Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 June	18 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete - fails WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Simone[edit]

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

This is an autobiography, and it's very self-promotional. There are no reliable sources (the only reference is to the subject's/author's web site). It lacks WP:Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. No attempt to disguise its being an advertisement, and it even slips into second person at one point ("Check out this young entertainer..."). Sheesh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because the fact that she "wears a majority of professional hats" (what does that even mean!?!) isn't a claim to notability and she obviously doesn't meet WP:GNG. Edit history confirms this was an attempt at an advertisement, then an autobiography. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could probably be speedied as spam, but it'd be worth going through a long enough period to get a snow delete to prevent further attempts at re-creation before GNG is met. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to remove all articles lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The subject appears to be rather borderline in relation to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and both sides of the debate herein have provided intelligent, guideline-based arguments. Ultimately, there's no consensus occurrent in this discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. Craig Hanna[edit]

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

Lack of notability: The text reads like promotional material. The sources are the subject's agent, galleries that have simply exhibited his work, or interviews by him. No mention whatsoever of notable critics or mention in third-party, respected art-media. The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability: I agree with The Gnome: promotional material and sources which are not reliable secondary sources like "New York Times" or "Art in America". There's no mention of why out of all the painters on earth this one is notable enough to be here. The last time I checked it was orphaned. This article came to my attention due to working on deletions for Wikimedia Commons; the pictures uploaded for it were not users own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is demonstrating notability. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article plus the ones I found... All of these add up to satisfy WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with that article because the "Malta Independent" article is not biographical in scope, merely about an exhibit of pictures with a slight mention of his life before. This article does not establish notability, if it did every gallery opening listing derived from a press release would establish notability of every painter in every town in the world. There need to be some reliable secondary sources here, not just blogs and small newspapers. Also noting that User:Bus stop is a contributor to the article in question. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found more sources with a paragraph or two of dedicated coverage about Hanna. For instance, the quarterly magazine Livres hebdo wrote a paragraph about Hanna and his show called carnets de dessin. Le Monde featured the same Hanna show carnets de dessin, with this article called "Les carnets de dessins de H. Craig Hanna". French Wikipedia has an article on the Laurence Esnol Gallery which opened in 2008 solely to feature Hanna's works. The magazine Profondeurchamps wrote about Hanna in the article called "H. Craig Hanna : la force du peintre ingénu", published in March 2014. These sources should be brought into the biography to beef it up. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources establish notability. This source depicts a painting titled "Carlos Sitting On A Clear Plastic Chair" about which is written (in Google translation): "Unquestionably, H. Craig Hanna plays in the virtuoso with his palette. Award in the prestigious BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery in London in 2001 with Carlos sitting on a clear Plastic Chair, selected again in 2006, the painter leaves no doubt about its technical capabilities." I believe that says that H. Craig Hanna won the "prestigious BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery in London in 2001 with" that painting. The source itself ("profondeurdechamps.com") seems to report on a wide range of topics. Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It feels awkward to be trying to wipe a person's bio off Wikipedia, I must say! But I feel obliged to note the following:

The Laurence Esnol Gallery are Hanna's "world exclusive agents," as the French Wikipedia article states.

The Malta newspaper item is simply a report on an event in the island. It does not establish notability. The same goes for the Monde reportage, which contains not a single critical word on the artist, positive or negative, but merely announces the upcoming exhibition, along with a sample of paintings, to its readers. Hardly a notable event, or a sign of the artist's wider notability.

The only critical, third-party, extended reference to Hanna around the web is in the 'profondeurdechamps.com website, which is not widely known, if at all.

You may want to take any or all of this into consideration. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched the factoid H. Craig Hanna won the "prestigious BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery in London in 2001 with" and found that statement to be incorrect. According to the webpage of the National Portrait Gallery, BP Portrait Award 2001, The winner of the BP Portrait Award 2001 is: Stuart Pearson Wright (b.1975) - Title of Portrait: The Six Presidents of the British Academy. Second place was jointly won by Phil Hale and Brendan Kelley. The latter has no Wikipedia entry. Below is a section titled The following artists have been commended. Each wins £1,000: on that list is the extent of information about this artist, quote "H.Craig Hanna (b.1970) Carlos sitting on a clear plastic chair." I do not see that a commendation equals a win which calls into question the validity of the contents of the remainder of the article, none of which are supported by reliable secondary sources. Also please compare the articles; the actual winner's article is short, to the point and has citations from The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent. This page reads like a press release of every thing the artist has ever done and suggests WP:COI editing as it is more like what one would expect on a personal website than an encyclopedia entry. Incidentally of those commended thirteen years ago, only Thomas Leveritt has a wiki article; and it is very light on references of note. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a range of types of articles Wikipedia can write about visual artists. If this one is faulty for reading like a press release perhaps that can be remedied. The more important question is whether this article should be deleted. I don't think it should. I think there is a fair degree of evidence of a track record in the area of visual art and some recognition taken by publications that address the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006, the top three BP Portrait Awards were given to other artists, but Hanna was honored by having his work "Hermes and George" selected for exhibition, and for printing in the book about the exhibition, ISBN 9781855143739.[1]

"Carlos sitting on a plastic chair" was given the same degree of recognition in 1990. See BP Portrait Award, National Portrait Gallery, 1990, p. 60.

Hanna's work was selected for the National Portrait Gallery's "Portrait Gala" of 2009.[2][3]

He exhibited in Taiwan in 2002, at the Galerie Martini. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but a weak keep. I revamped the article, removing all of the voluminous WP:REFSPAM and other dubious references, kept the good references, as a way to try to spare it. Still, my sense is the artist is on the border here between notability and non-notability, kind of a judgment call; my sense is the artist is on the GNG side but it is up to the community to decide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a worthy compromise. -The Gnome (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) btw, Impressed, Gnome, you can ecrivez francais (write French).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remercie you for the gentil words. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the sources found and work done are enough to substantiate notability. It's perhaps not the strongest case for notability but I think it sneaks over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source has any real coverage, and that may not be that reliable, or independent a source. --Bejnar (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certain artists fall through the cracks if you only regard write-ups in the New York Times, so-to-speak. Attention should be paid to a track record of laboring away in the visual fine arts. Otherwise we are making value judgements. Many commercial spaces for instance have art decorating their walls. This is not necessarily art that challenges convention except in predictable ways. Where does that art come from? I’m not saying I know this person's art. I certainly don’t know this person. But we can see a track record. That should count for something, of course in conjunction with our standard requirement for notability in reliable sources. Be aware that good quality sources are not likely to write an article about someone who churns out reasonably priced art that serves as a reasonable substitute for what the public regards as mildly challenging art. Notice the individual’s track record. (The track record, by the way, should not be in the article, so I agree with Tom's removal of it from the article.) The shows begin in the late 90s. Again—I know little about this artist, and I should not say that he is a “hack”. (definition of "hack": a person who willingly works or acts mostly for money or other rewards without worrying about independence, beliefs, or reputation) But there are certainly many artists who produce art because it sells. Let me quickly add that I do not know that this applies to the subject of this biography. All I’m arguing is that we shouldn’t weaken Wikipedia’s coverage of visual artists when we see ample evidence of a long-term productive visual artist. Everything in visual art does not have to be about challenging convention. Nor does notability solely hinge upon exceedingly good quality. Notability also should take into consideration the evidence that a fine artist has persisted in that endeavor productively over a long period of time. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We make value judgments about sources, not about people. --Bejnar (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has a track record. It demonstrates notability. Sources only comment upon that which is newsworthy. But is this artist noteworthy? Definitely. This is an artist whose work probably hangs on countless walls. The repeat shows are not because this work did not sell. Quite the contrary we have an indication of a working artist whose work has a following. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately or not, that is not the measure of notability on the Wikipedia. As one commentator put it "notability" on the Wikipedia is a term of art. Please see the guidelines for notability: WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE, and WP:CREATIVE. Effort is not rewarded, indications are not rewarded, significant coverage in independent, published reliable sources is. --Bejnar (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing being "rewarded". Deleting an article about an artist such as H. Craig Hanna only lessens the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not deny itself coverage of visual artists when they have adequate track records, and they show some degree of coverage in reasonably good quality sources. Should the name "H. Craig Hanna" be mentioned in an article on Figurative art or an article on Abstract art? Absolutely not. Good quality reliable sources would have to be available to support an assertion that an artist is an exemplar of a quality or a style. Such sources are entirely absent in this instance, to my knowledge. Connoisseurship concerns a separate question from whether a visual artist should be considered notable enough for an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not how Wikipedia operates, however. Revisit the criteria for Notability, especially of living persons. Editors are not here to "cover artists" who simply have an "adequate track record." By omitting the biography of each and every such artist, Wikipedia is not being "denied" anything. Wikipedia suggests that, alternatively, one should try listing such biographies here. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For visual artists we should be concerned with exhibition history. A series of exhibitions spanning many years should be a factor which should tend to serve to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. Indeed we should be concerned with a long track record in this area. I don't think notability is established by the same means for all endeavors. Gallery shows are important for the particular endeavor of visual art. This is a system which is in place. The gallery system is something of particular significance to visual art. The gallery system may not have a strongly corresponding counterpart in other creative endeavors. If we are wondering if a potential person warrants an article on Wikipedia based on their importance to the field of visual art we indeed should be looking to exhibition history in art galleries. If these aren't vanity galleries and the exhibition history can be confirmed, then we are weighing a factor that may contribute to the argument to keep the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

| The notability is established by reliable secondary sources not by a "following". The best suggestion, I can give is to get some notable coverage in reliable news/journals first. The artist has a website for publicity, Wikipedia isn't a promotional outlet, it's an encyclopedia. I'd suggest taking a look at other artist's biographies on List of American artists 1900 and after for an idea of the amount of news/journal/book coverage to be considered notable. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Laurence Esnol Gallery provides a list of "Expositions" spanning 1997 to 2012. Can we rely on that list, and should it be taken into consideration? By the way, I have nothing to do with this artist. I never saw the name until this AfD. I just want to make that clear. It is only on principle that I am arguing. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Laurence Esnol Gallery is the "worldwide exclusive agent" for this particular artist. This is stated in the French wikipedia entry ("[Hanna] est représenté en permanence et en exclusivité mondiale par Laurence Esnol Gallery").-The Gnome (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svpply[edit]

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

Not notable, looks like more spam. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass our guidelines for company articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small supply company; no evidence of notability, but I am willing to reconsider if sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC) (P.S. There's lots of Ghits, but none seem to be reliable.) Bearian (talk) 20:32, 19 June 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Phillips Moskowitz[edit]

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

Spam. NYT article isn't an article but is their blog. Not notable, also doing the company at AFD. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "doing the company at AFD?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dty1 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He means that the company this guy founded is also up for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bureau of Trade. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, Shameless self promotion - Wayne Jayes 07:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he is not notable and neither is the company he founded so no redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 19 June 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 acquisitions by eBay. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Trade[edit]

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

Spam really. The "New York Times" source is their blog, which isn't reliable. Looks like COI editing, also adding the "founder" article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - Meets WP:WEBCRIT~~ Comment: (sources) per [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (short article), [9] (very short article). Additionally, the NYT source is an acceptable WP:NEWSBLOG source for Wikipedia's purposes. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Their blog is fine (sometimes) to source an individual fact, but not to establish notability. Additionally, this blurb was written by Lydia Dishman, whose whole NYT blog career [10] is a few fluffy, cheerleading posts under the "fashion" moniker. Clearly insufficient to establish notability and of dubious use for other purposes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi User:Dennis Brown: at WP:IRS it states, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." At the end of the paragraph it then links to WP:NEWSBLOG. Therefore, I perceive the NYT source as an acceptable reliable source to establish notability. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know the policy, blogs can sometimes be an exception for sourcing, which is different than establishing notability. And you take them on a case by case basis. As I've shown, this is a very weak case for even sourcing facts, but under any circumstance it doesn't demonstrate notability. Even unreliable sources can sometimes be used to source non-contentious facts but the standard for establishing notability is higher than for sourcing trivial facts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - One matter, though, is that your notions here are not stated anywhere in WP:N. Regardless, I appreciate your opinion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It is vaguely touched upon in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Not all "reliability" is the same. Just as a primary source is fine to source a date of birth or their religion but not to prove notability. Weak sources are ok for non-contentious sourcing, but in this case, "notability" is contentious, so it requires higher quality sourcing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEBCRIT does not mean mere mentions like in the house egging report. Fails WP:GNG, probably not even worth a redirect to eBay. --Bejnar (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Redirect, see below) Does not meet WP:CORP. Trivial outside reporting about funding and acquisition; nothing substantial about the company itself. Not worth redirecting to eBay, where it has not been considered important enough to mention under acquisitions. Could have been redirected to the founder except that he is not notable either and is up for deletion as well. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:MelanieN: Did you view the 11-paragraph newsblog article from The New York Times [11]? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I share Dennis's skepticism about this source, and in any case, notability requires MULTIPLE significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to the Acquisitions section of the eBay article.~~ Upon consideration, this may not quite qualify for a standalone article. I've modified my !vote above to a comment. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Northamerica. (Actually Dennis Brown has identified a better redirect target.) That's a reasonable approach. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be argumentative, but there is literally nothing to merge. That section is blank and instead points (via "main article") to List of acquisitions by eBay, which already has a full entry on this. I can see deleting and then redirecting to List of acquisitions by eBay but not a merge. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That section isn't blank; it has subsections about four major acquisitions. That's what I was looking at when I dismissed this article as "not having been considered important enough to mention under acquisitions". I didn't see that there is a separate list. This article is already mentioned on that list (not exactly a "full entry", but probably all this is worth). In that case, a Redirect to the List of acquisitions by eBay would be appropriate. But there is no need to delete the article before redirecting; it's not like it contains damaging BLP or copyvio or anything like that. It's just non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I wouldn't expect it to be one of the major sections, but instead in the lesser article, but that would be an editorial decision at that article, not here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of acquisitions by eBay. Modified my !vote above. Upon even further consideration, this is a relatively minor acquisition compared to other eBay acquisitions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 23 June 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Sea[edit]

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

Newish, didn't chart, the link to the band is actually a link to one of the artists. Not thinking this passes the bar for notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Too soon, come back when band/music has significant coverage in reliable independent published works. --Bejnar (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as only a redirect so no harm done, WP:RFD might be of help if you disagree with the redirect. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putin huilo[edit]

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

Seems too offensive to me, to call somebody a "dickhead" and then make an article out of it. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why someone created this article when there is another called Putin khuilo!. At this point, the AfD for this article spelling should be speedily closed because it is a legitimate redirect to Putin khuilo!. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Jarman[edit]

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

Non notable individual. All sources are mentioning her only in passing, none about her as a topic. Does not pass WP:CREATIVE etc Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. There are thirteen footnotes to the article, but little in the way of actual coverage. Most simply say something like "Hair and makeup by Vanessa Jarman", and don't even have a full sentence about her. A few have Vanessa Jarman sharing a make-up "secret". The most and only real coverage is the first one "Vanessa Jarman’s Advice On How To Apply Makeup' which ends with a very brief (100 words) bio. Her collaboration with Lady Gaga was another of those "Hair & Makeup: Vanessa Jarman". It is verifiable that she has done television makeup, but there is no coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The cited references certainly provide verification that she exists, but are not substantive enough coverage about her to deem her notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 22 June 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 article deleted under CSD G7. Randor1980 (talk| |contributions) 00:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cydney Mar[edit]

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

Non-notable person. A former skater (whose career was ended by injury before she reached any level of notability) and present fashion designer (of little note except for her self-promotion on QVC), this WP:AUTO is completely unsupported by independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:01, 17 June 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SEER Interactive[edit]

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

Non-notable campany. None of the references has in depth independent coverage. The closest is this piece which is one paragraph of puffery with no actual evidence of independent journalism or a by-line. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I suppose I'll chime in as it seems my adding to the Companies project provoked this fast. They're a small company (maybe like ~50 employees? source: their site), but one that makes a lot of noise beyond that piece (mainly just speaking at conferences - MozCon, LinkLove). No idea if that makes them notable though. BrandonSaad (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'makes a lot of noise' is a synonym of 'has good PR people' and is essentially unrelated to WP:Notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Leaving aside these best/coolest place to work chaff items which are susceptible to PR and mean very little anyway, I did find one piece (now referenced in the article) via Highbeam which described them as "one leading independent SEO firm" (in 2007). But that is a firm going about its business - I am not finding anything to indicate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheOrder[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a production team. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC) - Mr X 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creator has a clear COI; look at their name and userpage. Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 23:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 23:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say that if they were responible for producing multiple hit records, and met WP:GNG, they would be notable. The problem isn't "inheriting" notability, it's meeting GNG, and there just isn't anything out there about this group as a group, and precious little on the individual members (I found one brief article on Soko being credited for Drunk In Love, on the Nehanda Radio blog [12]). The WP article for Drunk in Love does list them (by name, not as TheOrder) in the credits, and the one for Nothing Was the Same credits "Proctor" (no first name, neither of the others) on a few tracks. So they were probably involved, though not necessarily as TheOrder, and the article may be pooling individual activities of group members. Not to mention that without reliable sources talking about their contributions, we can't tell how important they were to the production (the article could very easily be overstating it). As a side note, User:TheOrderMusic is a clear violation of WP:GROUPNAME and should probably be blocked for such once this AfD is over. — Gwalla | Talk 21:27, 19 June 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. This page is a copy of X-Men: Future Cast which was created after the aformentioned page was protected due to persistant AFD template removal. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled X-Men: Apocalypse Sequel[edit]

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

Speculative article about a purported upcoming film. The single source in the article does not mention the film at all. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Christ, Apocalypse won't even be released until 2016, this is clearly jumping the gun. WP:HAMMER, WP:TOOSOON.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, way WP:TOOSOON. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films as premature. The "Sequel" section at X-Men: Days of Future Past (seen here) is sufficient. Let filming start before a stand-alone article is created. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per policy and guidelines mentioned above. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:32, 19 June 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 procedural keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev[edit]

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

The article had been twice exposed earlier on removal, however it was left with the comment "there is no consensus" while my arguments were ignored (1, 2). After the removal from some unreliable sources and sources where it was absolutely spoken nothing about Sergei Vasiliev, there were only three links, 2 of which – the official site. It isn't enough for acceptability of WP:GNG. I suggest to delete the article. — 213.87.xxx.xx (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to put this back on the nominator, but how do you know about this article, WP:AFD procedures, and how to nominate one? In particular, why did you choose this article? Additionally, I did not see your contributions on the old afd. Is this a new account? In any case, I vote Procedural Keep due to the older discussion, and the fact that multiple afd discussions in short repetition is disruptive. Tutelary (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Earlier I edited from dynamic IP address (213.87.xxx.xx). 213.87.xxx.xx (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep While consensus can and does change, sending an article to AFD so many times in just a few weeks is disruptive. That this is the first thing you've done as an editor is more than fishy as well, and smells of socks and/or POV. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - too soon to start more drama. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - Go and be bored elsewhere, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At previous nominations the sources were not taught upon many subjects. As I’d started to tell that one or another source was unreliable or just did not fit because of the lack of information about Sergey Vasilyev, no one answered on my comments. It had been just discussed that someone was using Sockpuppets and that the article was not libel. My opponents had not displayed yet the regularity of the sources in accordance with the norms written in the rules. I would like to receive these comments at that discussion. 213.87.xxx.xx (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each AFD is a stand alone discussion, we don't import old comments. That would be gaming the system. I notice you calling other editors "opponents". This isn't a contest or a battle, it is a discussion. If you wanted to contest the old AFD, you should have taken it to WP:DRV but you chose to have a new discussion instead. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:46, 18 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HealthDay[edit]

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

Non-notable company division - fails WP:CORP and probably WP:ADMASQ. ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article about non-notable company. Maproom (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo bollox. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' promotional fluff, with no evidence of meeting notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 19 June 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 Angelique (Japanese series)#Dating sim/Adventure titles. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Special[edit]

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

No semblance of notability. Should probably redirect to Angelique (Japanese series). Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Not notable 69.221.169.97 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: would fit at the situation since the subject is non-notable as per WP:GNG. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angelique (Japanese series)#Dating sim/Adventure titles, spinoff without enough independant notability for a standalone article. Note for the nominator: advancing non-deletion rationales in an AfD nomination (such as proposing redirect) is generally not recommended and may lead to a speedy closure of the discussion; normally if you think this should be redirected, you should just go ahead and redirect it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:08, 18 June 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. Ekabhishek^talk 03:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Homoeopathic Medical College[edit]

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

I know institutions are WP:INHERENTly notable but I say this is such a mess it should be WP:TNTd to encourage creation of a better article per WP:REDLINK. Laun chba ller 11:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just no evidence of notability, no evidence at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of passing mentions on listings websites but nothing that establishes notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a recognised college. see here [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 June 2014

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 2 June 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 05:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its recognized by Madhya Pradesh State Council of Homeopathy. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in a directory list published on the MP State Council for Homeopathy website is neither "significant coverage", nor is it independent, since a subscription is required to join this body. In short, it does nothing for notability. Furthermore, this is a private college, not a recognised educational institution. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in a directory list of recognition means a lot. It means the college has been through a lot of government paperwork for its establishment. These have been revalidated by the council and thus deemed fit to be recognized by it. When a state government formed council recognizes an educational institute, it makes for all the notability that it should have. Now they not having regular tree-plantation events which media would cover or they not inviting celebrities to dance at their annual functions is trivial. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tree planting and dancing might well contribute to notability, but so far all we have done is to establish that the college actually exists. It possesses no inherent notability whatever the government may say and it must satisfy the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And establishing existence is sufficient per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for such degree-awarding institutions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy and cannot override the general notability guideline. Homeopathy is not a recognised scientific discipline, so awarding degrees in it carries no institutional/academic weight. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its an essay based on wide consensus which cannot be challenged at this forum. And if homeopathy is no good science per you, that's a reason to get the article Homeopathy deleted, not this article. Btw, homeopathy is a better science than studying how to make objects fly or staring at globes, the institutes of which have articles on WP. I know WP:OSE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can debate this all day but the simple truth is that per WP:ORG, this college has insufficient evidence of notability to warrant stand-alone coverage. Looked at from the perspective of content, the article consists of two sentences and an infobox. The other sections merely duplicate this information. The entire topic could be covered in a two line mention in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh#Education. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOLITTLE and WP:Nothing is in stone. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of notability whatsoever. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the principle we apply at AfD, that all high schools of proven existence are inherently notable, should logically be extended to colleges. Per the link of Dharmadhyaksha, this college exists; therefore it should be included in WP. I feel this way regardless of my personal view of Homeopathy — that it is a 16 ton dumptruck load of horse shit. If it is a high school, we include it; if it is a college, we should include it. Makes sense to me... Carrite (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in 2002-03 and has 50 seats. Enough to fill many dumptrucks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should stay according to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I'm repeating Carrite's words "all high schools of proven existence are inherently notable". So I also think this article should stay. Jim Carter ^(talk) 15:12, 17 June 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Carrite - both on the inherent notability and the horseshit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the college is notable that's why it is affiliated to this university which itself is notable and providing Bachelors degree in BHMS. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. HS or higher with proof it exists should automatically be considered notable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dr. Hari Singh Gour University. Then it can be expanded there, until it is ready to be an article of its own.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is unremarkable. Nothing notable at all. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its existence has been proven, and it meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Homeopathy happens to be a major school of treatment in India; whether it is a "science" or not is not the scope of this debate or the article in question. --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic/Homoeopathic

No point in having a full RM for this when this can be dealt with much more quickly here. I know this sounds daft, but is it Homeopathic or Homoeopathic?--Laun chba ller 10:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be "Homoeopathic" as the name of the college in the sources given - eg http://mpschbhopal.nic.in/college%2012.html. Google searching appears to confirm, eg see http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/69145642.jpg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZk_N8dAOqM. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 19 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Kalam Azad (doctor)[edit]

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

Non-notable scholar. Azad is a "director of sixth form" (essentially a high school principal) and part-time assistant professor. Article gives no indications of any particularly notable achievements, and references are largely directories that verify his position and academic credentials, or personal social networking profiles, with no indications of any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scholar person cannot be considered as notable if he/she doesn't have any independent reliable sources identifying notability from there research work, research papers, publications in well cited Journals, Books and so on. This person has no more sources other than self-promotional sites. Fails as per WP:BIO generally A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 15:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 15:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. The previous one did not contain any references. But now WP:BIO does not fail and there are too many references which are reliable sources. Hidzoko (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Hidzoko: Would you care to point out which sources you consider reliable? I see
  1. a link to an Amazon page indicating that Azad has written a book (not a significantly notable book);
  2. a link to a Bangladesh government site that generates an empty page (here), but which, even if it did work, might verify that Azad is a director of a sixth form college;
  3. Azad's LinkedIn page;
  4. Azad's Academia.edu page;
  5. Azad's profile at a website called "Battle of Ideas";
  6. Azad's profile at a website called "Islam Essential".
- None of these are evidence if significant coverage in independent media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Fails WP:SCHOLAR. Cowlibob (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete & Salt per the above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not at all notable. The references are weak and is entirely self written. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent notability. As head of sixth form, he isn't even equivalent to a high school principal, incidentally. He's just head of one part of the school. Neither is he a doctor as such; he holds a doctorate. Recreation of a page already deleted at Afd. His notability hasn't changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Necrothesp: A fine point. In most English speaking countries, holding a doctorate in any field (MD, PhD, D.Eng, D.Div, etc) entitles one to use the honorific title Doctor. Doesn't add to his notability any, though. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of that. He has the title of doctor. However, we would not usually describe him as a doctor as in this disambiguation! That is invariably restricted to medical doctors (who, ironically, in the UK do not usually hold doctorates). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No contribution in any special field. He is simply a teacher(lecturer), examiner and assistant professor. An article for such person can not be stand alone, it fails under WP:BIO. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 13:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Besides a number of part-time posts, he appears to be a mere schoolmaster. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 22 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion[edit]

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

Buy My (Self-Published) Book. There's far more author COI here than independent RS notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The words "Buy My Book" are not included anywhere in the article!! The above sentence is completely uncalled for and blatantly intended to discredit the article .mbeychok (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's surprising how thoroughly this article is hyperlinked to the rest of WP. The article's notability has been discussed before and the conclusion was that it met the criteria. However, it strikes me as overtly promotional, along with the over-linking. The article could be much shortened with a more neutral tone, but the book's website is likely to continue to be the main, or only, source. Normally that site would be RS as it's owned by a subject matter expert...but the COI there remains since it exists to sell the book. Geogene (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the current version of the article, I counted six internal links in the first two paragraphs, and 10 internal links listed under "See also", and no others. To me, that does not seem like overlinking. I counted seven independent external links in the fourth paragraph and three independent reviews under "Book reviews". That indicates to me that the book's website is by no means the only source. Because of the usefulness and readability of the book and of the article, I suggest allowing WP:IAR to override WP:COI. See also Talk:Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: That was an observation on "What Links Here" for the book's article. It seemed a bit much to use the book as a source for a non-technical statement that the EPA uses air pollution models, complete with link to the book's article and external link to the website. This also happens on some other government agency articles as well. I find it too promotional, but this is not especially harmful to WP. IAR is not unreasonable. Geogene (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book was first published in 1979 and is now in its 4th Edition. After 35 years , the book has been purchased in 84 countries and is currently available in 230 libraries worldwide. It has been referenced or cited as an educational resource more than 795 times in the technical literature and on the Internet, including the regulatory publications of 32 state or national governmental agencies worldwide. It has also been used as recommended reading or a textbook in 59 university courses. See http://www.air-dispersion.com/interest.html for a complete listing of the libraries, citations by governmental agencies, usages in university courses and overall citations. I should think that those facts are proof enough of the book's notability. mbeychok (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that being in libraries isn't enough to show notability in and of itself. That it is in multiple libraries can make it more likely that the book has gained coverage, but it is not a guarantee and we don't keep books because they're in libraries- regardless of the number. As far as it being a recommended reading, that is helpful but the big problem with saying that it is a recommended reading or a textbook for classes is that we don't exactly count that in the same way we would say, To Kill A Mocking Bird. Books like this are frequently written with the intent of it being used as a textbook, so we don't count RRs or textbook usage for stuff like this for the most part. Even then, the expectation is that if the book is used heavily by agencies and schools, there will be coverage overall and it's extremely, extremely rare that an article will be kept on that without having some sort of independent, in-depth coverage. Although on that note, being used as a cite in other papers can help, as long as the person citing it isn't personally involved with the book in some way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it isn't notable or that sourcing can't be found, just that it's extremely rare to keep a book without some sort of in-depth coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: The total number of citations (as noted in my previous comment) is 795 and at least 90% of those citations were by people not involved in any way with the book. Is that not indeed "in-depth coverage" for a non-fictional technological textbook? mbeychok (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. We still have to look at the citations to see who/where the citations are being used. Not all cites are created equal and we still have to verify that they're not involved, see how in-depth the work is cited, and so on. It's usually fairly rare for something to be kept purely on it being cited in other works without the book in question being specifically cited somewhere as a groundbreaking text or as a good example of its type. It's typically why I tend to go for the peer-reviewed journal reviews first to help show notability and find links to the PRJs, as they're usually a more solid thing to point to. It's frustrating, yes, but it's fairly common for me (when searching for an article subject) to find cites but not really a lot of ones that mention the subject in-depth. That makes it really hard to show notability at AfD and it's why I try to not really go "this is cited in this many places" without providing links to quite a few in-depth reliable sources. A lot of editors are jaded when it comes to numbers because they expect that the average academic subject will have citations and want to have the notability hammered down with some pretty good in-depth sources. Basically what I'm trying to say is that just saying a ton of people cite it isn't really good enough to firmly convince everyone and rather than giving numbers, it would be better to pick out 3-4 really in-depth citations that specifically mention the work. There has to be some out there and showing a PRJ source that says something along the lines of "and in Beychok's seminal work Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion he mentions..." would do far more than just saying numbers, especially since you have a conflict of interest here (given your name), as people tend to take things from COI editors with a large grain of salt because we know that there's a very big benefit to you having the page on Wikipedia. Again, not saying that the book can't be notable, just that it's usually better to give a little more concrete evidence by way of links to sources rather than citing numbers. (Not trying to be rude, just saying that showing the best cites would be more effective here.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:G11. The subject appears to meet notability criteria and is not "exclusively" promotional. It can be re-written in a more neutral tone without fundamental change to the article. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is a criterion for speedy deletion. No-one is suggesting that.

Quite obviously, not meeting criteria for one aspect of speedy deletion does not imply that it also passes all the other criteria needed to keep an article! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the Keep remarks by Geogene on June 20, 2014 and with the Comment remarks by Wavelength also on June 20th. To be completely transparent, I am the author of the Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion article and my own Comment remarks are included in the above debate statements. I would also point out that the article does not include the word "buy" anywhere. It is simply a description of the book and its contents as well as some published reviews in well known technical journals. mbeychok (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True there is COI, but it makes an attempt to be NPOV, not much needs to be changed. The book reviews, worldcat counts and many citations in Google Books suggest notability. -- GreenC 05:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piccing[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sources are typical PR sites. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have A7'd it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Purely non-notable. No sources other than self-promotional sites like this and this A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 15:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references seems to be self written. Nothing notable at all. Ascii0054 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This would qualify under both A7 and G11. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:06, 19 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenita Janet[edit]

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

Just only Facebook and twitter sites are available for this singer, no coverage, non-notable plus fails under WP:NSONGS A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 15:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Way too soon. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, although I did find one possible source here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:48, 20 June 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. There's definitely no consensus to delete the article, and every !vote is guideline-based per Wikipedia's various guidelines. A merge consensus has emerged to a certain degree, but it's not quite solid enough for a merge close relative to the arguments of the subject potentially meeting WP:MUSICBIO. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Wright[edit]

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

Looks like a man with a job (session musician) without own notability The Banner talk 22:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear with me as I am learning the process of editing on Wikipedia. Chuck Wright is currently a heavily active artist recording ^[1] with multiple artists in sessions and touring globally and consistently with the band Quiet Riot^[2] and regionally with the band Acoustic Saints ^[3]. All data is verifiable. For the sake of editors developing new article content regarding his works, this provides a positive and factual listing of his works, both historically and moving forward. I am working to properly list factual data within the constraints of proper Wikipedia editing. Thank you for your patience. ~ Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:21CA:201:14FF:5D:7CF1:99DA (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.chuckwright.com/newcds.html
^ http://www.officialquietriot.com
^ http://acousticsaints.wix.com/as

Keep - easily passes WP:MUSICBIO as a current member of a notable band, and for taking national tours. Several sources verify his official position on the band - not just a studio musician. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found lots of secondary sources about the subject. FWIW, I don't even like his music! Bearian (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about which points of WP:MUSICBIO he meets? I don't see current member of a notable band, or taking national tours listed. For the moment, I'm leaning towards delete, but would like to get an answer on this before committing one way or the other. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current member of Quiet Riot, according to their official website.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, wait, I've misunderstood. The SNG doesn't say "current member of a notable band". But it's still clearly not a "delete", because if he's a current member of a notable band then his name's a plausible search term. Smerge to Quiet Riot is the painfully obvious outcome.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Quiet Riot, and redirect, per my comments above and S Marshall's response.. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I totally thought Roy was two different people and closed. *facepalm* Anyway, carry on... :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Quiet Riot per S Marshall. I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met, but at the least, a redirect seems sensible as a plausible search term and member of a notable band. Gongshow talk 05:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Quiet Riot per S Marshall and multiple others. This is a case where the band is notable, but the individual member is not quite there. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO #6 as a "musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles": not just Quiet Riot but also Giuffria and House of Lords (band).[14] Since people may reasonably be looking for info on his earlier notable bands, not just Quiet Riot, it's less confusing to maintain the separate entry.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 17 June 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. Deor (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berghoffveien 48[edit]

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

Prodded with the reason "Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG" and prod-2'ed with the reason "Textbook WP:MILL. I don't see how this house rises above all other houses being repaired/moved in the world." I agree with both. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I think the reasons are stronger than those given in the PROD nominations. The content of the article appears to be all wrong; according to the link given, this is not a house being moved, but a series of duplex houses that are under construction; common fare with no encyclopedic notability. The only relevant websites I have found are adverts for the project. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no basis for notability here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any valid references and per Sjakkalle. The link in the article does make me want to buy, but at around one million dollars, I'll pass. Bgwhite (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weird attempt to use wikipedia for advertising a sale. --Soman (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I was the editor who endorsed the PROD. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Fedorova[edit]

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

No reliable sources found for this little champion. Even she didn't qualify to the Cottbus World Cup. Generally this gymnast fails under WP:GNG. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched google; not much there to suggest GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created WP:TOOSOON. She does not yet meet GNG or WP:NGYMNASTICS.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:19, 24 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven 59[edit]

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

Non notable, no reliable sources found after search of this students band. Fails as per Wikipedia:Notability (music) overall. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (probably speedy) - no real indication that any sources could exist for anything the band did. The phrase "The band disbanded in 1993 after 7 years of frustration, trying to get a recording contract" is telling - even Dumpy's Rusty Nuts managed a few (non-charting) singles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not speedy - assertion of notability is plausible, but can't be sourced easily. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding coverage that would help to show that this group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 20:38, 23 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.M.H.G. Siriwardena Gold Medal[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any coverage in reliable sources for this award. The topic does not meet WP:N. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Leslie Dingley[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable local politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, with no evidence so far of substantial coverage.

This was PRODded by User:PatGallacher, but I contested the PROD and am sending it to AFD because his receipt of an OBE does suggest that he may be notable, either for his career in local government or on hospital boards.

I checked The Times archive, where I found 3 letters to the editor from Dingley, but no editorial coverage of him. However, editors with access to to Birmingham or Warwickshire local papers may find something ... which is why I thought that this deserved a full AFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The highest office he held was alderman, but these are ten a penny, and he was a parliamentary candidate three times, but there is agreement that this does not confer notability. PatGallacher (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @PatGallacher: Sure, the office and the candidacies do not confer a presumption of notability. However, the average alderman or failed candidate does not get an OBE.
  The fact that he got an OBE implies that he did a lot more than the offices imply, which is why I would like to see some checks of Birmingham or Warwickshire sources to see if there is more coverage of him. Have you been able to do any such checks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually it's pretty common for long-serving local councillors to get OBEs. He apparently specifically received it for "services to Hospital Boards in Birmingham", which suggests he was probably also a long-serving member of one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Local city or county councillors do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for existing, per WP:POLITICIAN, nor do unelected candidates for higher office — and according to the main article on the Order of the British Empire, it's the most junior and most populous class of the British honours system, so it cannot automatically confer encyclopedic notability on every single person named to it. Certainly if he'd been knighted, then he'd qualify for an article regardless of his failure to pass POLITICIAN — but for an OBE, the basic notability of his original career still has to pass muster to get him in here. Delete unless much better sourcing can be added. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, OBE does not stand for "Order of the British Empire" but for "Officer of the Order of the British Empire", the second lowest of the five grades of that order. We have generally held that the three highest grades (GBE, KBE/DBE, CBE) do provide inherent notability under WP:ANYBIO #1, but the two lowest (OBE, MBE) do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 23 June 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. Inclusion in, and redirection to, List of primary schools in Belfast or any other target seems problematic for a school that is no longer in operation. Deor (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Primary School, Belfast[edit]

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

NN defunct primary school. Wholly unreferenced. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a bit of local news coverage of its closure[15], and brief mentions in a few people's bios on webpages etc, but nothing out of the ordinary, and I don't see any reason why it should be more notable than any other primary school. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a defunct primary ? Really? Just simply not notable. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belfast per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tang[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Laun chba ller 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records, we do not include people just for having reached some arbitrary threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and setting an obscure record is not cause for automatic inclusion.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E of a person who achieved something that, while impressive, is not particularly encyclopedic in nature or significance. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Braj Kishore[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Cited references list Kishore as a source of information about his company, but do not provide significant coverage of him. (PROD with this identical rational removed by an author whose sole action at en:wiki has been the removal of this prod.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. No significant independent press coverage. Cowlibob (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are weak and are not reliable. Press releases are okay if they are backed with some independent coverages. Ascii0054 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife:Streets of Melbourne[edit]

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

Article about an upcoming video game that will not be released. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:16, 17 June 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) 13:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could probably be speedied, but certainly fails GNG, etc. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any coverage in various source searches. It is possible that this may be a WP:HOAX, or just entirely obscure with no web presence. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn - . Ekabhishek^talk 02:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dusari Goshta[edit]

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

The film haven't received any good coverage after release. No independent sources and fails as per film notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Links have been added indicating coverage in the Times of India and at Maharashtra Movie World. Still a bit sketchy, but it's a start. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NF fails and the sources are not reliables Hidzoko (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Dusari Goshta Chandrakant Kulkarni

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

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

Keep Sorry Hidzoko, but WP:BEFORE is great advice and a full length review in Times of India shows a meeting of WP:NF. Sorry nominator, but that full-length review is the kind of independent coverage thatWP:NF requires. Lacking use of available sources is not a deletion rationale, but rather one calling for improvement through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep per sources provided, The article certainly needs expanding and sourcing but hopefully that'll be fixed. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's sources and quite honestly amazing major improvements to the article, Thanks Michael!, Also Why didn't ~~Hidzoko~~ A.Minkowiski bother to either find sources or even improve the article? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. Just took a little time as so many sources existed. I have no idea how it was the nominator and Hidzoko both failed to find any of the many reliable sources. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upgrade to keep. Once again, MichaelQSchmidt has proven his formidable talents on saving film articles. Kudos! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have done so. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominated within 15 minutes of creation, the nominator should try reading WP:COMPETENCE and Wikipedia:BITE (its created by a new user with only 9 live edits so far). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be an WP:ADHOM, but the one remaining delete is from a brand new editor with even fewer edits and his own issues in the understanding of WP:RS and WP:N. He has been invited to return to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn per improvements made. I didn't find this film successful at Box office plus in big cinemas after search. But thanks Schmidt, for your good efforts here to make it successful if it is quite successful at this time. I know there are other sources too, but I had looked at the major sources like Film outcomes plus film ranking in Box office etc. Present sources also show good coverage, I hope to withdraw the nomination if all of you are agree. Thanks A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 06:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe any uninvolved editor might close this as a resounding keep per either WP:SNOW or WP:OUTCOMES or even WP:SK. New editor Hidzoko was invited to return as article has been markedly improved since he decided the Times of India was somehow unreliable. As his opinion does not follow Guideline or policy and is in error, it can be disregarded. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:32, 18 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold W. Moll[edit]

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

I don't see anything notable to rate a WP article. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Reads like the bio of many war vets - not notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This soldier has some excellence work but unfortunately no independent source found, and does't have received much military awards, highest award for valour etc. Fails as per WP:MILPEOPLE.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, honourable but dull military career. Note that article very probably created by a relative and that article is (apart from find a grave) unsourced, so very possibly original research.TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delere almost unsourced, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant decorations and too junior to meet notability requirements without good reason, which there doesn't appear to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PH-45[edit]

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

Completing nom for IP User:2.60.102.76, whose edit-summary rationale was "the only source is a dead link." Ansh666 11:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither any reliable source mentioned nor found. Looks pure spam to me as every weapon has some sorts of safety points. It doesn't make any sense to claim as the notable one. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found it difficult to verify anything other then it exists with any reliable sources. - Pmedema (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...no reliable sources. The only info I found was an image on a blog site. No way of knowing if it even is a real firearm.--RAF910 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 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 Idol (Polish TV series)#Season 4 . $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Lato[edit]

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

As written, clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Second AfD in 2012 was closed as after two relists nobody cared to vote. The article has already been deleted years ago from pl wiki, which has a much less strict notability criteria ([16], [17]), and that's a big red flag: if something is not notable for pl wiki, it is certainly not notable for us. Nobody has bothered to recreate his bio, even through around 2011 he briefly appeared on Polish Big Brother ([18]). Outside one of two short news pieces from that time, I am not seeing any reliable sources about him or his career. I don't think he was notable back then, he isn't now, and the current substub is hardly making a case for itself. Pinging editors who commented on this before: User:Epeefleche , User:Cunard, User: Kasnie, User:Dennis Brown , User:Ouro, User:Reyk , User:ChildofMidnight . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no independent source found. Completely fails as per WP:ARTIST,WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSBIO. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Game show contestants are generally not notable, and this article has been languishing in its unsourcable state for years. Reyk _YO! 11:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus and A.Minkowiski. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My research cannot find enough of significance to satisfy WP:BIO. — sparklism ^hey! 15:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Through a Google search, I found three articles about Piotr Lato on the first several pages of the results. To address the concerns about the article's lack of sourcing, I have added these three sources to the article. The sources are sufficient to verify the material in the article.
Based on this cursory Google search, there is likely to be even more coverage about the subject.
This 18 September 2011 article^WebCite (Google Translate) from Onet.pl titled "Piotr Lato wystartował w "The Voice of Poland"".
This 17 June 2011^WebCite (Google Translate) article also from Onet.pl titled "Piotr Lato - "Nie przypuszczałem, że mogliby mnie wybrać do Big Brothera!""
This 4 August 2010^WebCite (Google Translate) article from plotek.pl (which is owned by Agora SA) titled "Pamiętacie Piotra Lato z Big Brothera?"
As Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Lato in November 2008 regarding WP:ONEEVENT:
Weakest of keeps only because he placed 5th in Idol and was also on Big Brother, which clears wp:oneevent, and approaches multiple instances of minor celebrity. Likely, this could be sourced better, but that is a tag issue. This is admittedly marginal, but the threshold appears to be passed. Or he is at least sitting directly on top of it. Maybe the notability is more obvious to those in Poland or of Polish descent.
The sources demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your extensive search; I saw those sources before and I am not convinvced that three short articles on minor gossip sites (and two brief stints in reality shows) are sufficient to pass GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm unconvinced that the three sources are listed are from gossip sites. The sources allow Piotr Lato to pass the general notability guideline, which is why I am voting to keep.
    I understand that all editors other than myself are currently supporting deletion.
    So an alternative to deletion would be to redirect Piotr Lato to Idol (Polish TV series)#Season 4 (with the history preserved under the redirect) because it is a valid search term. I would support preserving the article's history under the redirect because its three sources would be useful in sourcing and expanding the article if there is future coverage to more firmly establish notability. Cunard (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I support redirecting rather than outright deletion, good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic woods[edit]

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

This article is titled "Exotic woods", but actually, it is about wood. We already have article "Wood", so this one should be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this article intends to discuss the concept of "exotic wood", but it doesn't seem to be able to do it properly; no good refs are presented. Otherwise, it's a poor fork of wood. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting and well written article, but lacks citations - and the one thing it doesn't do is talk about exotic woods! It doesn't even define what constitutes an exotic (as opposed to a run-of-the-mill) wood. I would encourage this author to help improve the article Wood. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whalecoast[edit]

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

I believe that this article fails notability and GNG. Whalecoast is a term invented by a marketing team and is IMO just a marketing term. It hasn't yet obtained the same standing as the Garden Route. None of the individual towns in this article refer to the Whalecoast Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Needs more references to show term's notability. Ping me if any new major refs are presented and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent references, only tourism marketing sites. The name just refers to the coast of the Overberg region. - htonl (talk) 20:37, 17 June 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. This AFD became an absolute MESS due to sockpuppetry - which, by the way, usually has the OPPOSITE effect that one wants in AFD's. However, some very policy-wise people from across the project have identified areas where this does seem to meet our notability. the panda ₯’ 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putin khuilo![edit]

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

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

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

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

A crystal clear case of WP:ONEEVENT, created by Ukrainians to retaliate for the Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion in Donbass. Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the author of the paper once reverted the speedy deletion template and attempted to revert my AfD template.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean "created by Ukrainians"? What if "created by niggas"? Are you Russist?--Dim Grits 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

keep: It shouldn't be deleted as it's a popular international phenomenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.143.51 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 5.29.143.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep: Wikipedia has abundant coverage of e.g. World War II-era satirical songs that had just as much currency as this contemporary phenomenon from Ukraine. Hard to see how this is any different. It's well known, easy to source from across mass media, and has already played a part in a diplomatic kerfluffle. CRCulver (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — CRCulver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The first edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discussion with sockpuppeter, now blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
discussion has already passed! [19]. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes. These are two different processes - about the same! Consider and previous discussion! --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It shouldn't be deleted as it's a popular international phenomenon, there are already songs and international incidents associated with it, including one with the Minister of the Foreign Affairs. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jeromjerom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CU-blocked for sockpuppeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need articles about every insult that is hurled at a politician. Spinning Spark 10:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is not just a song, but also a meme. Besides authoritative enough. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=huylo Urban Dictionary: huylo
There is nothing about the song, only the word description. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/ukraine-minister-deshchytsia-abusive-putin-russia
The song is not mentioned. The article is about Russian embassy incident. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/16/khuilo-the-offensive-term-that-has-attached-itself-to-putin/
It's not a Washingtonpost article, but a personal blog.Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-16/why-diplomats-curse-about-ukraine
The article is mostly about Russian embassy incident, football chant is barely mentioned. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://politics.caijing.com.cn/2014-06-17/114270748.html
The song is not mentioned. The article is about Russian embassy incident. Vihljun (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ukrainian, and as much as I want his arguments to be false, they are not. The notability does not settle in one day. Barvinok (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you claim to be ukrainian is irrelevant here. His argument is false since the "incident" at the embassy was about this song. There would be no such outcry if not for the song that our acting foreign minister sang at this event.--vityok (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is definitely not a WP:ONEEVENT and the term was mentioned lots of times by different World medias. At this moment it is an important part of story and helps get proper understanding of events and people's reactions. --DimaV83 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— DimaV83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The third edit of this user overall; the first one in 2014.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: brings hatred among people (link already spreading), political insult, may harm people feelings. wiki is not a place for a fight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxcaeli (talk • contribs)
— Arxcaeli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

if to follow your logic, then lets also delete page about Hitler, I'm sure, it brings hatred among neo-nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.49.208.82 (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The words exist, the melody accompanying these words exists, performers are (still) alive, and, the reader has the right to know, what’s that all about. --Керди (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CU-blocked as a sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The existing phenomenon is remarkable and it would be unfair to omit this knowledge. PositiveSky (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — PositiveSky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
First edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, do not misinform the audience. I made many contributions in different language sections of Wikipedia.PositiveSky (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to other Wikimedia projects are commendable but are irelevant here since our policies are different from other projects. Additionally, you are participating in vote stacking.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
our policies has no interrelation with your slander that my account is single purpose. PositiveSky (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not write it is single purpose. Second, one more usage of this language, and I will take you to ANI. Third, this is, after all, your first edit in the Eglish Wikipedia. You did not take time to read the policies, but came here from the external sites to vote keep does not matter what. Your vote does not even have traces that you read my nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you wrote that. Check this words in the link given by you: few or no other edits. This is direct evidence of lie.
Comment. The article is currently referenced to Ukrainian sources only, which makes verification of claims difficult and best left for Ukrainian-speakers (which I am not). A quick google search shows there should be English sources. I'll abstain from voting now, but if somebody adds English sources ping me and I'll see if they show notability. The fact that this AfD is now suffering from what seems to be SPA vote stacking and canvassing is not helping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

posts by sockpuppeter, now blocked.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=huylo Urban Dictionary: huylo
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/ukraine-minister-deshchytsia-abusive-putin-russia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/16/khuilo-the-offensive-term-that-has-attached-itself-to-putin/
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-16/why-diplomats-curse-about-ukraine . --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://politics.caijing.com.cn/2014-06-17/114270748.html

+ IBTimes: [20], deutsche welle: [21]. --Jeromjerom (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the phenomenon has gained a considerable attention, including international mass-media reports and a diplomatic row making it relevant enough to be kept. As to the "temporarity" of the phenomenon - there is no way to say how long it will last until it ends. So far, the topic is important, well-sourced, has got a considerable attention and the article must be kept.--vityok (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth edit of this user in 2014--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have time to check the user contributions anymore, but I hope the closing admin will disregard the vote stacking.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting discussion template: "consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." -- but obviously some users are trying to base it on 'contributions count' instead. What a nice new twist in continuing perversion of wikirules. 83.149.35.150 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There haven't been given any convincing arguments for the removal. --MelVic (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— MelVic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: this is definitely not a WP:ONEEVENT and a lots of people tries to find info about subject. Iomark04 (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Iomark04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Point being that the article subject is sensitive for both Russians and Ukrainians to a personal level, therefore they should abstain from voting Barvinok (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: song have become widespread political and cultural phenomenon, influencing on situation in the region.

For example, president of Chechnya promised "to bring ukrainians to their knees for this song".

- http://instagram.com/p/pTroboCRmW/

There are also articles , on Wikipedia, on similar thematics, like "Der Fuehrer's Face"

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuehrer's_Face

92.49.208.82 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 92.49.208.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Der Fuehrer's Face was an immensely popular recording (#3 on the U.S. charts) by a highly notable artist released by the most notable of record labels, still being discussed for its cultural impact 70 years later. I don't see logic to this argument at all. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as individually not notable, but likely usable in any article on Ukraine anti-Russian demonstration articles. Whether the article has any bias is irrelevant here - the problem is the song qua song simply fails notability guidelines on Wikipedia. AFAICT, the mentions are all in the larger context of demonstrations, and not strongly about the song itself. For example, the Guardian article is about a "chant" and abut a word one envoy used - not about a song, and absolutely not about a specific song to establish notability of the song. Collect (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there cannot be any secondary sources able to judge the song's impact. The song's surrounding context is ongoing, so all sources are primary by definition, and we cannot predict whether solid secondary sources will be published at a later date. "Der Führer's Face" is notable because it's been discussed by secondary sources, which looked back at the song and could judge its impact from a distance, and such sources clearly can't exist yet for this song. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No evidence of song's impact. Way too soon to see if it's anything substantial. Please note that the outcome of this discussion will be based on strength of argument and not by popular vote so flooding it with supporters is a waste of time.Cowlibob (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than 1 300 000 views of the video in 3 days https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kac73Ks_Yqo --Perohanych (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

youtube hits are not an indicator of notability for this project, sorry. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it just a single video of a single performance. There a lot of other recordings. This is yet another proof that this song is popular and gains its popularity with every coming day. There are plenty of articles devoted to single songs from some band album. Why is this one different?--vityok (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to an appropriate location, for now. The WaPo link is a valid source, the claim above of "It's not a Washingtonpost article, but a personal blog" is false. The blogging sections of reliable sources, particularly newspapers, are no different from a journalist penning a regular column. The Guardian and Bloomberg also contain brief mentions of the song/chant directly. 1 solid source and a few name-drops (there are others such as the Independent) bring this pretty close to the notability threshold. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (a redirect would be okay but I can't think of where at the moment). There's a chance this might become notable in the future but I don't think it's there yet. The vote-spam actually does more harm than good. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: these words of the popular chants are widespread in the world, it is popular not only among football fans, but also among politicians. There are many references to authoritative sources.--Nikkolo (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Known expression that has become a political trendGeohem (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article on 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as this song not yet gained enough notability to deserve a separate article. If impossible to merge, then keep. Laitr Keiows (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Messir (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Incubate - in light of all the !vote stacking and the issues with reliable sources let alone the problems with notability, I suggest that the article be put into limbo to see if it becomes notable and achieves a level for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)- In light of recent changes and further insite, I have changed my opinion on the matter to KEEP . I didn't feel this was a WP:ONEEVENT even before but the notability issues and the !vote stacking was questionable. This seems to have worked it self out and notability has been established.[reply]

keep: A useful article that lets people learn more about the people of Russia and their leadership.--Rkononenko (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the article's sources, I was leaning towards keeping this article, even though some of the opposing arguments are valid as well and are a reason for concern. Then I've noticed Pmedema's incubation proposal, and at this point of time it seems to be the perfect solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2014; 14:51 (UTC)
keep or keep and rename this song is known probably since March 30, 2014 (cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6bMheayBQ). Since then it became popular in the Ukraine in the context of the Russian military intervention and seems to deserve an encyclopaedic definition. If the title of the article is offending as such consider renaming it. Guswen (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The relevant criteria is WP:NSONG: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". This is one such source. If more sources can be found (I can't read Ukrainian so can't comment on the sources in the article) then my keep !vote would be stronger. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: History repeats ... This song is very similar to Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. --Рома (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it was created as retaliation is not really relevant to its notability. It appears notable enough, having received international media coverage in many countries.Hergilei (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NeilN; a second source is [22] (contains an entire video of the protest song) - I think others in the article now also qualify. I have voted Keep in discussions such as Santorum (neologism) and Stop Watching Us, which respectively deal with a meme and a single protest. I am very much opposed to reactions that covering the topic might offend or that something in the Ukraine is of too limited an importance --- these are bias that we must overcome. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mostly agree with Tarc, but this is moving fast and likely has become notable already. It might be on the border now of being a single event - the comment at the embassy - but the phrase and the song are intertwined with that. WaPo, Telegraph, Independent, and Bloomberg are all reliable sources. The RFE article at http://www.rferl.org/content/putin-profanity-ukraine-deshchytsya/25425498.html almost pushes me over the edge. It's a more rounded article geographically and its video is about Kharkiv, not about the embassy in Kiev. BTW, before anybody uploads the video as PD-US Gov, you should check thoroughly if Commons policy does reflect that RFE is actually US GOV (it seems obvious but I know that there has been some discussion). In any case within a few days we'll know if this meme takes off or dies out as quickly as it came. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for diplomatic history is a very important thing.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putin khuilo before Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion in Donbass.--Dim Grits 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim Grits (talk • contribs)

Delete only hatespeech of ukrainian nationalist. it is not only an offense against Putin, but it is also an offense against the Ukrainian people. --Jack User (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niggers in the White House is a rather racist poem from the turn of the century, yet we have an article on it since it is notable. The project does not exclude material simply because it is hateful, and having an article on something hateful is not the same as prompting or advocating for the speech itself. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: this WP:ONEEVENT & Agitprop can come back at the end of this century. Let's make a date now: we will meet here at December 31 2099 to restore it, ok? I'll be here, and you? --Jack User (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that WP:ONEEVENT applies to biographies, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i realize, that this scrap in the German Wikipedia has already been deleted three times. And in tr:Putin huylo! and be:Пуцін хуйло!, песня it is also nominated for deletion. But i am off here now: I've heard quality standards in the English Wikipedia are always lower than in any other language. I thought this was an urban legend: but no, it isn't. The level is here below zero. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a newspaper EOD. Have Fun, fake History. --Jack User (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this place is NOTNEWS, but it can cover notable events that are presently in the news. I don't presently have an opinion either way, but as a note, I think, from what I've read about this article that the relevant criterion is WP:N(E) or WP:NSONG. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficent notability, also a major diplomatic bone, made the Urban Dictionary.--Lute88 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the online dictionary which anyone can edit, and whose entries are kept on the basis of popular vote? How does that count as a reliable source establishing notability? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not as a song, but as a soccer fans chant. --Perohanych (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability, also a major diplomatic bone, made the Urban Dictionary --Ilyaroz (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's certainly widespread by now, just one recent example from Washington Post [23]. It also has an entry in the Urban dictionary [24]. Närking (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable: (1) political context; (2) widespread popularity of this meme. There is a number of cover versions on Youtube. Currently search on Youtube for "Putin huilo" returns ~2000 results -- CaptSolo (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This song seems to have caused a diplomatic incident. Due to the Foreign Minister singing it to stave off an angry crowd, the incident is actually very notable (a diplomatic crisis), even if the song is crass and not exactly a cleverly written poem. If you wanted to turn this into "Putin Khuilo diplomatic incident" that would be a compromise I would be willing to support. If it turns out that Putin Khuilo is the Ukrainian version of "All we are saying is give peace a chance" / "Make love, not war" then we would be silly to delete reference to it altogether, but for now it seems to be a fairly new chant that is definitely making a lot of news. Is there an article about Chants and slogans related to Ukranian and Russian conflict, akin to List of Maoist China rhetoric and political slogans. Also, it might be informative for people to read the WP:RECENT essay and understand how wikipedia incorporates fast-moving news stories. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The incident was actually not so much the minister chanting, but the massive crowd attack of the Russian Embassy in Kiev. The minister claimed later that he chanted it since it was the only way to disperse the crown (which the blocked sockpuppeteer who created the article forgot to add). If it is moved to Attack of the Russian Embassy in Kiev it would in my opinion better claims of notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any misperception that this is the Ukrainian version of "All we are saying is give peace a chance". This is intentionally the nastiest thing that people can imagine saying in Russian (and I assume in Ukrainian as well); and this in a culture that has a special place in its heart and history for foul language (mat). That said, I cannot blame Ukrainians fro saying this to Putin - how else to get the point across that they are sick of Russian domination, and invasions (by proxy or otherwise)? To repeat this is really nasty stuff. The only thing that was remotely close was Pussy Riot - at the time I was thinking "How could they possibly put this on TV/Radio?" Well they have and we've gotten used to it, and they made their point by being intentionally shocking with their language. This wording however is about 10 times as shocking. Go by reliable sources and notability is all I can say. It seems right up there if not just over that point right now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as received international media coverage in many countries, and has been featured in The Independent [25]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the whole debate and even though that I am Russian, I vote keep per the other keeps due to its notability and a plethora of reliable sources.--Mishae (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The context of the article might be offensive to some nationalistic groups, but, we are brothers here, right? So why does user @Jack User: calls English Wikipedia, fake history? I personally see Russian Wikipedia as a Stalinist propaganda wiki but I know that Wikipedia content can be objectionable and therefore I tend to ignore it. Also, I need to point out that @Ymblanter: shouldn't dictate the Russian Wikipedia rules here, and judge who have how many edit counts. Every Wikipedia is different, including this one. For anyone who doesn't know, he used to be registered in the Russian Wikipedia but decided to live it.--Mishae (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack on User:Ymblanter is called for here. He is a valued member of this community. Rules here about SPAs and new accounts apply here as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it is discrimination. SO valued user may not be attacked, and not value may be attacked? It is wrong, I think.--Anatoliy (Talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No body is personally attacking anyone, I just pointed out the facts, that he used to be in the Russian Wikipedia, and that they use opposite-to-us tactics there when it comes to deletion discussion. I.e, in Russian Wikipedia majority of the articles get deleted because no one issues against. My opinion is that he is trying to do it here, that's why Jack User calls English Wikipedia fake history (with which I disagree). Maybe I should have putted it in different context?--Mishae (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may have over-reacted. I'll just stress that I know him as a good guy and that he knows our rules very well. It's probably important to understand that Russians could be easily offended by this article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine. I personally don't feel offended, but then we need to consider WP:UNDUE if the minority here feels threatened. But in the current state, its just a farce of debate. Wikipedia is not a place for censorship, and this article is discussed as weather its hurtful or not rather then is it notable enough.--Mishae (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient notability. It's similar to Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. --MrGALL (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a phenomenon and meme that started off as a Ukrainian local phenomenon, but as a result of the embassy incident got international attention, which justifies a separate article, also because often international journalists lack knowledge on the cultural context and history. Also compare the other 10 linguistic versions. -- Muumi (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The meme is widely spread, it regularly appears in news for some months, and has already become one of the more important symbols of Euromaidan. No doubt it will be remembered and eventually analyzed not only in news but also discussed in sufficient depth in literature devoted to the history of Euromaidan. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable by now. Max Semenik (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is asserted. There are many such articles, just look at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. § DDima 23:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is currently notable, and relevant to the current political events. It is mentioned in the news and other sources many times. Yurivict (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song has been sung by millions of Ukrainians (without exaggeration) and even by official persons of Ukrainian government. Utilmind (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is unfortunate, that street slang is going mainstream, but that is the reality. I think wikipedia has to present reality and not some "improved" version of it. User:Abune (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose a name change for this article to Putin Hello! This article should be about the song being played in the media, and the title is "Putin Hello!" The exact meaning of the double entendre can be explained in the article. USchick (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's weird. They delete articles about large companies, rivers, bridges, as irrelevant, but keep this strange stuff. This chant contains just 2 words (one of them is pretty bad, by the way), it is not widespread (except for Ukrainian football fans), and has no significance. Which is even more important, this article is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT.--Barsoff (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is not one event, it has been in the football stadiums since March and recently became more widespread because of the embassy incident -- Muumi (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if it has no significance, why is it being covered by the international news media? USchick (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable, attracted much attention internationally, appears in Urban dictionary and other sources, sang by mariachi band and others, caused the Ukrainian-Russian diplomatic conflict recently, etc. In other words, it is highly significant, the wiki user have rights to know about it, and so the article fully justified Valizka (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sung by a mariachi band? Well, that certainly settles the notability argument once and for all, now, doesn't it? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is fairly well known and covered in international press. This image, for example, does not seem to be from Ukraine: https://twitter.com/Nepareizais/status/479173684888756224/photo/1 --Richlv (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this AfD is still ongoing, I think we should invite our WikiProject Ukraine experts such @Lvivske:, @Yulia Romero: and @Aleksandr Grigoryev: to weigh in on the issue regarding this chant/song and their country's history. Considering that Yulia is friends with @USchick: she is more then welcome to comment on this AfD! --Mishae (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the invitation, I have already commented. For full disclosure, I have not been in contact with User:Yulia Romero in a long time to prevent any collusion on our part, even though I do consider him as a good reliable friend. Privet Yulia Romero! USchick (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come oooon this article is not a hate speech at all it's just a big joke on a very powerful man who engages his sources into Wikipedia. In contrary, if it were the case these children should be considered as hatespeakers Веломайдан діти бандерівці, співають Путин хуйло ла ла ла ла --Chovgan (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS @Mishae: and there I is + thanks for calling me "WikiProject Ukraine expert". — **Yulia Romero** • Talk to me! 18:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It barley passes Wikipedia:N; but I have seen articles about a lot less interesting things. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as much as I wanted to 'delete' to spite the socks/nationalists this chant does appear notable. Giant Snowman 18:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge w/Deshchytsia article. I want to thank Mishae for inviting me to the discussion as it became a sincere surprise to me find so much support for the article. However as Yulia Romero pointed out, the article barely passes wikipedia notability. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Giant Snowman said. DeCausa (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by analogy with ¿Por qué no te callas?. It's definitely a thing of its own, with coverage etc. -- Y not? 13:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is much more than just a song or a chant, more than just one event - its use is ongoing and spreading like a wildfire as we speak. What about the Deshchica incident at the Russian embassy in Kiev? The FM of a country says this saying and is dismissed from his post! (as I hear). Not related to football, right? -- This is becoming a global phenomenon - people post this on social networks, take photos of themselves holding this slogan. A guy was arrested in Moscow a week ago for holding up the slogan with just one word "huilo" for "insulting the President". -- And it is very notable, because in Russian to address to President the insult in mat is unheard of - and this one is done openly, on massive scale. First time in history. -- WillNess (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Integrate whatever's usable in this article to that one. This is close to meeting notability standards, but not quite there. At some point, if the situation changes, the article can spring back to life. By the way, the nationalist socking is annoying. Coretheapple (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Changing to Keep as new sources have been added that push this over the edge into notability-land. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep finally getting off the fence. The google translate version of a La Stampa story finally did it for me. The foreign minister was sacked for saying it. Boy, some folks just can't take a little constructive criticism. I suppose this will go down in history along with the Baltic Republics having their Singing Revolution and Ukraine now has its own version. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It might turn out to be just a flash in the pan of no lasting significance, but it seems at least as notable as, say, Janet Jackson's nipple. But historical significance is rarely clear at the time; it could turn out to be as significant as We will bury you. I found the article via mainstream news and came to WP for more background on the subject (specifically, a nuanced translation of хуйло). The decision is only between a dedicated article, and a section in another one. Personally I think there's enough material to justify a dedicated article, and thus oppose deletion, but it's not far over the line; I wouldn't be horribly upset if it got merged elsewhere. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So obviously not a ONEEVENT and it easily passes VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY. This is so clearly an ongoing story with multiple occurrences, reported in multiple countries, and that resulted in a diplomatic incident. There are at least three high quality mainstream journalistic reliable sources—The Guardian, Washington Post, and Le Monde, from the UK, US, and France—that are independent and cover the story with significant depth. — Becksguy (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned previously not a ONEEVENT and it passes VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY, since self-proclaimed Russian "republics" and "Russian spring", which were first followed by no one now did make it into history. As of today, Putin has made no proof he is not a "kuhuilo", furthermore, Kremlin media oficially have clarified, that the song does not concern all the Russians of same name, but only V.V.Putin [26]Xobbitua (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is ample evidence that it passes WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY and it is not WP:ONEEVENT. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every protest song is notable - this one is sort of run of the mill, from what I can see, beside the nasty tone. FWIW, I agree with the sentiment of the song if not its words - or its alleged notability. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm curious what user @Ukrained2012: will think about it?--Mishae (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The question is not whether we think the phrase is offensive or not, or our political sympathies, or whether this article is interesting or not, but whether this subject passes GNG as the subject of multiple pieces of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability. This does. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very popular and well-known international phenomenon. --A1 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IFC - Global Domination[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA event. Parent organization was just deleted after AfD debate and this is the only event with an article. It is a poorly referenced listing of results. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. Also, given the organization was recently deleted via AfD, it's hard to see how one of its events can be considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiana of Capua[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cristiana of Capua and Adelaide of Riedenburg

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

Because they are hardly ever referenced by reliable sources. Adelaide is only referenced by the 1993 source and Stephen II of Hungary's wife is mentioned in reliable sources as an unnamed princess of Capua. The name Christiana seems made up. Both women are not notable and never mention in detail by sources. Most information about them are made up in later sources, Merging should not even be an option. Both articles should be deleted and all links and mentions on related articles erased to prevent Wikipedia for proliferating false facts and original research. See also Talk:Stephen II of Hungary#Wives.

I am nominating the following related page.

The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As per above argumentation. 12:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)

Support. Even though short, they would be nice entries if they had any sort of reliable references, which both lack. So, as per the above arguments, I support their deletion.Onel5969 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Concur that sourcing is very sparse. These two articles are practically orphans already, further recognition that the sources about Stephen don't provide anything to support these pages. The Capua one is linked from List of Hungarian monarchs, but that's about it. 1bandsaw (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EGD coin[edit]

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

Unremarkable crypto-currency. Article has no sources. Only recently launched, so it might become notable in the future, but for now, it's too soon. A Google search returns mainly false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no independent reliable source coverage with which to establish notability. Didn't find non-reliable source coverage either; subject seems very obscure, even within the moderately obscure field of alternate cryptocurrencies. Agyle (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:32, 22 June 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. Without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Bezos[edit]

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

No significant coverage on him, plus no reliable sources about him. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 June 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. I don't believe it passes GNG. If others think it does, then it does just barely, but not in my opinion. United States Man (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Problem may be that there are sources in Greek language media, but hard for English-speakers to understand or access. I tried reading the Greek encyclopedia using the Greek letters Γιάννης Μπέζος. Translation of the first paragraph of the Greek wikipage on him reads (google translate:) Yiannis Bezos is a Greek actor and director, born in Athens on September 10, 1956 [1]. He has participated in a series of performances in television and theater, mainly as a comedian and many mannerisms with consecutive roles tou.Echei accused of arrogance in his fellow actors but also koino.Echei also made five appearances movie without much success. Note: there is only one reference on the Greek wikipage, looks like a Greek version of IMDb. Currently, does not seem to meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am rather worried about systemic bias here - the subject feels like the kind of celebrity whose notability is clear within their own linguistic community but effectively invisible from outside. However, as User:Tomwsulcer remarks, a GTranslation of the Greek Wikipedia article does not appear to provide any leads towards proving notability, so if the article is to survive, we are rather dependent on a Greek-speaking editor finding and providing reliable sources. PWilkinson (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?, or allow recreation by a Greek-speaking editor. I believe [27] seems to be a weekly newspaper, and a couple of the snippets [28] look promising. I don't think I've entirely proven my case, but I do think that PWilkinson has a point about systemic bias. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good articles but I consider significant coverage multiple articles covering just him, not just snippets or mentions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:17, 24 June 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, L Faraone 05:09, 17 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TruckIt OKC[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article is wholly promotional, and I don't believe the subject is notable. Best coverage available is local news coverage on TV and radio (Here and here), though not enough to be considered significant. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources found. Subject relies on self-promotional sites as 1 , 2 , 3 Completely promotional. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a new app authored by its co-creator. The local media coverage is insufficient for WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising. Clear COI of main contributors. Non notable. Cowlibob (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional bollox. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwabena Boahen[edit]

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

Living person lacks extensive 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. Wlmg (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote when deprodding this, "The citation record looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me." As in, Google scholar lists some 3800 sources, most of them probably reliable and independent, and most likely a smaller but large enough number of them with some in-depth coverage of his work. It's a bit early — usually someone who is a full professor at a good university will pass WP:PROF and he's only associate — but I don't think that's a big concern. (For instance, part of the reason I can be skeptical of the notability of early-career scientists with big citations is that it's hard to disentangle their contributions from those of their mentors, but in this case that's not an issue, as his top-cited paper is singly-authored.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy pass of WP:Prof#C1 in high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The person has good publications but lacks independent reliable sources. Person has received significance in IEEE conferences. Let it pass as per WP:ANYBIO and generally WP:BASIC. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 05:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof well enough.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 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 - Withdrawn by nominator.

The Dark Horse (Twista album)[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased album. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - sources have been found.- Mr X 13:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its definitely notable and i just expanded the article with sources. Koala15 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements by Koala15. STATic message me! 02:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:N. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:45, 18 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahu II[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent coverage in reliable sources. India abolished monarchies in 1949. So this person is not a monarch. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The aticle is unsourced and it is likely that any only sources that might be available would be sycophantic ones. As the nom says, the independence of India brought an end to all of these feudal titles etc, many of which were in any case self-conferred. I've no idea when Shahu acceded to his non-existent throne but it seems unlikely to have been before the abolition. The final vestiges of the old system were scrapped in 1971, by which time it is more likely that he had assumed the title ... but it would still be a vanity title: no power, no substantive influence in a democracy etc. Unless the man has actually done stuff that fits in with WP:GNG or WP:NPOL there seems no justification for retaining this article, which presently exists probably on the misguided basis that someone with an (officially unrecognised) honorific is somehow notable. There are a lot of these vanity articles lying around and they need sorting out. This might be a test case. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would expect the heir of a mahrajah to have enough wealth, education and ambition to become notable, but I have not been able to find references for him as an adult. I did, however, find this brief excerpt about him from New India on Google Books. Perhaps there is more in the printed work, as Google Books only displayed a snippet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... the Maharaja secretly slipped to the holiday resort of Bangalore where his grandson, Dilipsinh Bhonsle, was schooling and adopted him. He wired to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, who had that very day advised the Union Government to ...

We received information request on Marathi language Wikipedia about this article subject. Reasonable Google search in Marathi language on this subject did not provide any encyclopedic information. Since this personality is from previous pre-internet generation undersigned is not aware if any information is available in older print media. Over all google search indicates that post Indian independance the Kolhapur Bhosale family members may have been socio-politically active but low profile in media.

this search at royalark.net indicates this personality has been patron of certain socio-educational institutions at various times and if need be if any info comes up can be included in relevant particular article. Unless more encyclopedic info comes up I am not sure about encyclopedic value of this article at this moment. Family members from his Previous and next generations of this personality seem to be more socio politically active and if some one works for a merged encyclopedic article for post indipendance contribution of this family then it will be more justifiable.

Although references show the title given Shahu II but for encyclopedic purposes it increases ambiguity with similler names.If at all you decide to retain the article and if the full name is correct as Dilipsinhrao Rajaramsinhrao Bhonsle, Kolhapur article title will have lesser ambiguity.

Thanks for making contact to Marathi language wikipedia.

Mahitgar (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If The Royal Ark, the website that includes the listing for this person at the bottom of this page at royalark.net is a reliable source, then arguably the person is notable. And if it is not a reliable source, then we don't have enough evidence to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't reliable, just as with like Leigh Raiment's Peerage etc. I think you'll find some past discussions of several similar sites at WP:RSN, complete with the consensus that it is not ok. I regularly remove it and am not challenged for doing so. In any case, WP:GNG requires meaningful discussion in independent sources- note the plural. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an RSN discussion, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Self-published_royalty_websites. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to be found for this particular person. Being an heir of a royal house that appears to have ceased being anything authoritative since 1947 is not in itself inherently notable. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 17 June 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 – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October Road (Judie Tzuke album)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 09:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable: lack of reviews or other coverage. Live albums typically get less coverage than studio recordings and this is at least Tzuke's 5th. Redirecting is not very useful, but October Road should be edited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found to demonstrate that this release meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 09:10, 24 June 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 Badge of Honour of the Bundeswehr. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Cross Medal Recipients[edit]

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of Badge of Honour of the Bundeswehr as all the recipients are found on that page. The list on this page is out of date. Rather than keep information on 2 pages delete or redirect this page Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article looks just as a summary of Badge of Honour of the Bundeswehr.--Darius (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All information is found on the main page about the cross. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Badge of Honour of the Bundeswehr, no need for separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 16:10, 17 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come into My Head[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Has not charted, has not won awards, has not been covered extensively. Furthermore, the article itself does not attempt to justify notability. All material could be comfortably added to its parent article, Vows (album). Prosperosity (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even what an AfD is for, as you don't wish to have the article deleted. If you and I simply disagree about a merge, what's wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page like I suggested? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Information on the song at Entertainment Weekly [29], Interview [30], and Digital Spy [31] helps establish that coverage is not entirely limited to brief/single-sentence mentions within reviews of the album. Perhaps that's enough material to support a standalone article; if not, merging into the album article would be a reasonable alternative. Gongshow talk 19:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not enough to stand alone NealeFamily (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:NMUSIC doesn't fail and it contains some references too. $AHLM13$ ✉ 11:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song is enough of a small hit to muster an article on its own, along with individual song reviews. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But apparently it wasn't. It didn't chart anywhere, and according to the page nobody reviewed the single itself except somebody's Blogspot blog. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:NSONGS does it state that a song charting is the only notability criterion? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but it doesn't seem to pass any of the notability criteria. The article doesn't say that it has been independently covered by many groups, or that it won any awards, or that there's enough material to warrant a stand-alone article. What part of the article makes it warranted, that couldn't be a part of the album article? --Prosperosity (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMHO article needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:30, 17 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Roy-Henriksen[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Looks like a lady with a job and interesting family (what does not make her notable) The Banner talk 11:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also an author. Finding material is a bit complicated by the flexibility of her names, but she is also known as Chandra Roy and as Rajkumari Chandra Kalindi Roy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't there be biographies of leading members in notable royal families? Roy is from an important Bangladeshi dynasty (a major royal family of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and one of the last Buddhist royal houses of South Asia), who also happen to be influential on a national, regional and global level on issues of indigenous rights. Her brother, a leading civil rights advocate, represents Asia at the Permanent Forum's main committee. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that she is a member of a royal family does not make her notable. Notability is not inherited. So you have to prove that she is notable. The Banner talk 18:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The woman is clearly an influential international figure in the struggle for indigenous peoples rights. That is enough to establish her notability.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but you have to prove it with independent reliable sources. The Banner talk 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the references. All sources are independent.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NPOL, chief of secretariat of UNPFII. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to hold a senior and influential enough post to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion; none of the templates in the article are about topic notability, and the notion in the nomination of the topic being better covered in another article is subjective and open-ended, lacking qualification or explanation why. Furthermore, respondents have all supported retention. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender roles in Afghanistan[edit]

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

four problems, topic better covered by section in Afghanistan. 75 * 19:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I agree that the article could use a little formatting and other cleanup, surely the "single source" and "personal essay" complaints don't apply to the wholesale inclusion of a public-domain work like this. An essay-like article is one that "states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts"; this article is entirely the product of experts' research! Since the source doesn't seem to have a biblography, some fact-checking seems to be in order. And that is the main issue as I see it: the editor dumped data without checking facts or revising for encyclopedic interest. Ringbang (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hard to argue that this isn't a notable topic. No particular reason to nuke the content, either. (ETA: actually, this is an excellent article. Obviously some more sources should be added eventually, but it's a well-done lift from a high-quality public domain source, nicely cited and wikified. It would be a shame to see this one go.) ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 12:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since this subject is covered by reliable sources: Gender and International Aid in Afghanistan: The Politics and Effects of Intervention, The Women of Afghanistan Under the Taliban, Afghan Women: Identity and Invasion, Women of Afghanistan in the Post-Taliban Era: How Lives Have Changed and Where They Stand Today, etc, etc.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Finance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/World Finance

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases don't count. Dream Focus 19:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominator says, no coverage in independent reliable sources. Magazine/website appears to exist primarily to source a flurry of press releases and marketing material for its "awards" etc. Article cites articles written by Nouriel Roubini and Robert Shiller, but these were both the product of syndicate service Project Syndicate--if my local pennysaver runs syndicated articles by Oprah and Ellen, their notability does not confer notability on the pennysaver, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Wikipedia article had existed without issue for several years until a user incorrectly attributed a fact to the brand which required changing. At the time updates were made we were unaware that press releases were not considered reliable sources. This is a magazine with a wide distribution with plenty of original content as well as some syndicated articles as a www.worldfinance.com will demonstrate and we are in the process of sourcing other links to our work--JBhome (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2014 (GMT)

— JBhome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

JBhome, you work for them, so you can't really vote in an AFD. This article has been created and edited by people working for them, which is also in a violation of Wikipedia rules. If you can find what Wikipedia considers Reliable Sources, then post them here. Dream Focus 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This has far too much the feel of an ADVERT. I am not clear if the magazine is notable, but it might be. I am accoringly not voting. We certainly seem to have WP:COI and a complete lack of independent WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of press exists about companies that have received awards from the magazine, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources about the magazine itself. So far, I've only found this source which includes some brief information about the magazine, but this isn't enough to qualify an article due to 1) the lack of depth in coverage and 2) because topics require coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to qualify topic notability. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 17 June 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kuffner[edit]

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines. 24.107.1.117 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 02:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Checked 10 SERP pages on widest sweep (web), did not find much. Perhaps one semi-good source in current article. Not much activity in terms of pageviews. Doesn't meet GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Several source searches are not providing adequate coverage for the subject to meet WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow talk 09:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carousel30[edit]

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

Seems to be main advertising and written in advertising speech. Claims to be the winner of many awards, but the ADDY, Webby and W3 awards websites do not list this winner of those awards. It did win an ADDY, but that is a DC ADDY, a very localized award. The claim to fame seems to be it made a top 20 advertising list in a business journal in DC, a spectacularly small and specific list. Doesn't seem notable, the web hits for it are spectacularly underwhelming and for a Digital Services agency, their Facebook has gotten almost no hits or likes. I was tempted at one point to call it a spoof company and article, but I think it is real, just not notable or significant. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Promo bollox. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this agency appears to have won a number of low-end awards. Nothing major but enough to barely cross into notability. Nickmalik (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no notability whatsoever, The awards themselves aren't even notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've found the following sources, but the depth of coverage from what I've found falls short of the company meeting WP:CORPDEPTH:

Reel Chicago
Ad Age

If additional sources are found, feel free to ping me to this discussion or provide notification on my talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Walking Song[edit]

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

When The Edge of Night was at AFD in 2007, there was no consensus but the article moved from the song to the general poem. The problem is as a song alone, this does not pass WP:NSONG because there aren't sources that are independent of the article and label. It is basically a summary of the book and/or the movie now. There is no specific policy on individual poems but looking at Wikipedia:POETRYSTANDARDS, I think the standard is similar. As a poem, it's only used in the novel, and I don't think this poem contained within this novel has independent sources about the poem itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a section with interpretations by some reliable secondary sources. De728631 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifico[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced, slightly promotional article about a two year old company. The only available source of any value is an article in The Street in which the company is briefly mentioned. The remainder of the sources are press releases and mere mentions about their startup funding activities. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional Wayne Jayes 07:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. No significant reliable independent coverage found. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:45, 17 June 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 as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumu (Internet Series)[edit]

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

Subject is not notable Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote by nominator. Your nomination is your vote. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy. no indication of any suggestion of notability duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech LadyMafia[edit]

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

I don't even think the Tech LadyMafia merits inclusion. There are lots of these mailing lists all over the country, even in Washington DC (DC Web Women comes to mind, which has been around for 10+ years). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.253.16 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 June 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, Ansh666 15:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Tales (book series)[edit]

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

I came across this while making a disambiguation page for the generic term of "Twisted Tales". The series is a spin-off of the larger franchise Horrible Histories and while the overall franchise has notability, this individual series does not. It was re-released by Scholastic under a few different names, which I'm grouping into this AfD because they're mostly the same article. I'd originally added this to the overall article for Horrible Histories and redirected there, but these actions were reverted and I was advised to take this to AfD. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the parent franchise or the publisher being notable and I can't find enough coverage to really show where each different incarnation of the books merits an article at this point in time or ever. It exists, but existing is not notability and not every book series needs to have an entry- as much as I'd like to have it otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At most this could all be merged into one large article entitled List of Horrible Histories books and spin-offs (since there are multiple spin-off series with articles that have issues with notability and sourcing), if space is a concern. Individual articles? Not so much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note while we're at it, this might be a good opportunity to help clear out the clutter in the Spin-offs section of the HH template. Can we add some of the other articles to this AFD to suss out their notability simultaneously?--Coin945 (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure- I didn't know if it'd be appropriate to add them all here since they're all in kind of a wide range. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 June 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 17 June 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. PR or not, the subject does not seem to meet our inclusion guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

loyaltyworks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this company used pr-wiki to get this created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enterpriseloyalty (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing sources showing this meeting our corporate notability guideline. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:26, 12 June 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a little bit close to notable I think, but not enough reliable coverage. Sources in article are mostly passing mentions. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have said, the available coverage is mainly passing mention, for example the 2007 NY Times article where they are one of several mentioned in the context of "Dozens of companies". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:23, 17 June 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 (A7) - by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AaronLee[edit]

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

No evidence of notability referenced. A passing note states "[Lee] is considered by "The Guinness World Records"(Guinnessworldrecords.com) to be a professional.." but no reference is given. I've clustered Aaron Michael Lee and Aaron Lee Magic with this AFD. The text in all is largely the same. Seattle (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Aaron the Magician, the same. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And Aaron m lee. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then finally move Aaron Lee Soon Young back to Aaron Lee. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily, per above. I reverted the Aaron Lee page move. --Finngall ^talk 01:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lee the magician redirects to Aaron Lee too. Seattle (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - closest thing to a claim of notability is that he is a professional magician, and merely being a professional at something does not make one notable. Doesn't qualify for one page, much less eleventeen of them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No notability. --Dmol (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, no notability Wayne Jayes 06:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Both articles in the nom, under A7 and possibly G4 as it looks like a recreation of a deleted article. No references. No indication of notability. Cowlibob (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all article and redirect. Per A7. Not notable. Possible autobio. --Stroppolo^talk 13:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I have deleted all of the articles as CSD A7 and CSD G11. This user has persisted in recreating the same non-notable article under multiple names even after a final warning that it would lead to a block. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:14, 17 June 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 WP:UNIGUIDE. (non-admin closure). –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehouse Institute of Design[edit]

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

Fails WP:N per WP:SPIP and the principles of WP:ONEEVENT. This school is only of interest because of a controversy surrounding the Australian Prime Minister's daughter. Surturz (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has existed since 2012, and the controversy around the PM's daughter's scholarship only arose in 2014, so both policies you've cited don't apply. It's a notable private provider, would have sailed through WP:GNG before this incident, and is the sort of institution I'd expect Wikipedia to have an article on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:UNIGUIDE as a degree-giving institution with a page link (ref 1) from the Universities Admissions Centre site. AllyD (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-granting institution, kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep degree awarding institutions have inherent notability. Even when you disregard the controversy over Abbott's daughter. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets inclusion criteria. Agree there is more interest of late but this article existing long before that "controversy" did. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposer comment - I was unaware of a general consensus that degree-awarding institutions satisfy WP:N. Happy for a WP:SNOW keep. --Surturz (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you please withdraw your nomination then, thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 18 June 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.

[1] ttp://www.chuckwright.com/newcds.html

[2] ttp://www.officialquietriot.com

[3] ttp://acousticsaints.wix.com/as

[1]

[2]

[3]