Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 June	23 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 16001–17000. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16874 Kurtwahl[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 22:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please explain to me why we have bots creating articles?--Laun chba ller 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ClueBot2 is an extremely effective vandal reversion bot. It no longer creates articles, and my understanding is that no bots are creating articles any more. This article goes back six years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets/16801–16900 as a non-notable asteroid. I've added one reference from Google Books, which verifies it exists but doesn't count as significant coverage as required by the notability guideline for astronomical objects. The list article contains numerous unreferenced asteroids so this one now stands out by having some content beyond its name and position, as well as a reference. It might be a good idea to come up with an outcome preference here. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all unreferenced stubs should be flat out redirected.--Laun chba ller 10:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but this one is no longer an unreferenced stub.

Sure but the reference, which should mention that's its on page 919, lacks stat info to show whether its relevant for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_asteroids Delete? See: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aeAg1X7afOoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Kurtwahl&f=false Gregkaye (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference fixed. I don't think the asteroid is notable as a separate topic, hence the !vote to redirect to an article where it's already listed. The info from the reference can be used there instead. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 16001–17000 per WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:41, 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lam[edit]

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

Insufficient notability indicated in the article as it stands. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A total of four sentences about her and her company in Business Week is just a passing mention that does not amount to significant coverage. I was unable to find significant coverage elsewhere, just an assortment of directory listings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to give the woman props: $20 million a year in sales is crazy good. However, there isn't enough to establish notability. Bali88 (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:42. The only reliable source is the Business Week article. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dargu Shomali[edit]

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

Lack of Notability QuartzReload (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable per Wikipedia:GEOLAND--180.155.69.97 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the comment above. --Soman (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also as above. The article may have little detail and few references, at present, though that is not a justification for deletion. What is in the article is referenced, therefore notable. EP111 (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officially recognized populated place, which is considered notable per long-standing AfD precedent as part of the gazetteer function of Wikipedia, as established in the five pillars. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Verified town/population center.--Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 27 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Lawrence[edit]

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

non-notable musician; fails WP:MUSICBIO —Waldhorn (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Needs more sources but OA should suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that an OAM, the lowest level of the Order of Australia, is not generally considered sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's hardly a significant honour. It's just a medal. Not even a true grade of the order. Over 19,000 have been awarded in the forty years of its existence. It is outranked by all Australian gallantry medals, most of which are not considered to be enough for automatic notability. If recipients are to be considered inherently notable, then by extension surely all recipients of gallantry awards would be considered inherently notable? They're not. That's not to say that a recipient can't be notable, of course, or that the OAM may not be considered a contributory factor to their notability, but it's not anywhere near enough on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on notability as a musician, a medal doesn't fall under the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Honors have been been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), but haven't passed. —Waldhorn (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although, of course, if it was a more significant honour it would fall under the purview of WP:ANYBIO, which trumps WP:MUSICBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. —Waldhorn (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this listing of his recordings on the web site of Move Records seems more than enough to establish notability and is probably a suitable source to use if the article is expanded. --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Under WP:MUSICBIO #5, as an independent label, it need to have a "history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." While it was started in 1969, its roster of performers is made up of what appears to be predominantly non-notable musicians and non-notable ensembles. —Waldhorn (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the circularity in that, Waldhorn? --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument appears to flow on paper for me. Point out the error, if you like. Thanks. —Waldhorn (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The circularity is that musicians are excluded from "notability" because they are listed by a label that does not confer "notability" because it doesn't list enough people who are "notable". --Stfg (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true, that's a potential flaw in #5—and would be a barrier especially if that were the only MUSICBIO criteria for notability. It's not uncommon, though, for artists to arrive at a label with established notability from other their musical activities. And, of course, notability under one of the other 11 points would suffice to meet MUSICBIO. —Waldhorn (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst I'm not a big fan of classical music or organs, just from a brief internet search there appears to be plenty of independent verifiable references to Douglas Lawrence, which easily establishes his notability. I would also strongly disagree that an OAM is "hardly a significant honour", a point that even the Australian Government wouldn't support. I do accept that not all recipients are inherently notable but I would not dismiss the award out of hand, simply for that reason.Dan arndt (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I am not dismissing it out of hand. I am merely saying that it is not sufficient to confer automatic notability as one contributor suggested. If that were the case then we would keep articles on anyone who had received an honour of any level. Whereas in fact we have deleted articles on many recipients of lesser honours such as this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some articles with some good coverage of him

Usher, Robin (18 April 2011), "Hamer pipes will not be calling", The Age

Evans, Kathy (21 August 2010), "Songs to make the spirit soar", The Age

Zwartz, Barney (8 April 2006), "Invoking power and the Passion", The Age

and some reviews.

O’Connell, Clive (28 August 2010), "CLASSICAL CD", The Age

Shepard, Patrick (20 March 2002), "The glorious pipe organ", The Christchurch Press

Lockwood, Kim (18 April 2011), "Throaty pipes enthrall", Herald-Sun

That's only this century, the majority of his career is before then, seems likely there will be more from earlier years. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 26 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Kinsela[edit]

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

non-notable, self-published musician/musicologist; fails WP:MUSICBIO —Waldhorn (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commercial spam. Article links to a site that sells his music. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Promotional and lacking any indicators of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. The citations to Church Times (FN 2&3), Australian Music Centre (FN 6) and the article (FN 8) are dead links. The other references are to his web site. Google scholar does find the chekker article ([1]) and an article on medieval keyboard compass ([2]), both in JSTOR, but I can find nothing close to WP's requirements for notability. --Stfg (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The article has an unfortunate peacock smell about it, which could be remedied with a few excisions. A few of his recordings have been published by commercial houses (isn't this clear in a google search?). I think also some commissioned reports and minor publications (don't ask me where, and some might be self-published). There would certainly be some newspaper reviews of live performances (they'd be hard to access and would have been last century). It's on the low side of the notability window. But I'm not helpin' out, coz I hate the guy and I'd be pleased for the article to go down in flames. :-) Tony (talk) 15:28, 26 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DailyTwoCents[edit]

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

Non-notable website with no significant third-party coverage. Article was created by one of the site's founders; possibly as part of the "SEO focus" mentioned in article. WP:ADMASQ, WP:PROMO may apply as well. --dsprc ^[talk] 19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete called two cents but the wiki page has minimal value, first link doesn't even work. Good luck to the organisation though. Gregkaye (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Jus da fax 21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Non notable organization. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, no notability. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I don't get a vote, but I didn't do this for SEO. I did it because I do feel there is some notability. These sites are the only sites in the publishing sector that give members/writers a vote on all big decisions pertaining to site operations and all wholly owned and operated by writers. • Raradra

No, you're perfectly entitled to speak your mind here. What you said won't help much, though--you need to make a policy-based argument, and the easiest way is to prove that reliable sources have discussed your subject in some detail. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh I think after the original vote https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F92SF6J all the rest have been taken on the forum or on facebook. There are several articles about it but they're reviews and definitely promotional. • Raradra — Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I saw those in Google as well; reviews from the NY Times would be fine, but not blogger reviews. :-) Ah well, look at it this way: you learned a bit more about Wikipedia's inclusion/deletion standards, and if DailyTwoCents keeps growing it will attract some media attention and another article can be attempted in the future. Agyle (talk) 07:36, 26 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. WP:CRYSTAL still applies. We usually don't have article about non-commercially available cars unless they have been substantially covered by reliable sources. → Call me Hahc21 19:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti SuperVeyron[edit]

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

Article about an exploded rumour, and PRODed as such. PROD removed since" have deleted the proposed deletion because Bugatti have actually CONFIRMED releasing this car. They have said it will be released when they have finished other design projects. Therefore this doesn't make it a rumour."VAG have specifically announced that there will be no 'Super Veyron': whatever the do produce as a sucessor to the Veyron will presumably have a different name and when it is announced an article can be written about it. TheLongTone (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the proposed deletion because Bugatti have actually CONFIRMED releasing this car. They have said it will be released when they have finished other design projects. Therefore this doesn't make it a rumour. User: Liam1274 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam1274 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have said they will build something, but are not calling it the "super veyron".TheLongTone (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure WP:CRYSTAL. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 25 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Nussbaum[edit]

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

Another Debian Project Leader, but not notable outside of Debian. James^x12345 18:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing helpful, including nothing helpful from books or scholar. Msnicki (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GS h-index of 7 nowhere enough in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that elected leader of the Debian project is inherently notable, enough to inherit notability from Debian itself. And he does not yet have enough notability as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with David Eppstein on lack of inherent notability for role, and lack of notability as an academic. I considered general coverage of Nussbaum to meet WP:GNG, and taken on the whole it did not meet what I consider enough significant RS coverage to establish notability. I found two types of coverage to consider: two medium/longish interviews with Nussbaum, and a number of brief articles just after each election, mostly in marginal sources. The scope of short articles didn't provide significant coverage, and the strength of the sources was generally weak (I would weigh similarly-sized articles more heavily if they were in Linux Journal, IEEE Spectrum or Le Monde). The interviews cannote some notability in that he was worth interviewing, but they consist almost entirely of Nussbaum's replies, rather than independent coverage about Nussbaum, and so I don't consider these very weak indicators. While less nuanced judgement might consider two or three of the first three sources below meet the multiple, independent, RS coverage requirements, it feels like a stretch to me.

Sam Varghese (2013-07-04). "New Debian leader seeks more innovation within project". RS, longish interview with Nussbaum.
Smolaks, Max (2013-04-15). "Lucas Nussbaum Voted New Leader Of The Debian Project". Techweek Europe. NetMediaEurope. Probably RS, longish article about his election.
"Lucas Nussbaum est le nouveau Debian Project Leader". Inside Ensimag: Le Blog de l'école du numérique (in French). École nationale supérieure d'informatique et de mathématiques appliquées de Grenoble INP. 2013-05-29. Not sure if RS, medium-length interview with Nussbaum.
Von Mirko Lindner (2014-04-15). "Lucas Nussbaum erneut zum Debian-Projektleiter gewählt". Pro-linux.de (in German). Not sure if RS, short 3-paragraph article on re-election.
"Lucas Nussbaum becomes Debian Project leader". The H Open, H-online.com. Heise Media UK. 2013-04-15. Not sure if RS, short 4-paragraph article on election.
Michał Olber (2014-04-15). "Debian Project Leader Elections 2014 - Lucas Nussbaum liderem projektu Debian w 2014 roku". OSWorld.pl (in Polish). Not sure if RS, short 1-paragraph article on re-election.
Ferramosca, Roberto (2014-04-16). "Lucas Nussbaum è stato rieletto Debian Project Leader". lffl linux freedom: news dal mondo linux - ubuntu (in Italian). Doubtful RS (personal blog?), short 4-paragraph article on re-election.
Kerner, Sean Michael (2013-04-15). "Linux Top 3: Debian's New Leader, Linux 3.9 and Xen". LinuxPlanet. IT Business Edge/Quinstreet Enterprise. Doubtful RS, medium/short 6-paragraph article on election.

––Agyle (talk) 02:53, 25 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 02:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Towns[edit]

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

Not notable outside of Debian. James^x12345 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notoriety. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient significant coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. There is some independent RS coverage, but it tends to be interview-heavy, and to an extent relies on Towns as a source about other topics more than covering information about Towns as a topic. Sources considered:

Computerworld (Australia) "Dunc-Tank: Success or failure?"
ZDNet "Towns the talk of Debian Project"
"https://web.archive.org/web/20061005153958/http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/5684/997/ ITWire] "A conversation with Anthony Towns"

There is other minor coverage, with just a sentence or two mentioning Towns, that I did not consider. I didn't search that exhaustively for new sources, so perhaps I missed something, and there could well be sources that aren't in Google. Agyle (talk) 03:18, 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. → Call me Hahc21 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp Law[edit]

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

Neologism, with neutrality problems. There are certainly google hits for "Stomp law" - an unrelated law firm on the other side of the world. This article draws sweeping national, legal, and social conclusions from a scattering of sources which don't even mention "stomp law" - this neologism is founded on original research. bobrayner (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEO, and could confuse a moron in a hurry that this is an actually legislation or a law firm. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no mention of this in any reliable source whatsoever, or even unreliable sources except those based on Wikipedia. Does not come anywhere near meeting notability requirements. Agyle (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search failed to find any reliable hits, excluding those that are based on this Wikipedia article. I would not be surprised if the article creator coined the term in this context; as such, if A11 existed in October 2013 when this article was created, it should have been deleted as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of background information: Two hours after the page was started, an overenthusiastic New Pages Patroller tagged it as CSD A1. That was, rightly, declined. Since it's been around for a while, and a previous CSD was declined, I decided to go down the AfD path, so that wiser and sharper intellects than mine could weigh in.

bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 26 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samy temsani[edit]

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

No evidence of notablitly. I cannot find any pictures of him or any evidence he is an actual model, just a small twitter page. Staglit (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as Staglit plus what seems to be the parallel arabic wikipedia page has been scrubbed https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A_%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A . Gregkaye (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incidentally, creation of this article seems to have been the sole contribution to en:WP by its creator (and I'm not overlooking deleted edits). I have trouble believing that Wikipedia would suffer if new articles could only be created by the autoconfirmed. -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete immediately. This sentence is taking up too much space. Lacks notoriety. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MonSTerhotel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:CRYSTAL Darkness Shines (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence for existence or future existence of film in reliable sources. Studio may be a hoax?? They allegedly produced several films, but none of the articles on those films refer to that studio as the producer. A german company with a serbian (.rs) domain? Something screwy is going on here. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 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, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G3 Even a rumoured Jim Carrey film without a gossip site that I can find to back it? Obvious hoax is obvious. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:29, 30 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 merge to Got Talent. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World's Got Talent[edit]

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

Only a proposed show. Simon Cowell has put the plans on indefinite hiatus, so it's highly doubtful the show will be launched. The article is mostly unreferenced, and there's not much more information to find. I don't think this merits a standalone article. I would suggest merging its content with Got Talent. Hey mid (contribs) 15:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this but keep (or delete - not merge). If people search on World's got Talent then they would probably prefer not to be directed to some point on another page. Article is referenced. Who knows it may grow into something big and if this is the last we hear from it, we can move it later. Gregkaye (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC) oh yes, visiting editors of the page can check WP:REFERENCE and WP:NOTABILITY[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Got Talent until more realization about the show is made. It is a reasonable search term, but I agree until that there's actually plans to go forward it doesn't need an article. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 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 keep. (This actually meets criterion 1 for a speedy keep—nomination withdrawn with no outstanding "delete" opinions—but after more than eight days I hesitate to characterize the close as speedy.) Deor (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus Educational[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Source 2 ("interview with john simkin") comes closest, but it's one interview among 68 interviews as part of a single research study into history curricula. And it's an interview, not an outside description of the article subject. It's also only one source, even if it were to count. Google news archive and google book fail to turn up any references, although there are several books which reference individual web pages from the site. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn The additional sources below I think are more than adequate to pass WP:GNG. Never done this before so I don't know if there's other buttons to hit? Sailsbystars (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related Afd from November 2008: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Simkin. (William John Simkin was moved to the current John Simkin in 2010.[3]) - Location (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people give to Wikipedia to help this site pursue its information provision related agenda. Wikipedia is in a position to assist other information providers at no cost. Its a history teacher and colleague doing their best to develop useful contents. If its borderline then keep. Gregkaye (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally created the entry because the Spartacus Educational website is an extensive resource I have known and trusted for some time. I know that some Wikipedia editors have issues with the way that it presents information, and they believe that there may be a political bias, but this does not justify denying its existence. (For the record, the entry was previously recommended for deletion 14th February, and another editor undid this, writing "As reviewing admin, I think this at least somewhat informative, and not entirely promotional, so speedy deletion declined.")Tartarusrussell (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Prominent online encyclopedic reference. Subject of multiple pieces of independent coverage. See: "Interview with John Simkin, 4 June 2009," History in Education, www.history.ac.uk/, which includes a downloadable MS Word transcript. See also: "Historian fears Daily Mail used his website to traduce Ralph Miliband," The Guardian, Oct. 4, 2013. Carrite (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that you know something of the history of Spartacus Educational. It has been a book publisher since September 1984. I decided to produce a website in September 1997. This is of course before Wikipedia and Google had websites.

At the time I was teaching at a secondary school (11 to 18) in Sussex, England. It was initially created to provide teaching materials for my students. The UK government had recently introduced some major changes to the way the subject was to be taught. The “History National Curriculum” stipulated that the students needed to study primary and secondary historical sources. This of course had been the way was taught in the universities but it was a new idea to do it in the classroom. These sources were to be used to teach the students how historians use sources to “interpret the past”. This was a major change as history teachers had traditionally used the “narrative” approach. Its critics have argued that this has encouraged “nationalistic” history teaching. To reinforce this new approach, the government told the examination boards to change their history exams to fit in with the new history curriculum.

The pages on my website followed a certain pattern: A traditional narrative and a collection of primary and secondary sources that indicated the different ways that the subject had been interpreted by historians. Initially it was exclusively used by schools in the UK and research by the Fischer Family Trust showed that the Spartacus Educational website was used by more history students in the UK than any other website, including that of the BBC.

However, because of search-engines, the material was being used by students all over the world. It was not long before we had 6 million page impressions a month. By this time most of my visitors were from the USA (research suggested that most of my visitors were university students.)

This approach to history teaching did cause problems in other countries whose students had been brought up with a traditional nationalist narrative. On one occasion there were questions asked in Finland’s parliament as politicians became concerned that the country’s children were using the Spartacus Educational website. The main concern was that the students were using my page on Finland and the Second World War. They objected to the fact that I had included two secondary sources from Russian historians on the Soviet invasion in 1939. Luckily, there were politicians in their parliament who had knowledge of the way that the subject is taught in the UK and they eventually withdrew their demands for me to take the page down.

http://spartacus-educational.com/2WWfinland.htm

I am afraid this has been a constant problem. Some visitors are sometimes confused by my willingness to include different interpretations of the past. However, it is part of my website that I am unwilling to change, as if I do so, it would be of less use to the students studying the subject in the UK.

I am constantly trying to improve the website. We have recently introduced a menu at the top that enables visitors to get quickly to the information they need. Other sections include sources, references and student activities. You can see how this works here:

http://spartacus-educational.com/GERheydrich.htm

I am always willing to correct mistakes on my website. Every page has details of how I can be contacted by email, Facebook and Twitter:

[email protected]

https://www.facebook.com/SpartacusEducational

https://twitter.com/johnsimkin

Visitors can also check out my academic background and my publishing history.

http://spartacus-educational.com/author.htm

John Simkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.14.84 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort, sir. With this deletion discussion I in no way mean to imply that your website is not of use nor that you somehow lack in qualifications. Wikipedia has rules on inclusion for articles that say (paraphrasing somewhat) that an article subject has to have substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, books) that are independent of the subject. Carrite, above, has presented two sources that mostly qualify (honest wikipedians could disagree, it's a bit marginal in my opinion but a good start) to include the article. One way you could help, which would both guarantee that this article won't be deleted would help us improve the article would be to find more sources. Do you know of any other interviews you've done about the website? Is there some website from a school describing what your website is? Is there some textbook or journal article that describes it? Those would be the sort of thing that would be ideal. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WEBCRIT states: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." That guideline also refers to WP:NOT#INTERNET which states: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." ~~There is insufficient material to be found in reliable sources to describe the website in an "encyclopedic manner".~~ The two aforementioned links ("Interview with John Simkin, 4 June 2009," and "Historian fears Daily Mail used his website to traduce Ralph Miliband,") state only that Spartacus Educational is run by John Simkin and do not give any additional details about the website. (i.e. it is trivial coverage about the website). Location (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to thank Mr. Simkim for providing the sources noted below. While I would like to see more media coverage in line with Edutopia (which is unique in that it receives coverage due to its ties with George Lucas), I think this sourcing collectively meets the criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" noted in WP:GNG. The chapter in Haydn's Using New Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Learning in History was authored by Mr. Simkin, but it does give background on the formation of the website and could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF. Location (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard textbook used by British history teachers who want to use technology in the classroom, Using New Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Learning in History (2013) that is edited by Terry Haydn (Professor of Education at the University of East Anglia), includes an article about Spartacus Educational (pages 115-130). Ali Messer, tutor for History PGCE and MA Education students at the University of Roehampton, writes in her article, “History Wikis”, that Spartacus Educational is a “remarkable website for school students” (page 49).

We are included in Kevin Driscoll’s 1000 Really Useful Websites (2001): “Spartacus is a small educational book publishing company that is committed to providing free resources for the internet community… the site does contain some good reference pages and lots of good educational links… great for reference.” Page 274

We were also featured in Hutchinson’s 2001 Guide to GCSE Websites. (GCSE is the main exam taken in the UK.) It includes several references to our website: “Detailed and informative exploration of slavery in Britain and the USA. The site includes information on the life and conditions of slaves, as well as the anti-slavery groups that were formed and the reforming legislation that was passed.” (page 95); “Development of the railway system during the 19th century. This comprehensive site focuses on the individual entrepreneurs and their inventions, as well as the railway companies, stations, and the effect the railways had on towns and cities.” (page 96); “Explanation of the developments that occurred in the textile industry during the Industrial Revolution. This excellent site examines the inventions of the late 18th century and the effect that they had on workers and the textile industry.” (page 96) There are several other references in the book to our website.

In the early days we had several articles written about us. The first review was in the Independent on Sunday on 1st February 1998, by Marek Kohn, on the First World War section of Spartacus Educational. After writing about one entry on Mick Mannock he goes onto say “Mannock’s extraordinary tragedy features in the International Internet Encyclopedia of the First World War, a collaborative work in progress hosted by Spartacus, a small educational publisher…. The whole hypertext will form part of a larger encylopedia.”

A review in The Guardian on 30th May, 2000, gave us a five out of five star-rating: “It has extensive cross-referenced seconds on the US, the Medieval World, the First World War, Slavery, Vietnam, Women’s Emancipation, development of railways and parliamentary reform. Resources vary from archive footage, sketches and photos to first-person accounts.”

There were also reviews by Simon Crerar in the Sunday Times and Derek Bishon of the Daily Telegraph but at the moment I cannot find them. (I seem to have mislaid them during my house move). There were also reviews in the Times Educational Supplement, Teaching History, Educational Computing, etc. but I am afraid I cannot find copies at the moment.

There are a large number of online reviews. Here is a selection of them:

The George Lucas Educational Foundation

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/online-resources-primary-source-documents-monica-burns

“Spartacus Educational is a great resource for global history. It contains free encyclopedia entries that directly connect to primary source documents, making it a perfect tool for educators looking to give students a starting point in their research. It can even be used for a historical figure scavenger hunt!”

The History Guide

http://www.historyguide.org/resources.html

British History, 1700-1920: “The Spartacus Internet Encyclopedia of British history is a wonderful collection of more than 1000 entries covering the history of Britain as seen through the eyes of people from all levels of society. An excellent resource…. A mind-boggling online encyclopedia of British history, medieval Europe, the Nazis, US Civil War, the Vietnam War and more. Phenomenal!”

Oxford University - Open Educational Resources

http://open.conted.ox.ac.uk/resources/link/spartacus-educational

“Vast collection of short articles on many aspects of British history, with good links between subject areas.”

Davidson Institute for Talent Development

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Resources_id_13825.aspx

“This site is perfect for the student seeking enrichment in history. Fun and easy to explore various topics for a general understanding of events and characters in Western History (primarily US and British). Nice place to begin a search, however each topic is discussed briefly - this site does not provide in-depth discussion for those who have already developed a general knowledge of Western History.”

EdTech Teacher

http://www.besthistorysites.net/index.php/early-modern-europe/modern-britain

“This Spartacus Educational resource concentrates mostly on British history from the medieval era. Contains overviews, essays, images and subtopics such as: British History 1700-1900, Slavery 1750-1870, RR 1780-1900, and Emancipation of Women 1750-1920. Offers a Tudor Encyclopedia, Biographies: 1485-1600, an Encyclopedia of British History, 1700-1900, an Encyclopedia of the English Civil War, an Encyclopedia of Politics in Britain: 1750-1950, Chartism Encyclopedia, Journalists and Newspapers 1700-1945, Parliamentary Reform 1700-1832, Peterloo Massacre, history timelines, online lessons, web site reviews, two free online newsletters, and more.”

http://kaj.upol.cz/materialy/computers/historysites.htm

“One of the best sites for history. A rich resource for both teachers and students of British History. Schoolnet offers a wonderful depth of information on British history, and a very complete web directory of related sites.”

St Mary's College, Hull

http://historymad.stmaryscollegehull.co.uk/TempPages/misclinks/learninglinkspagetemp.htm

“Produced by the historian John Simkin, this site offers a compendium of articles on Modern World and Modern British history. Its particular strengths are American history, the two World Wars and British political history 1700-1900.”

The Royal Geographical Society

http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Teaching+resources/Key+Stage+3+resources/Encounters+-+Images+of+empire.htm

“Spartacus education: information on a range of historical themes.”

New Zealand Library Learning Resources

http://schools.natlib.govt.nz/resources-learning/first-world-war-resource-guide-schools

First World War resource guide for schoolsSpartacus Educational - In addition to their print resource, The Spartacus encyclopedia, the Spartacus Educational website contains an extensive range of First World War topics including: Outbreak of war, Important battles, Life in the trenches, Women at war, War poets, and also First World War statistics.”

Tyne & Wear Museum : Remembering Slavery Learning Zone

http://www.twmuseums.org.uk/slavery/learning-zone/links/

Primarily related to school activities, it also contains references to accounts by enslaved Africans, slave systems, events, anti-slavery groups and legislation.

In the Staff Room

http://www.inthestaffroom.com/mainabab.html?id=155_368_6962

“Spartacus Educational: Spartacus is committed to providing free resources for the Internet community. Spartacus is an approved supplier of educational materials for the US Education Department's GEM Project and Britain's National Grid for Learning.”

Waldomaths

http://www.waldomaths.com/linksTeachers.jsp

“Spartacus Educational - a large and outstanding UK website put together by John Simkin, historian and teacher. You can explore the whole site which is mainly about history but also has resources in many other subjects including maths. There are also many links to other educational websites, each with an informative outline.”

New York Public Library - Best on the Web

http://www.nypl.org/weblinks/1896

(Germany) Germany: 1900-1945

Online encyclopeda includes narrative, illustration, and primary sources, Part of the Spartacus Educational website.

Schools History

http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk//year9links/industrial9.shtml

“The comprehensive internet encyclopaedia by Spartacus Education. This links to the specific 'industrial revolution' section, so pupils need to select relevant links, such as the Textile Industry, the Railways or Engineers.”

John Simkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.14.84 (talk) 14:16, 30 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. Largely a procedural close, the page was blanked by creator, who created similar content at Rhyme Skool with Katrina Kaif. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nursery Rhymes Audio CD[edit]

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

I don't see any reliable sources to prove that the title of this a;bum is "Nursery Rhymes Audio CD". Otherwise, seams not to pass WP:NALBUMS. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator and sole author has created a new article on the same subject at Rhyme Skool with Katrina Kaif. They attempted to redirect Nursery Rhymes Audio CD to the new page twice: [4] [5] after the AfD notice was placed, and then blanked the original page completely: [6]. I suggest closing this and starting a new AfD for Rhyme Skool with Katrina Kaif. Voceditenore (talk) 12:11, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pandacoin[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. The article only has three references, two of them are first-party and one of them is from a generic cryptocurrency database. I was unable to find significant coverage of this crypto-coin from reliable sources independent of the subject. Breadblade (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of coverage to be found in the specified newssites related to the coin. Having over 289.000 users is by itself relevant enough to be added to Wikipedia. Added 2 more references from newssites + link to wiki. Hope this helps. Ozzke (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis aren't reliable sources and both those articles seem to be from people with a financial stake in Pandacoin, so I'm not 100% sure how independent/reliable they are in this case. The author of the Cryptonews article admits they had spent 3 weeks mining Pandacoin, the Cryptoarticles piece is less problematic but they do seem to be pulling for the project's success. Also this "289,000 users" figure seems to have been pulled out of thin air. Breadblade (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzke, I removed the references, as they did not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (click that link to read about those standards). (Other editors: here is the version before I removed the references.) I also removed references to pandacoinpnd.org, as I couldn't find any suggestion that it really is the coin's official website; the bitcointalk.org "announcement" forum post for the coin stated that thepandacoin.com is the correct website (a malware program on my computer indicated high risk that the site is associated with command-and-control malware, so I did not view it); one of the non-RS "articles" you cited said thepandacoin.net is the official website, and another bitcointalk.org announcement said that thepandacoin.org was its website, although that might have been for an unrelated Pandacoin that happens to have the same name and logo. Note that if you want to suggest reliable sources with significant coverage about Pandacoin, you don't actually need to include them in the article; it's enough to simply link them here for reviewers to consider. The nomination depends on notability of the subject, which is unrelated to the state of the article. ––Agyle (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet GNG. It's just not anything notable at all at present. I see no reason to keep it.Sanpitch (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. It received a brief mention 2014-03-11 in International Business Times (UK edition) for being pumped 4400% within a day before closing at a 700% increase. There was a full article on Pandacoin, including an interview, in a 2014-02-14 Cryptocoinsnews.com article, although this is a site I don't consider a reliable source due to its frequency of factual errors and apparent lack of editorial control expected for a serious news organization. Pandacoin is also covered in a number of other blogs and quasi-news sites that I would consider far from reliable (like not even close to Cryptocoinsnews.com), but beyond that I didn't find even trivial mentions in sources that I consider reliable. ––Agyle (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Citation Needed | Talk 23:17, 26 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

50/50 burger[edit]

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

trivial gimmicky foodstuff. The nearest thing to a RS, the Daily News, does not use this name. The Huffington Post story does not fully support the material here. The name is the name of the restaurant,and I assume the article is promotional for them. DGG ( talk ) 13:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not promotional to restaurant. Daily news plus this used the name 50/50 founder Scott Slater, which is made of 100% ground bacon and topped. Obviously notable as per GNG. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 14:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article plus Huffington Post (different article), UT San Diego and several other hits on a google search (although most are not reliable) mean it does pass GNG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic has received adequate coverage to qualify for an article, per WP:GNG. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Rewrite - the sources are reliable, it seems the article should be about the restaurant. The burger has no notability outside the restaurant. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 19:43, 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 02:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Myers Jaffe[edit]

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

Non yet notable, meets neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. She has no professorial appointment , and the bulk of the article is a very close paraphrase of her promotional bio at Davis [7]

She has one co-authored book, and the rest of her publications are working papers and technical reports, not peer-reviewed articles. DGG ( talk ) 13:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of around 11 does not yet pass WP:Prof#C1. BLPs are for substantial career achievement not for the promotion of early career professionals. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of too soon. She does not meet any of the criteria for creating an article on an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable WP:GNG. Only has a BA in Near Eastern Studies and Arabic. Her position is not a faculty position at Davis, so clearly not notable WP:PROF. I am One of Many (talk) 07:57, 29 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. Presumably, the student who created this has already received a grade, and no one is arguing that the article be kept. Anyone who thinks that a redirect would be useful is free to create one. Deor (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus machine[edit]

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

I am unaware of any RS that has ever called this an Herodotus machine. It has been referred to as Herodotus' machine, that is, the machine described by Herodotus. This is more than a name problem--it's our using an invented specific name for something that has only a generic name.

The article is furthermore POV, advocating for this theory, tho the one reliable source given, ref 4, does not give it this specific name, and thinks it implausible. (The BM source is a very elementary generic timeline, that does not describe this or any machine) DGG ( talk ) 12:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject is already covered in Egyptian pyramid construction techniques.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheLongTone. Article is essentially unsourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. This adds little; anyway the name is a misnomer: Heroditus merely described it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 27 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 02:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie (2007 film)[edit]

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

I'm unable to find independent, third-party reliable sources in a search to show that this film meets the general notability guideline. There does not appear to be any other evidence of notability as described in Wikipedia:Notability_(films) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film release year was 2006, not 2007. See this. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not notable. It was shown at a few small film festivals and was released on DVD, but doesn't seem to have received any critical attention. My Google search can't find any reviews, IMDb doesn't list any external critics' reviews (and they list critics we wouldn't consider reliable sources), and it doesn't have a Rotten Tomatoes page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:42, 26 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 per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#A10. Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bailiwick of Portwood, Stockport[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources, and I really doubt that this "Bailiwick of Portwood" exists. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD G3 and tagged as such. Yes there is an area called Portwood but it is clearly not a Bailiwick. Obvious hoax. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:18, 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. Although there are concerns about the article's content, it appears to be a notable topic. Could do with some toning down though. Number 5 7 11:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Makena Beach & Golf Resort[edit]

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

Promotional article for a resort. Ireneshih (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the only third party coverage is routine business coverage, otherwise this is an advert masquerading as an article. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I tend to agree with LibStar. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, the article is a little promotional and could use some pruning. But any property that gets covered significantly by the Wall Street Journal on three separate occasions is notable. Those are not "routine business coverage" - they are full length staff-written stories by the WSJ about a property located 5,000 miles from the WSJ's home base. That's not even to mention the more local coverage from the Pacific Business News (3 stories) and the expected puffery from publications like Travel and Leisure. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do agree with MelanieN that the article appears a little promotional. However, I noticed that virtually all pages in category "Resorts in Hawaii" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Resorts_in_Hawaii ) follow the same pattern, writing and illustration style. In addition, the reference to the WSJ should be considered significant indeed. MTK 21:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep - upon a review of sources (in the article), meets WP:CORPDEPTH. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see a number of issues including some sourcing issues, but there do indeed appear to my multiple, secondary, reliable sources and the resort seems to meet criteria for notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are reliable. I think it meets our notability criteria. Jim Carter ^(talk) 22:23, 30 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 by User:GB fan per CSD A7, "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elite District Gaming United[edit]

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

The article does no appears encyclopedic and need to be rewritten. Meanwhile it was written by a new editor who is suppose to learn the rules and guidlines on how to write artcle. Wikicology 10:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Wikicology, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended "rewrite" (not delete) as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. Have a good one czar ♔ 01:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do that, I'll write a deletion nomination for him: The subject does not meet the WP:GNG in any capacity. It's currently sourced entirely to a first party Facebook page, and a Google search located zero results that help establish notability. (There's no way this is notable, so we shouldn't waste time calling this off due to a bogus nomination when it ought to be deleted. Let's not get too caught up in bureaucracy.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my first comment above. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7: organization with no assertion of notability. No Google or WP:VG/RS hits either. Also wasn't about to speedy keep this—just boilerplate czar ♔ 03:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks promo in the understandable bits. Not very clear, but doesn't look notable (two pages of virtually all Facebook links at Google and nothing independent or reliable) even though I'm still not sure what this thing is. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 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, as no one except the article's creator is advocating that it remain in mainspace. I'll honor Unician's and MichaelQSchmidt's recommendations for userfication by moving the article to User:Doburhoney/Jaat - The Story of Revenge, but since the creator has a habit of recreating articles deleted at AfD—he recreated Rahul Productions for the second time just a few hours ago—I want a "delete" closure on record so that this can be G4'd if he puts it in mainspace again without improvement. Deor (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaat - The Story of Revenge[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator with no reason. (surprise, surprise) Non-notable film: has not been released, what little there is in the way if reliable sourcing is about oue of the cast rather than the film itself. TheLongTone (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Doburhoney

we are the bollywood film making team.i shall send proof of my producer id card and writer's film union card. we have introduced south heroine Oviya into the bollywood film industry.i have also made reference below from the three websites and also have made those references in the page :

http://www.cineulagam.com/tamil/news/celebrities/oviya-acting-in-a-bollywood-film/

http://www.indiaglitz.com/oviyas-debut-in-bollywood-tamil-news-107288

http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-innings-in-bollywood/article5993091.ece?secpage=true&secname=entertainment#

READ AND ANALYZE AND VERIFY ALL THESE RELIABLE AND INDEPENDENT SOURCES AND TYPE US BACK.THE NAME OF THE FILM "JAAT" ALONG WITH THE CAST OVIYA NAME IS ALSO MENTIONED

THANK YOU:

THANKS AND REGARDS -

ABDUL ASSOCIATE PRODUCER/CASTING DIRECTOR/MARKETING EXECUTIVE MUMBAI/DELHI Rahul Productions

CONTACT FOR ANY QUERIES - +919585256236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doburhoney (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

@ Doburhoney: Please read WP:COI and WP:NAY. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear COI as written by the production company. No significant independent press coverage. Doesn't meet WP:NOTFILM. Created for promotion of an actress, would need to be rewritten significantly to be encyclopaedic. Potentially WP:G11 Speedy Delete. Cowlibob (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excuse Me , mr colibob. this isn't for a promotion for actress or anyone else.we have provided the documents of news inbox journal , The actress's debut in bollywood which was introduced by our company Rahul Productions, the actress's acting in our studios, the actress's innings published in the hindu news paper,AND MORE OVER THE PROOFING EVIDENCES OF THE FILM TITLE AND CREW HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE IMDB DATA BASE Internet Movie Database ...what proof you want more than this!!! send me a e-mail address,i shall send you the scanned copy of vijay basu's id proof and his company.ITS IS NOT FACEBOOK TO CREATE FAKE ACCOUNTS HERE. kindly understand and let this go.I AM A BUSINESS MAN.I CAN'T KEEP ASKING AND PROVING YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN.WE WILL MAKE IT SOON ENCYCLOPAEDIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doburhoney (talk • contribs) 12:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is the article creator and also contributed the long and incoherent screed at the top of this discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Doburhoney: Please read WP:COI and WP:NAY. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're not doubting that the film exists. The question is whether it is notable, does it have significant independent press coverage? Follow these links for guidance on what criteria notability is determined on: WP:GNG (for any article) and WP:MOVIE (particularly films). The second issue is that usually people who are close to the subject i.e. the filmmakers in this case, shouldn't create articles as they are likely to have a conflict of interest. Those sources you've cited may help Oviya meet notability but not the film she's in. On a side note, a bit concerned about this editor's recent edits on the actress, Oviya's page. Cowlibob (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a Hindi Language film without a Hindi language Wikipedia article attached. I found no significant evidence of notability which may change. Looking at the page I don't think it currently offers much to the readers of Wikipedia. I wish the production team success with the film but I dont think it currently warrents the disk space here. Gregkaye (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IT warrents the Disk space in imdb and have been approved , then why doesn't it has to be here on wikipedia. now you got proof that film exists and oviya has been acting in it and she is a major part of it.SO will soon giving the references of notable,independent,and significant references.do not delete it.This Article involves a life of thousand employees.Their survival becomes in an vulnerable situation. Respect the film makers and the casting and technical crew. there are millions of films and unnecessary articles in wikipedia.Let this article and Rahul Productions Also be there. Meeting the policies and rules of wikipedia ,we will soon make up.Kindly give us a time.

All IMDB requires is existence. Wikipeida's notability criteria for films is different. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you want this moved to a userpage until the film has actually been released and gained some critical attention?TheLongTone (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let be on its real page,please do not delete or move it .Its an kind request our team .we will help in future for wikipedia promotions and goodwill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doburhoney (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2014‎

Begging for WP:MERCY doesn't help in these discussion. We're not out to get you or your company. All articles meet the same standards. Currently, unfortunately this article doesn't. The option LongTone is offering is a good one, move the article to your personal userpage and make the relevant edits to show notability by adding sources after the film has released and has got more independent press coverage etc. and then you can potentially resubmit. Look at WP:GNG (for any article) and WP:MOVIE (particularly for films) for guidance on what we want for notability. Cowlibob (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace. I'm the first independent editor (after the creator, and a bot) to touch this article, when I took out the {{Good Article}} template. I believe the article creator just doesn't understand the workings of Wikipedia. The pleas for more time, with no timescale proposed, are likely too long-term for an AfD discussion, given that the article is now one month old and still has no reliable, independent English-language sources about the film (as opposed to about the actress). Moving to userspace, rather than deletion, would give the author the time he wants to improve the article, as well as time to learn about key Wikipedia topics like WP:COI. Unician ∇ 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links and tools

WP:INDAFD: Jaat - The Story of Revenge Varun Khanna Vijay Basu Chandan Makawana

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

Userfy until actually ready for mainspace. Apparently completed and in post-production, but does not have enough coverage to pass WP:NFF (paragraph 3 (yet). Author is encouraged to visit WP:PRIMER and WP:NOTABOUTYOU and then seek guidance from more experienced editors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - let it be there for some while,we will add more contributing sources.. soon our audio launch function is going to be started...have asked for all press and media coverage. so will add everything.For our clients and artist satisfication ,we had to keep this page alive.so please do cooperate mr. deor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doburhoney (talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 July 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 Divergent characters. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Eaton[edit]

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

Can be merged into a single article for all characters in the show Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The single article with references for all the characters already exist, see List of Divergent characters.--Jockzain (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Divergent characters; this article is pretty much empty, no chance to expand it with verifiable, non-in-universe information. --Jakob (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Divergent characters; already done for another character Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tris Prior — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakumar RG (talk • contribs) 02:37, 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 redirect to National Premier Soccer League. rounded to redirect slakr^\ talk / 01:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego iCon FC[edit]

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

I cannot find any substantial independent sources for this club, either under this name or what is claimed to be its previous name. WP:Help desk#San Diego iCon FC purports to be from an intern at the club, claiming that the history is wrong (the sentences about its history are unreferenced). It rather looks to me as if the club did fold this year, and somebody else has started up a new club with the same name, but that is only a guess. Either way, I don't think it is notable. ColinFine (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that if this is kept, the article title should be changed to the original club name (San Diego Boca FC). According to the article, they played all their matches under the old name and folded before playing any matches as Icon. The name change was initiated by Robert McCrea who still claims to own the club on his LinkedIn page. However, the club's official site says that the current owner is Lynn Borja so these are undoubtedly two different entities and the current title is conflating them. Spinning Spark 08:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. They certainly existed as Boca and there is some coverage under that name. [8][9][10][11] Spinning Spark 09:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage about the subject. the links provided by @Spinningspark: all appear to be about co-marketing events in publications that appear to be press release services. Coverage of soccer in Telecommunications Weekly? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Premier Soccer League as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per GiantSnowman. ukexpat (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Sadly, TRPoD's sense of the highbeam sources matches my own, those are reprinted press releases. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:39, 1 July 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. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Noise (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Other than the AllMusic reference nothing supports the notability of the album. See WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Duplicate entry. WP:WITHDRAWN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:30, 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 redirect to Dungannon. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamnamore Primary School[edit]

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

NN defunct primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to Dungannon. Non-notable primary schools are usually redirected to appropriate admin districts per established consensus. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its school district or locality per long-standing established precedent for non-notable primary schools as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 29 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 Vancouver School Board. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Carr Elementary School[edit]

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

NN elementary school that provides education for children grades K-7. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to an article for next higher order (district, etc.) if it exists (I'm haven't found it yet, though). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a dab page or redirect to Vancouver School Board with a hatnote to Emily Carr Public School. There are at least three Emily Carr (Elementary) Public Schools, belonging to the Halton District School Board [12], the Thames Valley District School Board [13] and the Toronto District School Board [14]. Skip the dab page: none of the linked articles list the schools. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its school district or locality per long-standing established precedent for non-notable primary schools as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 29 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. Hoax Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F.O'Neal[edit]

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

No indication of notability (other than famous family members). Speedy deletion template (A7) removed by page author multiple times. GILO A&E⇑ 05:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G3 -- THIS IS A HOAX. This person does not exist. Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal had only one child, Redmond O'Neal. Quis separabit? 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No references or citations. Not notable on his own. Possible hoax. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:48, 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. (soft). Feel free to drop a line at WP:UNDELETE and it can be speedily userfied. slakr^\ talk / 01:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extravagant Worship: The Songs of Darlene Zschech[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS and AllMusic ref is only a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I found a Cross Rhythms review and a brief mention in Christian Today.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple (three or more) reviews are required. I only see these, and a brief comment isn't a review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'd read "multiple" as more than one. I know a brief comment isn't a review, it's a brief comment. What I'm suggesting is that it indicates that the album might be referred to in more than just the sources I gave. As is, the support for this album looks pretty shaky, unless chart positions are found.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding a lot of results for Zschech's book, Extravagant Worship, so it might be best to create that article and merge this article into it.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it deserve an article, by all means create one. I'm not sure what the notability criteria for books is, but it sounds like it would meet GNG at any rate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a yet-to-be-created Extravagant Worship book article.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG et al; Userfy for 3family6's use in creating a book article, if that editor chose so to do. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 2 July 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) 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ニサ[edit]

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

This disambiguation page makes no sense. It's nothing more than a pronunciation key. It doesn't even properly disambiguate the Japanese characters since it refers to concepts that aren't translations of the Japanese and indirectly to two Japanese topics that aren't even written with these characters in Japanese. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nisa, which is what it was doing for eight years with no trouble. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that not a single item on that list is actually written as titled above - even the two Japanese targets are written completely differently. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the originator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nintendude was blocked as a sockpuppet and Katakanas have no place amongst the English titles of English articles which should be in English. Gregkaye (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither of the Japanese targets on Nisa (disambiguation) are spelled this way, pointless dab page for English Wikipedia. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:07, 30 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. Note: consensus would not preclude a redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extravagant Worship: The Songs of Miriam Webster[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS and AllMusic ref is only proof that the album existed. Not even a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything about this album.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:42, 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. Note: Consensus would not preclude a redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe the Promise[edit]

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

De-PRODed again with sources that are nothing more than track listings. Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I found a review by Cross Rhythms, so there very well may be other sources out there. I also think this album has been misclassified as a Hillsong release, as Cross Rhythms, AllMusic, and Jesus Freak Hideout (the latter two are purely database entries) consider it a Darlene Zschech release.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With only one source, we can't assume that others exist. Either they have to be produced or we assume non-notable based on a single source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that it needs more than one significant mention. Hence my hesitancy to give it a full "keep" vote. But I'm not convinced that there is nothing else written about this album. I haven't done a site search of all the sources on WP:CCM/S, and there could be offline references.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you agree it has to be more than one, then it should be weak delete, no? The problem with a weak keep is it's essentially a keep and closing admin may interpret it as such. If the decision is closed as "keep", it makes it difficult to delete at a future time. However, if the decision is "delete", the article can be create when additional sources are found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm changing my vote, as I have now done a search through most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. There may be something buried in the Wayback Machine archives, but that's on the burden of the article creator to find. This article is on the threshold of being kept, but I can't find any additional sources apart from a brief footnote in a book.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:50, 25 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) 03:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sander van der Poel[edit]

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

A contributor to the Dutch-language soundtracks for Japanese TV series. There's something delightfully obscure about this; but, well, he's obscure. The article has no independent sourcing. There's a link to an article on him in nl:Wikipedia, but that too has no independent sourcing. I googled and found Wikipedia scrapes, lists (sans commentary) of what he's appeared in, and not much more. His (very flash) website suggests that he's tried a variety of things, but the web doesn't seem to present much coverage of them. Hoary (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Hoary (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable dub-only voice actor. Bensci54 (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dante Basco actually played Zuko in the series, I do not see any notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Knowledgekid87, I understand from the article on him that Dante Basco did the voice for Zuko in English (and that this is his major claim to fame). We're told that Sander van der Poel did the same for Dutch. I don't see why doing a job in one (Germanic) language is necessarily a greater or lesser achievement than doing it in another; if SvdP's achievements had been at all discussed, he might well merit an article, just as Dante Basco does. ¶ Oh, hang on a moment: the sole assertion in the article on Basco for which an independent source is provided is He attended Orange County High School of the Arts. Uhhh. ¶ Ah well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Dante's job is more notable because English is both the original language of the series and the language the series is most well known in. - Bensci54 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, sorry, I only glanced at the article, noticed 降卋神通 and so forth, and assumed it was east Asian. Basco's was indeed the original voice. (Or so the article on him tells us. Its writers don't deign to provide any evidence.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It clearly was Brasco, he was listed in the show's credits.--67.68.160.163 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more can be found, I did find an unreliable source with an interesting interview with him in Dutch at [15], but I don't see coverage reaching WP:GNG yet. Additional sources welcome, as always. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Peña Cortes[edit]

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

Article's subject won no awards in her field, appears to fail WP:NSPORTS KDS4444^Talk 01:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She passes WP:GNG. In the article, this can be found in ABC and Diario de Jerez. Outside of the cited sources, there are a number of other sources the demonstrate notability based on the number of sources. They include:
El Correo, a Spanish newspaper where the article is primarily about her
ABC.es, a Spanish news source that primarily talks about her
Que.es, a Spanish newspaper where the article is primarily about her
El Mundo, a Spanish national newspaper that mentions her

Rioja2, a regional newspaper which mentions her in the title and mentioned her in the article

svt.se, a Swedish language newspaper that mentions her
gva.be, a Belgian newspaper that mentions her
rhein zeitung, a German newspaper that mentions her

el comercio, a Spanish language newspaper that mentions her
noticias de la rioja, a Spanish newspaper that mentions her
servimedia.es, a Spanish wire service article that mentions her
el periodico de aragon, a regional newspaper that mentions her
el Ibérico, a Spanish language newspaper in London mentioned her
periodista digital, a Spanish newspaper that mentions her
La Verdad, a local Spanish newspaper that mentions her
más jerez, a local Spanish newspaper that mentionsher
el confidencial, a Spanish newspaper that mentions her
la tribuna de Talavera, a local Spanish newspaper that mentions her
estrella digital, a Spanish newspaper that mentions her

--LauraHale (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: so many references above. Obvious Victuallers (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LauraHale's sources, Passes GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LauraHale's sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:21, 26 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} 05:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friends in High Places (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many article to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per the Cross Rhythms review cited in the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple are required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that it needs more than one significant mention. Hence my hesitancy to give it a full "keep" vote. But I'm not convinced that there is nothing else written about this album. I haven't done a site search of all the sources on WP:CCM/S, and there could be offline references.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As stated elsewhere, without multiple RSes it should be weak delete because it's easier to recreate an article that has been deleted when additional sources are found than it is to nominate for deletion when additional sources are not found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Amended to a Strong Keep. It has a solid review by Cross Rhythms and an AllMusic reference. It is also certified Gold by ARIA. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I've changed my vote, as I have now done a G-books search and url-searched most of the sources on WP:CCM/S, and could not find anything. I will try to do the same for the rest of the Hillsong AfD noms tomorrow.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ARIA gold certification.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. Per nom as non-notable album. As with the others in this batch, I've tried to find significant coverage in reliable third-party sources and failed. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to keep based on the ARIA discovery. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Can't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ARIA certified gold. Jim Carter ^(talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philg88, Jim Cartar, The album has been certified Gold by ARIA. Jair Crawford (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certified gold by ARIA.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Davey2010, it's been certified gold by ARIA. Jair Crawford (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - Should've read the article a bit more ... But since it's claimed Gold by ARIA which is the equivalent to the BPI ... Seems a sensible idea to keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries. The ARIA certification was a very recent find courtesy of research by shaidar cuebiyar. Jair Crawford (talk) 16:24, 1 July 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 nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People Just Like Us[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw my nomination based on the recent reference of Platinum status. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many article to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed by Cross Rhythms, as per the article, plus it was noted for going platinum page 360. Business Review Weekly: Volume 24, Issues 32-38 mentioned the album on page 66; The Bulletin, Issues 6437-6445 on page 33; and Charisma and Christian Life, Volume 24, Issue 5 on pages 60 and 61; but I do not have access to those source (the page hits I got from Google), so I can't say how significant the mentions are.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. Correct me if I'm doing the vote wrong. I'm very new at this. Jair Crawford (talk) 02:21, 25 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 merge to Jesus Is. No arguments were presented toward notability, but no arguments made that would (by WP:ATD) argue against a merge, limited merge, or redirect. A successful merge will obviously depend on the survival of the merge target, which is also the subject of a deletion discussion. No prejudice against a different redirect if that AfD closes delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is: Remix[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. A track listing at AllMusic does not make the album notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely agree with nom & Philg88 - Non notable album with no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: There's a whole bunch more of these by the same group that I haven't got around to checking yet - you can find them through the "Albums and songs" DELSORT above. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 22:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I have checked many of them and they really don't have any notability. The band is notable. They have some very notable releases, but the nominees here don't have any support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jesus Is (see my comments on that deletion discussion).--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Revival[edit]

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:NALBUMS. Multiple reliable secondary sources with more than trivial coverage not available, record label not notable. KDS4444^Talk 00:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage found via Google newspapers, Google Books, and Highbeam. I've added sources to the article; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 06:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album has charted and so clearly meets WP:NALBUMS. Must do WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:NALBUMS/WP:GNG per sources in the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 29 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joyride (Bryan Duncan album)[edit]

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:NALBUMS, no reliable secondary sources on the subject, record label not notable, etc. KDS4444^Talk 00:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article needs work, but coverage at Allmusic [16] and genre-specific publications - CrossRhythms and a CCM encyclopedia (part 1/part 2) - appears to be enough to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 06:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three reviews. Clearly meets WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing in article is sufficient to demonstrate notability, and there is more available. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:12, 27 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} 07:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thích Nhật Từ[edit]

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

Seems to be more promotional then anything else, and, it lacks citation and notability. QuartzReload (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per 2e. Notable individual - Google returns 373,000 results for his (exact) name. Article could do with some clean up but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have absolutely no knowledge of Vietnamese, but a quick search suggests that he has been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:03, 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 Speedy Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage[edit]

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

Nothing listed; no examples given. I doubt any conservatives have faced actual "discrimination" in the literal definition of the word as other "discrimination" articles on Wikipedia describe (see discrimination against atheists and discrimination against the homeless, for instance, that deal with legal discrimination against the respective groups). The examples listed at discrimination against conservatives are not discrimination. Seattle (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please read all before responding. The article relates to a page entitled Discrimination against conservatives which was sensibly placed in review in AfD at 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC). Gregkaye (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest listing perceived instances of discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage on the Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage page for evaluation at this AFD. Seattle (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3 No Content. The article consists of nothing but a rephrasing of the title, which is grounds for deletion under A3. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not sure why this wasn't speedied in the first place. Agree this falls under A3, no content. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 02:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced single sentence article that fails to mention even a single example of such discrimination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per above arguments; but even if it was populated from the other article, I'd say delete. I'm not clear why you created this page; it comes across as setting up a backup in case the AfD fails, without addressing the concerns of the AfD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently a pointy creation resulting from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against conservatives. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons listed above, plus the minor additions of my own: (i) the title would be unwieldy even if it were in idiomatic English; (ii) the title isn't in idiomatic English (or at least not in my lect, wherein we have opposition to this or that). -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per CSD A3: no content. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD A3 - No Content - I'm actually lost as to why the nom (or someone) didn't CSD this in the first place really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3. This is not a notable topic and it begs the question. Essentially, it duplicates the subject of another bad article, Discrimination against conservatives, making it also eligible for WP:CSD#A10.- Mr X 14:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:GRIEF. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV essay. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 05:19, 26 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.