab page at Ryan Dean instead of the existing redirect. Thanks. PamD 23:49, 28 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Spine Clinic[edit]

Qi Spine Clinic (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 significance Ireneshih (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:56, 19 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references provided, and none found in a search. The article itself is pure spam, could almost have been speedied as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 24 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Simpson[edit]

Rebecca Simpson (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 sportsperson - fails WP:GNG as this person hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:09, 17 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bedok#Education. Closed early per WP:SNOW. The article's history has been preserved in case any editor wishes to merge something. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedok West Primary School[edit]

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

Educational institution -- primary school, without notability. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Bedok#Education. It's only a primary school, and since there's not enough info about it online other than that it exists, a mention at the relevant article would be a better idea than deletion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bedok#Education where the school is mentioned, per standard practice for non notable primary schools. Article is already tagged for merging since 2006 2008. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 25 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tirmah Zaidi[edit]

Tirmah Zaidi (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 has not established any support per WP:V and WP:BLP, and fails WP:GNG ColonelHenry (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability and is an unsourced BLP. Borderline for CSD A7. Safiel (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In fact, this is almost a candidate for speedy (I'd have to double check those criteria). It's just a short paragraph with no context, sources, Wikilinks...it's just pointless. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 27 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Gonzalez[edit]

Ed Gonzalez (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 local politician. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really should be kept but I hate it when people say "keep and improve!" and then go on their merry way so that the article survives the AfD and then just sits there status quo ante bellum. I have no intention of devoting energy to improving this, otherwise necessary, article so just put it out of its misery and recreate it later when someone who's interested comes along. BlueSalix (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 24 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koroli[edit]

Koroli (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)

Efforts to establish notability of this planned development project have not been successful. Article has evolved from mostly promotional, to somewhat-neutral but written about a seemingly non-notable location. Does simply existing make a development project worthy of inclusion in an article? Does this article attempt legitimize the subject, so that the subject can be promoted? Where is the significant coverage from independent reliable sources? Please see this relevant discussion Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like the mixture as before. Some references are about other things that happen in the area (not relevant to this development's notability), the others are not WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reached out to WikiProject India to give the article a better shot at being fixed, rather than deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Appears to be an advertisement.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Locke[edit]

Greg Locke (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 pastor of a non-notable church. I could not find significant independent coverage of either the individual or the church. Unreferenced since 2007. MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence found of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 24 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Frilingos[edit]

George Frilingos (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 amateur sportsman. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 January 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 move to Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations. We can not really merge into an inexistent article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Afghanistan, London[edit]

Embassy of Afghanistan, London (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 embassy. No claim of notability. No independent references in with depth coverage. Nothing obvious in google with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm always looking for additional info on specific legations as so many don't have their own websites. That said, this doesn't really provide it. BlueSalix (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete embassies are not inherently notable. And this article merely confirms its existence. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could no longer care Hello, I'm the guy who made all these UK embassy pages. I'd like to thank you for your consistent attempts to delete the pages I made as it has more-or-less completely put me off contributing to Wikipedia and as such I've resolved to find better ways to use my free time. As such feel free to do what you like with the embassy pages as I could no longer care and have better things to do. sdrawkcab —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 26 January 2014‎
See, that I find staggering. We have an article about the non-notable embassy but not about diplomatic relations between the two countries between which there were one, two, three wars and a treaty all before 1920! And everything since! Crazy stuff. Stalwart111 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the embassy itself as a physical building or as an institution. To sdrawkcab - if you have a particular interest in these things, maybe start with the diplomatic articles rather than articles about non-notable landmarks around London's suburbs. It takes quite a bit for a building to be notable but relations between two countries like that is a no-brainer. Stalwart111 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I put in an extra sentence; maybe it contributes to the notability of the building.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The small article does not purport to say very much. What little it says seems well sourced and might satisfy the curiosity of somebody, somewhere. (Indeed, it satisfies my curiosity. I'm fascinated by the sight of conspicuously lavish expenditures on diplomacy by impoverished nations.) It's not promotional and has little risk of becoming promotional. Yes, as Stalwart111 says, it is indeed absurd that WP has this article but not Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations; however, for this imbalance we should blame the lack of the relations article rather than the existence of the embassy article (which of course does nothing to discourage creation of Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations). -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
satisfying curiosity is not a criterion for notability. the sources are rather routine, one confirms the embassy exists, the other confirms it has been there since 1922, the other says it was closed for a few decades and the other confirms a former resident. all WP:ROUTINE. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are probably right. If only it were not in London but instead somewhere in, say, the Star Trek "franchise", then it would probably be "notable". Meanwhile, I'm adding the occasional drib or drab to this reality-based article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Freshly added: admittedly brief yet authoritative commentary on the architecture -- admittedly not of this particular single building, but of a small set of buildings of which this is clearly shown to be a member. (Some others survive, but some have subsequently been demolished.) - Hoary (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a new article Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations (or rename if that article doesn't yet exist). There is no evidence so far that the building is notable, or even that the London institution is notable. However, the two countries have a long history of relations (see Invasions of Afghanistan#British_invasions) about which a huge amount could be written. Per WP:PRESERVE, this material should form part of that article, and in this case should form the start of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 6 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Raju[edit]

Mighty Raju (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 animation. No independent references. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing obvious in Google. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Withdraw nomination as per the sources added to the article and the links below. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm still looking for sources and I'll see if WP:INDIA can find anything in foreign language sources, but there seems to be quite a bit of coverage out there. It's not as notable as its earlier counterpart Chhota Bheem, but it does seem to be a fairly popular series spanning a wide amount of films and merchandise. I'd have suggested a merge with Chhota Bheem, but there's just enough coverage out there and the series is large enough to where I think a content fork is somewhat necessary. ([64], [65]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many more sources here and current sourcing is not bad. -- GreenC 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't work for me right now, could you please double check it? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works OK. Try http://tito-dutta.my3gb.com/IndianEnglishNewspapersSearch.html and search Mighty Raju . -- GreenC 05:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me now. Must have been a transient thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:46, 26 January 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_January_24&oldid=1142628978"