Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Subject of the article doesn't qualify for any criteria in WP:N or specifically WP:ARTIST. @pple (☞ talk) 19:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Erroi[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG Iago Qnsi 23:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published book. Couldn't find any reliable refs. There are social media and some interviews, but nothing substantial. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Games vs. Hardware. A history of PC gaming[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is a self-published book by an amateur author from Romania who is not a recognized authority on the topic and has not been previously published on the topic. The only google hits appear to be for the Amazon sales page and the Wiki. Also, chances are good that this page was created specifically to promote the work. Indrian (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Written very much like an advertisement, and shows no signs of notability or significance. -Iago Qnsi 00:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems as though the author of the page just wrote his/her thoughts on the contents of the book. Page appears to be more opinionated than factual. TantalusIX (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if there were professional reviews, this article would be mostly useless as a starting point for an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Merdeka Tournament Squads[edit]

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

A list of non-notable players, fails WP:NOTSTATS JMHamo (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no indication cometing squads are inherently notable separate from the main tournament. Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Amis[edit]

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

No indications that this local business woman meets the criteria for inclusion. Coverage limited to local Staten Island press. Prod removed by third party, so taking to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of a non-notable self-published print on demand book who has started a non-notable small business. Coverage consists of run-of-the-mill local newspaper articles about a new business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - laudable work by a well-meaning person, but I don't see how this BLP reaches notability. NY1 and the SI Advance are filled with many human interest stories like this one. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Gosse[edit]

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

This subject is on the borderline, but I'm inclined to think that WP:BIO isn't met. There are sources that provide in-depth coverage, but they are of a low quality - mainly XBIZ and a low circulation local paper. I've search in factiva and google books to try and find something better, but could only find brief mentions. Really, this discussion is about whether the coverage in XBIZ is sufficient for inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with XBIZ if it was one source within a diversity of substantive references — but if it's the only substantial source that can be added, then no, it's not good enough by itself. In addition, the claim that his book was a bestseller on Amazon.com is entirely unsourced — and even if it's true, having a bestselling book is only a valid claim of notability on here if the book reached a general bestseller list (such as in The New York Times or The Globe and Mail), and not if the claim is exclusive to a single book retailer. No prejudice against future recreation if a better version of the article, with a better range of sources, can be written at a later date — but this version isn't good enough to be anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and rename to Google bus protests. @pple (☞ talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Bus[edit]

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

A non-notable shuttle bus service whose article is being used as a coatrack for coverage of an equally non-notable protest action. The fact that Google runs shuttle buses is not notable enough for an article, and there are no sources in the article to show notablility of the shuttle bus service itself; all of the sources concern the protests. However, none of the sources establishes the long-term notability of the protests. Without good sources for that notability, there's nothing to support an article. Moreover, in the absence of such sources, excessive coverage of protests like this is non-neutral, since it tends to present the protestors' case in Wikipedia's voice. Unless there are more sources forthcoming, this ought to be deleted. Miscellaneous user (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the original author of Google Bus and I would recommend deleting the page. The reason is that Joe Decker has convinced me that the so-called primary mission of Wikipedia is to obfuscate the truth and promote official dogma by labeling every idea that the establishment doesn't like as "fringe" and POV. I don't see such a modus operandi as any more enlightened or courageous or intelligent than the abuse and intellectual cowardice that was thrown at Galileo by the Vatican. Wikipedia's censors have their official truth embraced by the corporate 1% that is supported by nothing more than Argument from authority illogic and everything else is POV or FRINGE or "conspiracy theories" that are automatically suspect. If Wikipedia is going to reject the truth then go ahead and remove the article. Solarlive (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above is referring to the discussion here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, spite is not a valid rationale for deletion. GabrielF (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The protests might be noteworthy enough to be mentioned briefly in another article (perhaps in San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency?) but otherwise this doesn't seem sufficiently notable. -Iago Qnsi 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/refactor to article about the associated Protests I think an article about the event (which this pretty much is) could avoid some of the coatracking and political pushings, which gets us down to the question of whether this is a notable series of events. My first gut reaction aside, UK and NYC coverage indicate some level of WP:GEOSCOPE, and the bus stop use fee and coverage thereof are a claim of WP:LASTING. It's too early to tell about WP:PERSISTENCE, but at least there has been more than routine coverage that I've seen, trying to unpack this quite odd little protest effort. While they're always somewhat subjective to judge, it's my view that this is over the usual bar I see being applied to events at AfD. Note that before I saw this AfD I suggested a move in line with this !vote, the requested move discussion is here --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Google. Concept can be covered there. Dough 48 72 02:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. For one thing protestors have targeted buses used by several companies other than Google. Also, a meaningful discussion of this topic would be out of place in the main Google article. This protest is about issues such as gentrification and class that aren't particularly relevant to an article about a huge global tech company with many diverse products.GabrielF (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to focus on protests. Dough 48 72 00:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I agree that the protests are the focus here, not the buses. However, I think the protests are notable. These protests received coverage in major national and international sources - including the NY Times, the Guardian and the Wall Street Journal. The protests do seem to have attracted serious responses from local politicians and from Google (Google recently donated $6.8 million for free transit for low-income kids[1]). GabrielF (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Google Bus Protests or San Francisco Anti-Google Protests or similar. The protests have attracted a lot of serious in-depth journalism across the USA, in the UK, and even Israel (as well as the links on article, there's loads in local press, several on Slate, and see e.g.[2][3][4]), establishing the protests' notability, even though many articles say the protests aren't primarily about the buses. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and cleanup - I agree there were serious POV issues with the content, but the concept of the issue has been a subject of significant public debate and there are clearly enough reliable sources to write a fair article discussing the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly. The article was moved on 15 March to "Google bus protests". Consensus above is that the protests are notable, have plenty of coverage. If a further rename is desirable, that is best discussed at a Requested Move at the article's Talk page. --do ncr am 01:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The protests are clearly notable, and are the subject of plenty of coverage in reliable news sources. Xoloz (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per above. (I've even linked the article here.)--Froglich (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has been renamed to better reflect the subject of the article. Google bus protests is clearly notable, with considerable third-party coverage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the move/rename discussion closed recently with a consensus of "Google bus protests", and that the article has been renamed as a result. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Singh[edit]

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

This looks like a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. SPat ^talk 20:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This article can also be deleted under G10, this article is about a boy who claimed to be topped in a exam conducted by NASA, but later NASA agency denied on conducting such an exam (see here). WOWॐIndian ^Talk 14:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in hard rock[edit]

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

Series of unmaintained pages with an unspecific genre. Just how hard is "hard rock" anyway? Why call the page "hard rock" when the intro says "Covers everything from Progressive Rock, Hard Rock, Glam/Sleaze Metal, Punk Rock and just good old honest Rock." Overly specific genre hairsplitting, redundant to 2007 in music onward. Note that no pages were made for 2013 or 2014, none of these pages are linked from anywhere, and "2006 in hard rock" redirects to 2007 in heavy metal music. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be borderline indiscriminate with the loose inclusion criteria. I was going to suggest that maybe it could be cleaned up in normal editing, but then I checked some of the articles, and they have an extreme reliance on one guy's fansite, which does not look like a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jabari Parker's high school career[edit]

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

If I'm not completely mistaken, the article on Jabari Parker already is the largest one on any basketball player we have, which is quite surprising (to say the least) considering he's an 18 years old currently playing his first college season. It seems this guy couldn't even stumble over his own feet without his "biographer" devoting a new section on Parker's improved shoe tieing techniques afterwards. Now, with the establishment of this fork article intended to cover just his high school career, things are getting just too messy. So, this is me waiving a big stop sign. If an article gets too detailed, it needs to be trimmed, not split. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP is pretty good at getting rid of things that are not notable or verifiable. It's probably not as good with controlling verifiable detail. I'm sure this subject passed WP:GNG, so interested on ideas on how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So that my statement is not misunderstood, WP:N says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need separate articles for sections of most people's lives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we don't even need a wikipedia article for most people. What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary fork. Parker's article needs to be trimmed, it has too much needless information. There is no way that Parker's high school career is more notable than LeBron James, or Kobe Bryant, or any other megastar. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a WP article does not mean he is more notable than LeBron James, who has a whole movie about his high school career. Certainly, you don't think a WP article is more important that an feature length film.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This really just appears to be a direct copy of the normal Jabari Parker article with the high school section fleshed out more and the other sections trimmed (but oddly, not completely removed). I'm almost tempted to argue that this could meet CSD A10. -Iago Qnsi 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really unnecessary to have a separate article just for the guy's HS career. There is a lot of excessive detail in this - I'd recommend trimming it back and keeping it in Parker's article, but in a reduced form. The article is too long for people to use it effectively, but the solution isn't to break it into separate articles. That isn't intuitive for readers at all. Rikster2 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of a fork is to have extra detail for those who want it. It would be more logical to see how many pageviews a fork gets before determining it is unnecessary. It might be the case that a lot of people want to read the detail. Why don't we leave the article out there and monitor page views to see what the reader wants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is content that was on WP until yesterday in the Jabari Parker article. In order to make way for future content, I WP:SPLIT it out. I think a lot of things are going to get thrown out with the bathwater in trimming the main article and this is a way to WP:PRESERVE it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten years from now, when Parker is playing in the NBA, who will care if Parker appeared on Good Morning Alerica, or if he trimmed his list of schools to five, or if he played at a more social media dominated era than Derrick Rose? I certainly won't. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They have made a whole movie about LeBron James' high school career. What is wrong with having a WP article about Jabari Parker's.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "They" (i.e. anyone who so chooses) is free to make a whole movie about whatever they want. If that movie gets wide distribution or wins some major awards or otherwise becomes notable, then it warrants a Wikipedia article about it. That some some subject could possibly be meaty enough for a whole movie is not a criterion for warranting a Wikipedia article about it. While More Than a Game appears to be notable in its own right, do we need LeBron James's high school career? I think that topic can be and is covered sufficiently at LeBron James. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - This documentarian style is the problem I have with the article. It's not supposed to document every bit of the recruiting process. Writing an article is about selecting content relevant to the uninformed reader first, and then presenting that in a comprehensive way. A basketball player is notable for, well, playing basketball, so Parker's article should be centered around his actual play. And with basketball being a team sport, that doesn't mean indiscriminately listing tons of individual stats, but referring to his teams' results and his personal contributions. Of course, that includes awards he received and some public statements about him, but we can goodheartedly leave most of the surrounding buzz to the media. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting discussion as Bagumba has stated. This AFD is unfortunate IMO because the Jabari Parker article is more how all Wikipedia articles should be, instead of most of what we have. So my vote is to keep this article, but I think we need to summarize better the high school section of the main Parker article. When it's done, the main article should only have a few paragraphs about his HS career and the reader can go to the HS article for more details. That would reduce concern over the WP:CFORK deletion arguments. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fork bodes to set a really bad precedent, so let's nip it in the bud right here. We do not need to be splitting up biography articles for athletes into sub-articles by period or level. That fosters excessive detail and ushers in real lack of balance across sports articles on Wikipedia. Let's get every biography article in good shape on its own before even think about this. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an article about the rare high school career that is significant enough that the subject was worth writing about in and being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Athletes that are the subject of Sports Illustrated feature stories in high school are rare. What are you actually nipping in the bud. It is not like every player who has a WP article would need to be split. For the rare individual who has the type of career that he has had in which he has accomplished numerous rare feats of excellence, the reader may be interested in reading about that sort of detail. Just like not every player will have a feature film about his high school career, not every player will have sufficient content to create a high school fork.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note that we are not dealing with some overhyped prima donna. We are dealing with a basketball player who is currently on pace to have one of if not the best freshman season in the history of the Atlantic Coast Conference. He has surpassed all of the greatest freshmen in Duke history by many metrics already. Although he has not matched Anthony Davis' accomplishments, he has not disappointed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, your second comment just above is utterly irrelevant. Parker could be averaging 70 points and 30 rebounds a games this year at Duke and it would change nothing about the argument. As for the first point just above, while there may indeed be a wealth of coverage of Parker's high school career, it's certainly less than the coverage we've had of Michael Jordan's NBA career, right? Do we need that article too? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree that the relevant concern is that this is the rare high school career that is significant enough that the subject was worth writing about in and being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated and his Duke numbers are irrelevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written as if you tried to add everything you could find about Parker to it. You even have tweets (which are not reliable, by the way) narrowing the list of prospective schools down to ten. Tony, this is excessive information. I could write an article on Lebron James in 2013 and explain how many points he scored every game and what he did, etc. LeBron's career is followed by the media far more than Jabari Parker's. But wouldn't you say that would be unnecessary, trivial even? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are responding as if this was an article written from scratch. It is a fork of the content in a 60KBish article. When LeBron James gets to 60KB, I would endorse a fork rather than a trimming.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Well-written, well-sourced, but overflowing with utterly trivial content, much of which already appears in the main Jabari Parker article anyway. Detail in an encyclopedia is one thing, but this article takes things to absurd extremes. Delete, then remove the minutiae from the main Jabari Parker article as well. Drpickem (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jabari Parker's Wikipedia page is already overly-detailed. All things being equal, I prefer not to delete well-written, well-sourced articles, but I just don't think any athlete should have articles on individual phases of their career. Orser67 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Parker has extensive coverage, yes, but seriously: the main article needs to be trimmed. This article is, to quote Drpickem, "verflowing with utterly trivial content, much of which already appears in the main Jabari Parker article", and is completely unnecessary. Parker's self-declared "biographer" needs to realize that, by including this minutiae, he is actually doing a disservice to Parker, as the most important / notable aspects are being buried amidst stuff that has no long term effect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination was vandalism, user blocked. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon (Switzerland)[edit]

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

Channel does not exist. Swiss people either get the French or German channel. Finealt (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It clearly does exist, per its own webpage and the info on the interwiki articles. And see also these similar nominations by the same editor: Nick Jr. and Europe, both closed as Keep. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Lugnuts. Also, your edits are disruptive and stop nominating articles for deletion for no good reason. Call me Keenan (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the above - The channel does exist.... AFD'ing an article without a valid reason is considered disruptive!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Finealt, please do WP:BEFORE; the channel obviously exists and has a history all its own. We've talked about this already and because of your past AfD history, this could be considered disruptive. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Y'know, I nominated ITV Encore without looking at WP:BEFORE, I think you should've as well. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per other users. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to draft namespace. This article was moved to the draft namespace (non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 16:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lori (Vadala) Bizzoco[edit]

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

Subject appears non-notable. Article's history shows it has been denied as an AfC once, moved to articlespace by a bot, moved back to userspace by an admin, then moved to article space again by a new (3rd party) user with no previous interaction with the page. C1776M ^Talk 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to have done anything that would establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page has now been moved (by same user mentioned above) to Draft:Lori_(Vadala)_Bizzoco. C1776M ^Talk 22:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I've added the 3rd party citations, including all press and media mentions. I have a total of 27 citations, the majority from high-authority publications. Please review what I have and let me know what other details I need to add.

Thank You,

-Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crbauman (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Crbauman:, I'm sorry, I just don't see it. I thought the Redbook article was going to be a good one, but it turned out to just be a passing mention. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you link here the references you believe show notability? Thanks. C1776M ^Talk 19:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk City[edit]

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

Donetsk Citi is a shopping centre in Artema Street in Donetsk. I used to do my shopping there when I had an apartment in Donetsk. It is very nice (but too expensive to buy china from), and totally non-notable. Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this as a discussion, in part, because it gives a reasonable amount of time for interested users to try to prove notability. By the way, I think its name in Latin script is Donetsk Citi, not Donetsk City.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Well, I just started this as a stub a few hours ago. Its a major shopping center, which appears to be the subject of regular coverage, though my ability to translate Russian sources using Google (and being careful) is limited. E.g., I saw a claim that Forbes.ua rated it the 5th busiest shopping center in Ukraine, but I have not added it yet without finding the best possible sourcing. Although Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) never passed, the size of this center exceeds that proposed guideline of 74,000 sq. m. As for the name, the official site's url is "doncity.com.ua" so I went with City instead of Citi. You can see on the website they have some type of stylized spelling that uses both latin and Cyrillic letters, is that a common thing? Its kind of neat.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent. I don't think we should delete it, if it's properly sourced and written, it should stay. DDima 16:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-promotional and notable. OccultZone (Talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Role Play (Jessi Malay song)[edit]

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

Probably should really be nominating the artist bio Jessi Malay, but for the moment nominating one of the song articles to get a better feel for whether the artist could by any stretch pass notability for musicians and possibly opening an AfD on the bio. The song itself seems to clearly fail Wikipedia:Notability (music), as do On You, Jessi Malay (album), Cinematic (Jessi Malay Song), Here I Am (Jessi Malay song), Last Night on Earth (Jessi Malay song), Bougie (Jessi Malay Song), Like You (Jessi Malay song), Last Night on Earth (Jessi Malay song) etc. so the minimum proposal at this point is merge this song into the bio. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've spent an hour searching for sources to support notability for these articles. The sources that are included are either hoaxes or user-generated biographies and promotional pieces. I have found nothing reliable or independent. Reprise and Warner have no record of working with the artist. And Billboard has no record of any of the songs or albums, let alone any mention of charting. I also recommend placing the subject's article for deletion, was well as the other song articles not mentioned here. Cindy(talk) 09:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Řehák[edit]

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

Contested PROD, rationale was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." which is enough to delete the article in the absence of GNG being met. C 679 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same policies as previous commenters. I think this AfD can be closed early by WP:SNOW at this point. -Iago Qnsi 21:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, has not played in a fully professional league or senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY nor apparently garnered significant reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. These refs aren't reliable sources and it does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red card this article - If he hasn't played in a fully professional football league then he doesn't pass the relevant notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Cooper[edit]

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

None of the sources demonstrate that WP:BIO is met. This is the best available, but that's not sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. (The Forbes source is written by an independent contributor, lacking editorial oversight by Forbes.) Cindy(talk) 09:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zerocoin[edit]

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

Delete, this did not even become a business and was connected to Bitcoin, as a failed proposal should be included in that article at the most but I believe it should be deleted outright. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether it's a company or not, and whether it succeeded or failed, are not grounds for article deletion. Perhaps you meant that the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Agyle (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an interesting technological protocol innovation which is certain to have future implications. It's not just another Bitcoin copy. Cloudswrest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely being interesting and being the subject of some niche media attention does not establish enduring notability. WP:ORG is clear: at least one regional, national or international source of media coverage is necessary, which I cannot find. Wikipedia does not and cannot have articles on each subject of a post on Gizmodo or Forbes, nor can it have an article on every university research project. Articles must have enduring notability, beyond the spurt of coverage that happened on the launch of this product, and the occasional blog or forum post, or random mentions as a "competitor to Bitcoin". Richard Ye^talk 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, based on previous discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerocoin. Would potentially like to review in a year or two. Richard Ye^talk 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, previous secondary source coverage discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerocoin. — Cirt (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huan Shiying Kune Do[edit]

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

No assertion of significance through reliable sources independent of the subject. Reads as promo piece. May be derived from Kajukenbo. Due to the lack of sufficient web results on the subject, it's difficult to ascertain whether this is even a legitimate martial arts style, that is, if anyone practices it. It is worth noting that the article doesn't even attribute the system's creation to anyone in particular. Potentially a hoax. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no attempt to indicate notability or that this is something that was just recently made up. None of the references given appear to have anything to do with the subject.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. I find it strange that until this article was created there were zero Google hits for this martial art. Even if it's not a hoax it fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references or sources for this style. ottawakungfu (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For some days, the article was quite literally a copy & paste of Kajukenbo, slightly rearranged, withe a load of offline book references at the bottom that don't appear to have anything to do with the subject. It speaks in such vague terms about the subject that it could be talking about any martial art you could name, or none. As Papaursa notes above, a few days ago there were zero Google hits for this. What's there now appears to be bot mirrors. No indication of how it might meet WP:GNG. Possibly a WP:HOAX. Ruby Murray 06:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Zero Google hits besides wikipedia mirrors. No notable sources, in fact, there are no sources period. Appears to be WP:HOAX. Valoem ^talk 15:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Deleted. Non-notable, single-purpose software; promotional (e.g. the first paragraph addresses the viewer instead of describing the software). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RHU Program[edit]

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

Non-notable software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. A search revealed no additional significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable software, the article is purely promotional. --Sander Säde 08:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian occult psychedelia[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Google-fu showed no significant news coverage. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a phrase coined in 2012 that nobody seems to have use much since, certainly not often enough to establish it as a notable "genre". Stalwart111 06:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all Italian music magazines speaks about Italian occult psychedelia. Blow Up, Rumore, Repubblica - Xl, Il Mucchio Selvaggio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo769 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to verify that? Stalwart111 23:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...based on the recent edits to the article, I'd really like the eyes of a neutral party who speaks Italian on those external links to tell us whether this is salvageable. My Italian is extremely limited - I basically know how to buy food. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but if you're not italian, if your Italian is extremely limited and if you didn't read Blow Up, Rumore, Xl - Repubblica and other italian magazines, how you can say that "nobody seems to have use much since, certainly not often enough to establish it as a notable "genre"? Also the British journalist Simon Reynolds, one of the best critics in the world, spoke about Italian occult psychedelia on his blog. Buy the magazines linked, so you can verify. Here's a screenshot of Rumore magazine about Italian occult psychedelia http://i57.tinypic.com/2njd45w.jpg

Here's a screenshot of Blow Up magazine http://i57.tinypic.com/294lafn.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo769 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a screenshot of Xl - Repubblica http://it.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=vnz1xf&s=8 Xl is the cultural magazine of Repubblica, the second most read italian newspaper.

I'd like to note that I didn't say those things, User:Stalwart111 did. What I said was that the genre wasn't notable, based on putting those same sites through Google Translate. I asked for an Italian speaker to see if there's something I'm missing, but I don't think I am. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have my doubts about the reliability of the Simon Reynolds source - per WP:SPS, blogs are rarely acceptable, although WP:NEWSBLOG makes an exception for experts in their fields. But I'm not seeing anything that marks him as an expert - I can't find anything that labels him "one of the best critics in the world," as you put it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says that about Reynolds, not me http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Reynolds

And that's Simon Reynolds official blog.Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.70.9.39

Note: For English version, see Simon Reynolds. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian version of wikipedia described him as "one of the most important contemporary critics". You said "I'm not seeing anything that marks him as an expert". Also English version speaks clearly about Simon Reynolds competence.

Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources except for in rare circumstances when a "blog" is simply a technical medium for publishing otherwise reliable news or academic content. In some cases, as pointed out above, a blog post might be considered a reliable source if the publisher is an expert in their field and they are simply repeating what they have said elsewhere in reliable sources or are somehow paraphrasing reliably sourced content. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (including Italian WP) with regard to whether or not someone is an expert. Beyond all of that, it's still one source and not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are required by WP:GNG. Such significant coverage also helps to verify that we're not talking about a narrowly-used neologism. Stalwart111 04:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted links and screenshots to multiple reliable sources, Repubblica - Xl, Blow Up magazine, Rumore and Il Mucchio. They are the main italian music magazines.

Just a request, could you please sign your posts? Just type ~~~~ at the end of each post. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but I'm going to notify WikiProject Italy and WikiProject Music about this discussion. With just the three of us this will go nowhere. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can sign my posts. Following another English source http://louderthanwar.com/italian-occult-psychedelia-new-scene-of-post-punk-trip-weirdness-from-italy/ Matteo769 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want do delete Italian occult psychedelia page? I'ts a codified genre on italian indie-rock. All the references of the page are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madvix (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC) — Madvix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, niche and relatively new but well-established musical (sub)genre. Blow Up, La Repubblica, Rumore, Vice and Il Mucchio Selvaggio surely are all reliable and independent sources, ArteCapital very likely too. Cavarrone 09:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. @pple (☞ talk) 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What your language sounds like to foreigners[edit]

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

Notability not established. Seems like an advert for yet another "viral Youtube video"... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's sourced, but they're fluff news articles that don't really satisfy the GNG to my satisfaction. Could be merged somewhere that documents all the myriad viral videos. If a source discussed something beyond "hey, look at this viral video I heard about", I could see keeping it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "they're fluff" Well, I guess these days just anyone can get appearence on BBC public radio http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01tq6hb not.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEBCRIT -Iago Qnsi 00:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Sara Maria Forsberg could be notable enough for an article. --Stryn (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Internet Phenomena. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast Express[edit]

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

2 year old article, orphan, no refs, hardly updated - suggest it really isn't going to happen. aycliffe^talk 13:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sources that I can find. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources to indicate notability or prove that the plan even exists in the first place. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything to prove its notability, Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- at best it wreaks of WP:CRYSTAL. Without sources, I wonder whehter this is not mere wishful thinking or even WP:OR. I could find nothing relevant on Google. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music massage therapy[edit]

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

This article has existed since July 2012 without any reliable sources cited. While I don't doubt this is a real practice, I couldn't find reliable sources describing "music massage" as a defined therapy distinct from "massage while music is playing". Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Tripathi[edit]

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

I don't see that this person passes GNG. Every reference I can find is simply noting that they are standing for election, which doesn't make them notable. I can find no in-depth sources about the person themselves. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added a notability tag yesterday and have been trying to find substantive sources since then. Alas, without success. Election candidates are not inherently notable, so there isn't really anything here. The article can be recreated and appropriately sourced should he win the seat that he is contesting but until then this appears to be one of a series of Aam Aadmi Party-centric articles recently created with the 2014 Indian general election in mind. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a candidate for an election alone doesn't make someone notable for an article. --RaviC (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KOAN Sound[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. I found http://www.ukfmusic.com/news/2013/02/koan-sound-interview but no other RSes. Even the BBC use this article as their source of information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this myself in my own wording. The BBC always use Wikipedia for their biographies, see here. Strong keep, as your argument is invalid. DJ UnBa lanced 10:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've ensured it now meets both criteria #11 and #12 in case you still have doubts. DJ UnBa lanced 10:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its use in a billboard for a show is not supported and by showing the link to the YouTube video: "BBC Radio 1 Breakfast Show - Nick Grimshaw". YouTube. 2012-09-14. and neither 11 or 12 are met by a portion of one of their songs being used in this way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not from the UK so I may be misinterpreting this, but it seems like they are in regular rotation on at least one BBC Radio station, satisfying criterion #11 and I see in the sources two interviews: one from Border Movement and one from Low life - are these not reliable sources. There's also the aforementioned UKF interview and another feature wherein Skrillex introduces them on MTV.com. It looks like that was also broadcast on MTV News, so those seem to satisfy #1 and #12. They have also released to albums on Inspected records, which redirects to something called "AEI Media" that looks like it might be a notable label. Overall the balance looks pretty strongly in favor of Keep to me. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A regular? What are you on about? First, it's not a singe station, it's a network. An so if they have a talk on some local show in one city and then a chat on another in different city it does not make them notable. They need to be plaid regularly on the network. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 would be a network under American terminology, as it broadcasts nationally (in the US a radio station is typically a single transmitter, but in UK usage it refers to anything broadcasting the same programming). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep, this is band is internationally known and it is not like wikipedia is running out of space. 216.246.230.142 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources in the current article. There is no discussion on the talk page, so I suggest that any concerns be raised there. Unscintillating (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. @pple (☞ talk) 23:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wilkins[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Notability is only asserted for his work at the airport per WP:BLP1E, and this is mostly covered in Old Buckenham Airport. In the references where his name is mentioned, it's a passing mention or brief quote, which doesn't fulfill the requirement for substantial coverage from secondary sources. Ruby Murray 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. The fact that his airport has been de facto foreclosed seems to say it all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of not meeting GNG - coverage in sources is not significant. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Vaughan[edit]

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

I had this tagged as a PROD which was subsequently removed by user:Necrothesp, who correctly pointed out that the criteria is WP:NACTOR. The assertion is that four years on a well known British soap opera qualifies for WP:N. My reading of NACTOR though says that multiple significant roles are required. Also there is only one source which fails WP:RS. A quick Google turned up no RS sources indicating anything about him. I don't think he meets WP:N right now. But if there is a consensus in favor of giving him a pass on the basis of his four year role in Emmerdale I will accept that. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Feldmann. He hasn't had multiple significant roles, in fact he seems to have fallen back to complete obscurity after his appearances in Emmerdale. Sionk (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that playing a single major role in a major British soap for four years does qualify for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4 years on a popular soap is more than enough. Szzuk (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But what about sources? Or are we just chucking RS and V? Right now this article doesn't meet the bare minimum standard of having at least one RS source for all BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 15 million Emmerdale viewers who will say "Oh I remember him". If you want to play at finding sources I'm not interested. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an unsourced BLP. I have found a few trivial mentions of him (for instance, saying that he appeared on the programme), but nothing that is significant or comprehensive as required by the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- I would also not object to the Redirect option suggested below. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Not enough reliable sourcing to construct a BLP, just to establish the actor played a particular role, which is covered in the suggested target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I am able to tell the article fails WP:BLP and more specifically WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. I have not seen an argument for keeping it that doesn't boil down to WP:IAR. While I am prepared in some cases to overlook some minor deficiencies in criteria for inclusion, chucking all of our standards for someone who hasn't shown up on any RS sources or as far as we know had any meaningful roles before or since the one mentioned, is a bridge too far for me. I reaffirm my delete vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with a redirect as suggested by many of the other editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann per comments above for redirect. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Sources haven't been found that would allow him to pass the notability guidelines. Since he seems to be primarily known for playing one role, having a redirect to that role seems like it would be appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or, failing that, delete. Per apparent lack of reliable sources to support a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. No reliable sources to support an article. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources which meet WP:V (see my comments at the DRV) but WP:N is a long ways off from what I can find. So redirect is the right outcome. I'm fine with the suggested target. Hobit (talk) 16:11, 4 April 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 Norther. Consensus was that the article did not meet notability, but there direct support for merging, and few if any specific concerns about the content save for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 03:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord (demo)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about this demo in independent reliable sources. No charting, major award, reviews. Just another demo. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted on the articles talk page. it is relevant here duffbeerforme (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: My opinion is that while the article lacks any good sources it does complete the encyclopedia's body of information about Norther, a band worthy of an article and with enough sources in existence and independent notability for it's article to become of a decent quality should someone take the time to do the work. It would be better if its content could be integrated into the band's article, but since the format followed by the later (and most band articles on wikipedia for that matter) does not really allow that, I oppose its deletion or redirection. Tinss (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was already deleted once for lack of notability. If it continues to be recreated, then it will need to be salted. Worthiness has nothing to do with it. Notability is the standard by which we judge applicability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work on this article has been restarted at User:Tinss/Deleted/Warlord (demo), which I have histmerged in here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, but I simply copied the article just in case I would like to get back to it later. Truth be told though, a quick search on the web did not lead to any more information than which I could find on http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Norther/Warlord/34479, so I do not think I'll ever be able to make this article Wikipedia material. Tinss (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Norther, although I'm not sure that Encyclopedia Metallum would normally be considered a reliable source. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect This appears to be an easy merge. Unscintillating (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD G4, previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jafari[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (Prod removed by anon who feels "viewership alone makes him (notable)" and "desire for a page like this is evident from at least one person trying to look up details of him".) SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable Youtuber. Can't find anything. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PSSC Labs[edit]

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

Please delete this spammy and non-neutral article for two reasons.

Reason 1:

WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing by Alexandra Goncharik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

She has failed to state outright on the talk page that she is a paid editor.

If you'd like proof that she is paid, please see <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.freelancer.is/projects/Article-Rewriting-Article-Submission/Replace-existing-WIKIPEDIA-page-maintain.html>. On this cached page from a freelancer marketplace, Ms. Goncharik wrote, in part:

"I have considerable experience in editing and submitting Wikipedia articles (5+ years), following its policies and guidelines. My proven track record consists of about 700 contributions, including creation of new articles about people, companies, their services and products. I really love doing this. My contributions log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexandra_Goncharik (I can send you some examples of my articles in Wikipedia, if needed)."

Please see also Ms. Goncharik's freelancer profile.

Undisclosed paid editing is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. Personally, I feel that even disclosed paid editing makes Wikipedia a worse place for the world to get information. Still, if you feel that you must do paid editing, then I request that you please not write new articles. Instead, get Wikipedians to write new articles for you. See WP:BPCOI.

Dear admins: Please delete this article per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, which disallows the writing of promotional articles, and per WP:NOPAY.

Reason 2:

ISTM that this company may fail WP:AUD, which says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Well, Ms. Goncharik has shown us no SIGCOV by The New York Times or by BusinessWeek or by any such mainstream source.

WP:42 says you need at least several mainstream sources. If you do find several such sources, please paste links below.

Dear admins: Please delete the article per WP:AUD.

Thanks for stopping by! —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:AUD per Hoovers. The who, why, how and when of the article's creation is utterly, totally and absolutely beside the point if it passes WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NPOV which this article appears to do. Whoever created it could have done a better job with the refs given that there are other readily available refs which are not broken or depend on the internet archives, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the creator was paid, she mentioned only good things about the company. I haven't checked whether or not any bad things have happened: lawsuits, convictions, notable failures, unreliable products, or such. But if any bad things have happened, surely she omitted them from the article. I think that we should delete the article and wait for an unbiased editor to come and recreate it, including both the good and any bad. Still, if you are sure that the article passes WP:NPOV, then I ask: How is it possible for an unbalanced article to pass WP:NPOV? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have proof that the article is unbalanced? I saw nothing negative written about the company during my search for additional cites. If there are negatives, then please point them out and/or add them. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. The references listed are mostly not Reliable Sources. Hoover information is self-supplied and does not contribute to notability IMO. A Seattle Times article gives the company one sentence. There is an article at genomeweb but I don't know if that qualifies as a Reliable Source. Some of their individual supercomputer installations have gotten coverage, and there is some trade-magazine coverage, but I don't find this to add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep conditional upon some verification of the sources. The most reliable seeming sources are the books, and I don't have those books - can anyone verify that their servers are mentioned? The article doesn't read as particularly promotional to me and at a glance it certainly seems like it passes WP:AUD to me. Also, whether or not the person who wrote the article was paid is irrelevant. Even if it's got promotional content if it's notable just cut it down to a stub and let someone expand it. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erlan Karin[edit]

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

Unless there is something new, he does not seem to meet WP:POLITICAN DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are mentions, but I do not see substantial coverage from reliable sources of this subject. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was leader (secretary) of the biggest political party in Kazakhstan. Google search confirms that there are many mentions in media. The only problem is that all sources are in Russian and Kazakh. --Mheidegger (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not make this claim, nor does it appear to be true. This English language source gave his title as "Secretary for Strategic Development of Nur Otan Party" and his immediate successor in the job was described as "acting secretary on ideology of the Nur Otan Party"". Still, potentially notable, but reliable sources required, despite difficulties presented by language barriers. Note: his name is also transliterated as "Yerlan Karin". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will later add new reliable sources in Kazakh. --Mheidegger (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs a rewrite (at present reads like a CV), but the person is definitely notable, which a quick google books search shows (in English, btw): "Erlan Karin, a high-ranking official in the ruling Nur Otan Party, ..." [5], "We can agree with Kazakhstan expert Erlan Karin, who says that the..." [6], "As Dr. Erlan Karin, the director of the influential Agency for Political Research in Kazakhstan, put it early in 2000..." [7], "Thus, the Secretary of the ruling Nur Otan Party, Yerlan Karin..." [8], "Yerlan Karin, a rising star among Kazakhstan's geopolitical pundits..." [9], etc. Even if the current state of an article isn't that good, a quick google search is advisable before initiating an AfD. --Soman (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The five references above (and that is all) are in passing and do not treat the subject in depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Сause you see only references in English. But there are many references in Russian and kazakh that do treat the subject in depth. --Mheidegger (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are references in other languages, please give them--especially Russian, which many of us can read at least a little. I point out that the positions held qould not normally be regarded as intrinsiclaly notable, unless secretary was head of the party, but I do not think that was the case here. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His positions seem to make him notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His position does not make him notable per se (see DGG's comment above). The article is filled with WP:OR and refs are still insufficient. This AfD has been relisted twice, so there's been ample time to add passable refs, if they were to exist. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I should add that, of the 2 "keep" !votes, one is unsupported assertion, and the other is made on the basis of a few trivial mentions. Again, this AfD has been going on for almost a month, so it is very likely that if substantive sources were to exist, they would have appeared already. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The number of people involved in the discussion is a little thin for a definitive close, but it's already been on AfD for a month, so I don't see much point in relisting. The arguments seem to boil down to "the topic is a good one, but the article lacks sufficient reliable sources". So, I'm going to call this a delete, but with no prejudice for recreation if the new version is better sourced. If anybody wants a copy of the old article for reference, I'll be happy to userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved this to Draft:Line of succession to the former Ethiopian throne per user request. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Ethiopian throne[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. Please note that the Crown Council of Ethiopia explicitly dissociates itself from the principal of primogeniture at its website http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/ and does not accept any line of succession as presented in this article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obviously encyclopedic material, no cause for deletion which is an extreme remedy for sending the Ethiopian Line of Succession down the memory hole (it seems every other country with a former monarchy is allowed to have an article for line of succession.) It is also worth noting that this is in no way covered by "Original research" which is a wikipedia house term used strictly for "something that wikipedians made up with no source". This does not fall into that category; in fact the rules for the Ethiopian Line of Succession (as duly mentioned) are explicitly and unambiguously stated in the Imperial Ethiopian Constitution of 1955 and this was not made up by any wikipedians. We basically have to keep this one, anyone's personal feelings about it aside. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query:In principle I agree that a recognized pretenders' line of succession can be encyclopedic, but in light of the nominator's comment above that the Crown Council does not accept this line, are there any sources to support the content on this page? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the nominator found any such statement from the CCE dissociating itself on that website, it is not on the mainpage he linked and I find it rather hard to imagine them actually saying anything of that sort... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the "Crown Council" button: "Historically, although Emperors of Ethiopia have nominated their candidate for successor as Crown Prince, it has never been the case in the country that the process of primogeniture — right of succession going to the eldest son — has been automatically accepted. Indeed, the succession of the eldest son to the Throne has proven the exception rather than the rule." ... "the Crown Council's function in endorsing or ratifying the elevation of a proper candidate was clearly spelled out in the Constitution as adopted in 1955". See the quotes from Richard Pankhurst (academic): (A Social History of Ethiopia. p.27) "Though the principle of primogeniture was to some extent operative the throne could normally be inherited by any of the ruler's male offspring." Also, compare with other African monarchies such as Lesotho, Swaziland, Ashanti, Buganda, etc. These are elective monarchies not hereditary ones. Salvageable information from here can be merged into Emperor of Ethiopia#Succession without the need for a separate article. DrKiernan (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are tragically misunderstanding. The ECC does not "dissociate" itself from anything with that observation. The 1955 (and 1931) Imperial Constitution defines the Order of Succession as well as the Crown Council and while the Communist Derg claimed for themselves the authority to rescind it, their means of doing this is regarded as illegitimate and extra-Constitutional to say the least and the Crown Council still operates and exists only because of that Constitution. What you see there is not the principle of the Crown Council, it is a description of the way things historically were BEFORE they were spelled out in that Constitution, before the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie I. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says explicitly: "The Crown Council ... is today ... the body which is constitutionally-charged with presenting the selected candidate for accession to the Throne for approval by the Ethiopian people. ... Today, the Crown Council has made it clear that it will not present any nomination for succession to the Throne. ... At all times in Ethiopian history, succession has been required to be approved, either by the church or by other powers." I don't see how else one is to interpret "today" and "at all times". There are no sources for the line as given in this article. It is therefore original research. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the contradiction? They are constitutionally appointed with ensuring that the candidate is eligible according to the explicit rules in that same Constitution, for example they have to make sure he is Orthodox and his wife is Orthodox. The Line of Succession according to these rules still exists and is maintained (and is encyclopedic, and not concocted by wikipedians), however, the council clearly does not find it expedient to offer anyone for the vacant throne in this time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/ even relevant? The article doesn't list it as a reference. In fact, it doesn't list any references at all (though, if it did, WP:PRIMARY comes to mind regarding ethiopiancrown.org). Other than the nominator's original comment, the rest of this discussion seems neither here nor there if the article doesn't meet WP:V. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more references. OccultZone (Talk) 10:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage and reliable sourcing, which are both necessary. Neutrality^talk 23:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, making it fail WP:V in addition to WP:N. Sandstein 11:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not actually unsourced, because it cites two Ethiopian constitutions. This is a primary source. There is additional material that doesn't appear to be something that would be written in a constitution. There is no reasonable way for readers to verify the information in this article. This appears to be a topic that we want on Wikipedia, so Userfy or Incubate are suggested. Unscintillating (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no debate about what would "appear to be something that would be written" in the 1955 Revised Imperial Constitution, we have the complete official text in Amharic, French and English to verify that's what it indeed says. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other country's monarchy or former monarchy being singled out for this "does it really exist" snobbery by deletionists, I think I will raise this as a case of WP:BIAS. I'm not assuming good faith here whatsoever; that's gone right out the window now because the true reasons one would wish to censor this information are transparently political. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, I think is a potentially encyclopedic topic, but what is the source for the list of names? I couldn't find one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ComicBase[edit]

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

ARticle been around since 2005 but only refs are one blog and its own web-site. It looks like a big data-base but size doesn't equal notability and as it stands this fails notability criteria. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found several sources about the software (besides the Gizmodo ref already in the article):

MacUser, 1995 Google Books
MacWorld, 2001 macworld.com
PC Magazine, 2004 Google books pcmag.com
PC Magazine, 2005 pcmag.com
Creative Mac, 2005 creativemac.com
PCWorld, 2009 pcworld.com
CNET staff review, 2009 cnet.com
"CBG, Comic Base Join to Create World's Most Comprehensive Comics Databases." Comics Buyer's Guide. Aug. 27, 1999, p. 6. (Not found online, but referenced in Comic Books and Comic Strips in the United States Through 2005)
"Comic Base 7.0 More Portable Than Ever." Comics Buyer's Guide." Oct. 25 2002, p.42 (Ditto)

So it seems there are a fair amount of third-party sources discussing it.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm leaning toward keep. It seems as though it was the first software distributed on Blu Ray, and it's got multiple professional reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the pcworld ref mentioned above is significant coverage in a reliable source, and along with the other sources, notability is established for this software. Refs should be added to the article. Dialectric (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of references here. The article just needs to be improved. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 11:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atieh Hassani[edit]

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

Non-notable person. None of the provided references can be considered a reliable source, being either self-published blogs and Youtube channels, Wikipedia pages, or pages having nothing at all to do with this subject. No other reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources insufficient. Total absence on Google Scholar, which is unusual for even a minor academic. Given that she works in the UK, it is unlikely that this is caused by problems with the orthography of her name. Also note that her bio has been speedily deleted from the Farsi WP for non-notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks more like it should be a case for WP:GNG than for WP:PROF (it is more about activism than scholarly impact) but there are no reliable sources that would show notability that way. The one source listed in the article that looks like it could be reliable, an article in the Guardian, doesn't mention the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A NN scholar engaged in pseudo-history and involved in running organisations that are presumably NN (as they are redlinks). She appears to be promoting the false proposition that Offa of Mercia, a king (not an emperor) had diplomatic relations with the Arab world because his coins had an Arabic inscription on them, one that he would have considered a blasphemy agaisnt Jesus Christ if he had known what it meant. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orthopraxy[edit]

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

The differences given between "orthopraxy" and orthodoxy are unclear, and even contradictory in some sections. Also, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "orthopraxy" only as, "The correction of physical deformities by means of mechanical appliances," (http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/orthopraxy).

Seems like a good candidate for Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Holdek (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect the medical definition is new – I'd guess less than three centuries old – whereas the religious one is probably more than 15 centuries old. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the differences are unclear we should make them clearer, not delete the entry. I came across this entry writing a paper on tantric mysticism, and found it useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:AB00:432:226:8FF:FEEA:C350 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep This is a well-known topic in religion; see for instance, Ritual : Perspectives and Dimensions or The Experience of God: An Invitation to Do Theology. "orthopraxy" gets 3,950 hits at GScholar and "orthopraxis" gets 2,720 Gscholar hits. The topic seems highly notable. The article could use some better sources, but all the problems mentioned are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitively. Orthopraxy is an analytic concept unto itself in religious studies and theology. The concepts being unclear isn't a reason for deletion; it is, however, a reason for improving the article's clarity. Blurpeace 01:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs a thorough rewrite, but the concept seems to be a notable one based on the sources located by User:Mark viking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Trust[edit]

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

Non-notable company with very few reliable sources outside press releases. Written by a possible single-purpose account. Vectro (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and not supported by sufficient independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Trust is being targeted for defending itself from false and slanderous statements posted online. Kiss Trust asked for the information to be deleted from the offending post and in retaliation has been met with this action. The current post is in the same informational vein as Legal Zoom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.172.183 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note that 50.204.172.183 resolves to a Comcast Business connection in Warrenton, VA, which matches kisstrust.com's WHOIS record. Jpatokal (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page must stand on its own merits, whether or not it was tagged for deletion by anyone familiar with the request Kiss Trust made for another website to remove allegedly slanderous (libelous?) content. It also must meet notability guidelines whether or not the page for Legal Zoom meets them, which is controversial (see its edit history). Tripleahg (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE

I looked at this WIKI post a few minutes ago and there were facts concerning Kiss Trust threatening Mr. Money Mustache's blog. I have seen copies of the letters that are doing this. Now the WIKI site says "Kiss Trust has been accused of making frivolous legal takedown requests and legal threats against web site owners for users commenting negatively about their business." They have not been accused, they are guilty--they have threatened. This site was originally written by just one person and it does sound like advertising. Nothing here is helpful to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.37.35 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few mentions of this company and its services on financial advice websites is insufficient. The Hoover's report on this company is a bare shell. There is very little, if any, coverage from true independent sources. The references provided in the article are from PR companies and are written like advertisements (as is the article itself). I did a search on "Kiss Trust" to turn up more reliable sources, however, I could not locate any. The legal spat between this company and one online community is non-notable as well, even if it makes the news, because Wikipedia is not a record of all newsworthy events; there must be enduring notability, and I'm reasonably sure that this dispute will be forgotten in a few weeks or months. Unless multiple independent sources are found to establish notability for this company, this article should be deleted. Richard Ye^talk 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two of the sources are straight up press releases (including the one attributed to the ironically-named Mel Fabrikant). This entire article is written as an advertisement and has not demonstrated its notability. Fmitterand (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, as demonstrated by Richard Ye. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Trust is being legitimately exposed because they are guilty of making frivolous legal threats, and for writing puffery and whitewashing criticism on their own wikipedia page, in violation of Wikipedia conflict of interest rules. The weaseling statement "Kiss Trust asked for the information to be deleted from the offending post" is misleading: provide evidence of who they asked, and what did they ask them to do. They certainly did not write anything on the talk page asking for consensus. The person they asked to directly edit the page in violation of wikipedia rules may well have been an employee or a paid agent, it was certainly not the wikipedia community. Kiss Trust appears to be paying agents to edit their page directly without discussing it on the talk page, and then trying to play the victim. 92.108.60.150 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Streisand effect doesn't make this company notable. Article meets the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chabota Kanguya[edit]

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

Egregious abuse of Wikipedia as a social networking site. MER-C 11:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete Emeraude (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, defunct website, not notable in the first place. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gidsy[edit]

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

Website does not exist anymore, company has been taken over by GetYourGuide. Gnom (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ramsey (artist)[edit]

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

notability. References don't prove notability Beatbox12 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering the notability argument; there are no references to previous art exhibitions. No references to awards or accolades received as an artist. No mention of notable galleries featuring artist's work in permanent collection. (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Beatbox12[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist does not pass any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Lucia Earthquake 2011[edit]

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

Insignificant event & does not meet our suggested minimum notability guidelines. Just not much to say about this one. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Small earthquake in St Lucia, none dead may not be the most scintillating headline - but it does seem to meet minimal notability guidelines. JASpencer (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response There doesn't appear to be any effects of this moderate shock. No one was injured and no damage was reported. There are large and damaging earthquakes that affect the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the Caribbean Plate, but this small shock is not one of them. We do have articles on some of those events, like the 2007 Martinique, 1918 San Fermin, and the 2010 Haiti earthquakes. Those are necessary articles, but this one just doesn't merit a stand alone article because it lacks encyclopedic value. It might be worth mentioning in another article for a nearby earthquake if a journal article mentions it, but it seems there isn't anything more to be said about it because I can't find any more reliable sources for it. This exists, but it only underscores the lack of notability about the shock. This insurance-based report (it is not a scientific article) states intensities of II–IV were reported. Pretty light.

The eastern Caribbean has seen quite a bit of small to moderate events like this one in the last five hundred years, as indicated by this 1964 report from the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, which describes similar small shocks of up to intensity V that do little to no damage, but there are no scientific articles that are dedicated to this event. We are still needing to write articles on some of the earthquakes that have occurred in this region. The 1690 Antigua earthquake (Intensity IX) and the December 4, 1954 Trinidad earthquake (Intensity VIII) are both examples of this.

Our notability guidelines are not the final word of course, but I think they do a reasonable job at weeding out the unnecessary items, and if we go point by point for this event, we have the following:

Magnitude 7 or greater: No
Intensity of VII or greater: No
Deaths: No
Discussed in scientific papers: No
Unusually large event in area of low seismicity: No. In fact just the opposite. It's a small event in a tectonically active area that generates very large events.
Mentioned in mainstream media: Yes, as a news item

Dawnseeker2000 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to clean up the article, but it fails WP:EVENT. No injuries, no damage and no evidence of lasting effect. The article's only claim to notability is not supported by reliable sources. RS coverage appears to be limited to the news cycle within the region. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Love[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state other reasons why the subject might be presumed notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are all clearly primary, either the subject's own writings or interviews with him. Fundamentally, you can't make yourself notable just by talking or writing more, no matter what you have to say. It takes other people writing or talking about you. Googling turned up nothing useful. Further, though not a reason to delete, I note that virtually all the content has been contributed by a small number of SPAs, suggesting the article may be just exactly as autobiographical as it appears to be. Msnicki (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at one of the interviews (ARS Technica, 23 January 2004) and it says about the topic, "...one of the most prominent Linux kernel hackers of today..." This is a WP:RS secondary source. This refutes the statement in the nomination that "Sources offered are all clearly primary..." Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interview can be a secondary source to the extent it offers the interviewer's own thoughts and analysis. Think 60 Minutes, for example, and the way they'll often weave an interview into a story that involves their own investigation, fact-checking and additional reporting. But an interview that merely asks questions and reports the subject's answers verbatim is not. An introductory remark like the one you've cited might possibly be secondary, but only that remark. One possibly secondary remark does not make the whole interview secondary.

And what exactly is the value of that remark? Interviews often start off with some boilerplate biographical material typically supplied by or informally negotiated with the subject and it's often somewhat puffed. After all, editors want readers so of course they hype their stories. It's not like they're going to say, "We don't know who he is but we decided to ask him some questions." As these intros go, this particular remark is on what I'd call the trivial end of the scale.

Finally, this isn't even an article about the subject, which is what WP:GNG asks of us. They're not talking about the subject. They're not interviewing him as a famous person and wanting to know about him. They're talking about the Linux kernel and they're talking to him because he can supply technical information. I respect your opinion but mine is that this is still a primary source, like most interviews. Msnicki (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - according to a colleague, he's published how-to manuals from 'the best' such book publisher. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to pass WP:GNG based on a few interviews. The secondary guideline at WP:NAUTHOR #3 also applies, and he seems to weakly pass there as well (as a body of work, his Linux books are apparently well-received). Article needs cleanup as too many primary sources are used. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiyalal Ram Jaiswar[edit]

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

fails wp:politician and otherwise not notable Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient evidence of notability given, and the Find Sources template doesn't lead me to believe that it will be supplied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here indicates notability according to any of our guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Election candidates are not inherently notable and there seems to be nothing else that would suffice for notability at this time. The article can be recreated should he be elected to the Lok Sabha later this year. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was restore redirect to Mathematical optimization. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optimization theory[edit]

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

Spam/Self-promotion Aziraphael (talk|contribs) 10:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD not needed, should restore redirect as seen here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect per SarekOfVulcan. Redirect to Mathematical optimization was hijacked for a non-notable website. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical optimization. Why am I not surprised that an SEO website would hijack a Wikipedia page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spa in Thailand[edit]

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

Sourced almost entirely to promotional websites like this one, this essay doesn't seem to have a lot of encyclopaedic value. Tourism operators within Thailand seem to be the only "sources" providing this subject with any coverage. A line or two in Tourism in Thailand should cover it but this is an infinitesimally small portion of the country's wider (and very notable) tourism industry. Wikivoyage might want some of this. Stalwart111 10:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice for re-creation with proper content. I would say this is a potentially notable topic about which an encyclopaedic article could be written, but the article as it stands is entirely promotional and I don't see anything that could be salvaged here.--Paul_012 (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and Paul_012. This is a total mess of lists of trivia mixed into word salad. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Bhilare[edit]

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

Director/producer/writer of few short films which have screened in some festivals fails WP:DIRECTOR. Can't find any good in-dept sources to write anything at all about the subject. All the content is added by User:Prashantleela who is WP:SPA. Also the user's talk page shows various notices of deletion of various articles/images related to his films. They seem to be using Wikipedia for promotion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage by any reliable source is provided or to be found. The same can be said of the couple of utterly obscure short films that he has made. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no commercial sceenings, no awards, and no major film festivals, per WP:TOOSOON. When he gets into Cannes Film Festival we could re-consider. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westport Bombings (2011-2012)[edit]

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

Only refernence is wikipedia for this group. Poorly written hoax connects seperate events that, from references given and searches are unrelated (only feature is they happened in Westport. Possible WP:BLP violations as those contected in references and article are now connected to this "sectarism" violence, possibly even deserves a quick delete nom Murry1975 (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom and also not notable per WP:LASTING. This story was news at one time, but Wikipedia is not a news service. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Hoax. Snappy (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While it is probably true that these incidents have been falsely connected, I think it's a little inaccurate to label the article a hoax. All the incidents clearly occurred. A hoax usually refers to something that has been entirely made up. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All incidents DID NOT clearly occur. The intro states that "..killed one member of An Garda Síochána" (police force). This never happened, no police officer was killed in Westport. Next it says, "A Unionist paramilitary group, the Westport Unionist Force", no such group exists. Not only is it a hoax, its a very obvious hoax which doesn't merit further discussion and should be speedily deleted. Snappy (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the details may be inaccurate, but the incidents did occur. This is not a hoax. A hoax is when the incident has been entirely made up. This is more likely to be POV rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "bombings" where smoke bombs being let-off, one Garda was stabbed in an unrelated incendent, now here is a blatant BLP violation. So no "bombings" happened and no one ws killed there. So the "incidents clearly occurred"? No they ddnt occur. If thisn is not a hoax artcile, I really cant see what would be. Murry1975 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, have you actually read the article? No, the incidents did NOT occur. The second line of the article says a Garda (police officer) was killed in Westport, this DID NOT happen. This article made it up, therefore it is a hoax. End of. Snappy (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, but sadly I don't think you've read any of what I wrote above. Did the garda die? No, he didn't. Was he stabbed? Yes, he was. Was the attack on him therefore a hoax? No, it was not. Did all these attacks happen? Yes, they did. Are they therefore hoaxes? No, they are not. I'm not disputing that the details are grossly inaccurate. I'm not disputing that the linking of them is OR. I'm not disputing that this article probably needs deleting. What I am disputing is your claim that it's a hoax. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Mob Figaz, and salting as recommended below. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AP.9[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried speedy delete :: someone speedy-deleted the article, but is he notable after all? (If the verdict is "delete", best redirect it to Mob Figaz.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mob Figaz: All I can really find for him are mentions of his now infamous dalliance with Ice T's wife Coco. That isn't enough to warrant an article and AP.9 hasn't really received any individual coverage outside of that. A redirect will be best in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- AP.9 (rap artist) currently redirects to Mob Figaz. If this article is kept that redirect should probably be retargetted to it.
- АПРОТ, which currently redirects to this article, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 27#АПРОТ. Your input there is welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "АПРОТ" has been deleted at RfD -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mob Figaz and SALT the redirect and AP.9 (rapper) to avoid these constant recreations. The only coverage he received as a solo artist was Ice T/Coco debacle, and that was not even that notable. Affairs do not make people notable enough for encyclopedia articles. STATic message me! 17:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment would salting AP.9 (rap artist) also occur? If the others are salted, this should be as well. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is deleted, consideration should be given to deleting Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AP.9 (or salting it as well). -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is to be redirected, consideration should be given to pointing "AP.9" to the disambiguation page AP9 (while leaving "AP.9 (rapper)" and "AP.9 (rap artist)" pointing to "Mob Figaz") -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 09:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted this because apparently I closed the first one years ago, and it had almost as equally small of a turnout for an AfD, plus I want someone else to close it (if anyone else is keeping an eye on these old afds...). Worst case, I'll default to the redirect if it finds me again in about a week-n-change. --slakr^\ talk / 09:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mob Figaz. Outside of the group, this is a biography of one scandal. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep: Nomination withdrawn. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhan Chirikkunnu[edit]

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

Article Buddhan Chirikkunnu is about a up-coming movie which is not showing any significant it maybe possible in future this article can be useful on Wikipedia. WOWIndian ^Talk 08:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. WOWॐIndian ^Talk 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI don't know why User:WOWIndian has nominated it for deletion. The reason he stated above is a big foolishness! How does an Upcoming film's significance vanishes? Can you clearly state which is the policy this article is violating? I've given all reliable references from the Newspapers such as The Hindu, The New Indian Express and Times of India.--Joseph 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Fails WP:NF. This article is talking about a movie which is not even released. News like movie, song and politics have high trends somehow it is a part of media. It is requested that please read the third section of Wikipedia:Notability (films). WOWIndian ^Talk 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the duplicate delete !vote above (your nomination is taken as a delete !vote). However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability (films), "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow.". The guidelines (i) significant coverage in (ii) reliable (iii) secondary sources (iv) independent of the subject. It being significant is a weak point here, it would seem. What purpose does it serve? It serves the purpose of gathering enough redundancy for writing a small article, whose each statement would be verifiable; but in my view, existing coverage sufficiently verbose for starting a small article. Gryllida (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find that two sources, Indian Express and The Hindu, are reliable, and are enough to be able to give a verbose, accurate, verifiable account of the article subject. I would oppose deletion here, as I see notability secondary; it's just a way to say "I don't think we can trust your sources enough to write accurate verifiable information about your article subject"; this time, I think I can. Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing in English is sparse, but there's enough out there to scrape past WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i dont understand why is it even nominated for deletion Irvin calicut (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for deletion since no references were found, I request you to use the tool provided above to find the sources and let me know if you see any reference about this article. WOWIndian ^Talk 12:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, as I mention below - at the time you nominated this, there were already 3 reliable sources. I'm not sure why you say there were no references found? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with respect to the nominator, at the time of his nomination of this article, there were 3 reliable sources provided (Times of India, The Hindu, The New Indian Express). For me, this shows enough interest in this film from reliable sources to meet the GNG. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The references you are naming Phantomsteve, the Times of Indian, The Hindu and Indian Express have very less or minor information about the topic and the contents of the article. In the case of times of India it is taking about Playback singer G Venugopal turns music director and in the case of indian express it is taking about A Comedian's Tribute to Chaplin. WOWIndian ^Talk 13:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, the Times of India is a minor mention, but The Hindu has 5 paragraphs, while The Indian Express has 2 paragraphs about this film. This clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines. I understand the idea behind your nomination - most new, not-yet-released films do not generally meet notability - they generally have a sentence or two written about them, not enough to establish notability. In this case, however, there is enough interest from reliable sources to indicate that it meets the basic level of notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm afraid to ask why Mr.WOWIndian is showing much willingness to delete this article? I wrote this article based on info I got from Newspapers. And I've given all reliable references I've got there. Also, since I'm a Malayali‎ I know more about this film. Because I've read about this film from Deepika_(newspaper)‎ and other Malayalam-language Newspapers.--Joseph 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celedón[edit]

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

No sources on Celedón, Celedon, or es:Celedón. I'm also having some trouble tracking any down on google. The page should probably be deleted now, until reliable sources can be established. If it's a "tradition", then sources probably exist somewhere, but without them there's no way to establish notability. — Jess· Δ ♥ 12:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume that when the nominator refers to having trouble tracking down sources on Google, they are talking about reliable, substantive ones - I rapidly found half a dozen guidebooks giving this a passing mention. The one good source I found on a rapid search was this one in Spanish, but there could well be others (though ones in Basque may be particularly difficult to identify. If, however, there aren't the sources for a standalone article, a mention of this (and the festival which it opens) in Vitoria-Gasteiz would be appropriate (oddly, there is what appears to be a photograph of this event in that article but nothing else). PWilkinson (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G11) and salt--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Patrick W. Hsu, MD FACS[edit]

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

The contributor removed earlier speedy deletion templates even after several warnings by many valuable contributors on Wikipedia. The notification can be found on his talk page WOWIndian ^Talk 08:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt Spamicle that's been persistently re-created by a COI account. JNW (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Colors[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability. No reviews in the usual places, etc. Note that there is a 2nd film called Hidden Colors, The Triumph of Melanin, which comes up in searches on "Hidden Colors". Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like Triumph of Melanin is actually a sequel to HC and there's a third film in the works. Maybe we could turn this into a series page if there's enough coverage for all of them? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching for sources was a little difficult because of the rather large amount of non-usable sources. However I found just enough to rationalize having an article for the series as a whole and have edited the article to cover the series. I did include the Kickstarter links, which were only there to show how the films were funded. I have no true problem with them being removed, if anyone has an issue with them. The article will undoubtedly need to be fleshed out further from the sources I added, but I pretty much just added them to have them on the page first (to show notability) and then for someone to use them to flesh out the article further sometime in the future. I'll try to get back to it if I can. In any case, the coverage is light but I think it's just enough for the series as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, the first link you added states as fact that "in essence, Africans/Moors ran things globally and were VERY instrumental in establishing nations and civilizations around the world." and advertises where to buy it. The second link is about the 2nd film and is pretty similar. It's also used to back the statement "Other film topics include the scientific investigation of melanin." even though it doesn't mention Melanin, and makes the claim", we built this country and were the first inhabitants of this land." I don't think these are appropriate sources and certainly don't make the article meet our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about link from The Source? The second link is to the New Hampshire Register, which wasn't really sourcing anything in the second film. Now the thing about the Source is that I put it there mostly just as a placeholder because I didn't know where else to put it in the article. It was a review, but since I didn't have a review section as of yet I just kind of left it there for the time being. The Source is a legit magazine and a review from them would be usable as a RS. As far as I can tell this was done by a regular writer for the magazine, as I can't see where they do signups (ie, anyone can write anything) ala HuffPo or iCNN. I've moved the source elsewhere in the section, but I do think it's usable. As far as the first one by CBS goes, I debated about that one but it is posted on CBS and the talk show the director was on seems to be run through CBS Atlanta, so it's run through a reliable enough source. If you can show that the talk show doesn't meet guidelines, then I have no true issue with it being removed. I think that it's kind of borderline, but I think it passes RS. They do endorse the DVD, but I don't think that they'd be considered advertising or a primary source per se. It's not standard-standard in every place but it's not abnormal for someone to post a link to someone's website. Normally people just hide it a little better by linking it to someone's name when you scroll your mouse over the words. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. @pple (☞ talk) 19:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debootstrap[edit]

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

Minor system component of Debian with no independent notability and only one non-affiliated (?) source: a message on a mailing list. I tried PROD because of the snowball clause, but an IP user removed the PROD.

There are lots of blogs and the like explaining debootstrap on the web, but none that establishes it "as significant in its particular field" (WP:NSOFT). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it has +298,000 results on Google. Just in case we have it as a draft. However I don't agree with you, it's significant same as Debian Almquist shell. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT wants reliable, third-part sources, not WP:GOOGLEHITS. I actually checked the Google results, and DuckDuckGo results, and I got blogs, forums, package manager listings, and manuals. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus and Sidelight12: And I have: HowtoForge, LinuxToday and About.com. I just need help with integrating these sources to article. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howtoforge is a WP:SPS: according to its instructions, anyone can create an account and "start publishing [their] content instantly". The LinuxToday entry is only a link to a blog, so again not a reliable source, and the about.com entry is too short to count as significant coverage. It's also pretty much copied over from [10], a WP:tertiary source. So we still don't have a secondary source, as required by WP:GNG.

I hope I don't sound too much like a bureaucrat, but I simply don't see why a Wikipedia article about debootstrap needs to exist. The Linux community has websites and manuals on all kinds of tools, but that doesn't mean they're all notable and worth describing in an encyclopedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Debian or other Linux software related article. Not notable on its own. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete It exists, and anything that needs to be said about it can be said quite happily by the Debian projects. Lack of independent coverage means a WP:N fail for coverage here.

Not a merge, because if it was worthwhile enough for us to mention it under Debian@WP, it would be worthwhile mentioning in a standalone article. I don't see either as being needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Debian or delete. It might be undue to merge this into Debian, and it's not notable enough to survive as an independent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Article is poorly written and definition is confusing. Deb (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising or promotion; No indication of importance. Inx272 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination.TheRingess (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search makes it obvious that the place exceeds the level of coverage needed to pass the GNG. It has significant mentions in natgeo, the washington post, the NYT, npr, and many other places. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could not find those articles on Google or Google news. Can somebody find links to them? Bearian (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. Could not find all reliable sources including claims by Kevin Gorman, LibStar (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin peoples[edit]

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

Too many disputes regarding who is or isn't "Latin". Article doesn't even stay on topic. Original European ^(talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "stay on topic"... Ha! What topic? We already have Hispanic and Latino Americans, Latin America, Romance languages and Latino (demonym). Except for something about Mussolini being angry at the Nazis, this article contributes what to our collective wisdom? I'd be fine with an article about the history of the people who spoke/speak Latin (though we already have Contemporary Latin in addition to Latin) but that's not what this is. Stalwart111 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples are not the languages they speak, and what has Hispanic and Latino Americans or Latin America has to do with this broader concept? This is like saying that we cannot have an article about Europeans because English people is already covered and the English can't decide whether they are European or not. Diego (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe might be added to Stalwart's list. I am neutral on the question of deletion. Cnilep (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, speak of the devil and he shall appear. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance-speaking Europe (2nd nomination). Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable source has been presented for years based on which a coherent article could be developed. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep as a broad concept article, given the wealth of references that were provided when it was suggested to merge the page with its subtopic. People from Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Moldova, Belgium, as well as ancient Foreti, Alba Longa, Tolerus or Velia - all these are not Latin-American, and they aren't Romance languages either, but they are Latin (i.e. Roman) people. Note that there are articles about this topic that the nominator says doesn't exist at least in the Spanish, Aragonese, Belarus, Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian and Slovak Wikipedias. Diego (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And all their sources refer to the Romance languages. OR give birth to OR. That is all. Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a problem to show that the topic exists and is notable, exactly how? Latin people is people who talk romance languages. Diego (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, no reliable source exists which writes of the topic "Latin peoples". Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the sources provided? They do write about latin peoples; among other things, they explain the origin of their languages, the expansion of their ethnic groups through the world, their history, their sexuality... What's not reliable in that? Diego (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source of one people which is considered a Latin people is not a source based on which an article on the Latin peoples can be written: we cannot write an article of the mammals based on a book on the sexual behaviour of dogs. Borsoka (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Romance-speaking peoples? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it moved to Romance-speaking peoples (I prefer Romanic peoples or Romance peoples to match Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Hellenic, Ugric, etc.) I am in favor of an article that deals with this major subdivision of European peoples, I don't know who in their right mind wouldn't. I am still baffled as to why there isn't an article when there is an article for every other Indo-European ethnolinguistic group. The only reason I proposed deletion is because certain users wish to discriminate against the Romanic peoples (I still have no idea how an admin didn't warn them), and I was tired of constant incivility. Original European ^(talk) 12:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Afro-Eurasian, please decide what you want. Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "Afro-Eurasian". Please see WP:HA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and WP:BATTLE. You should familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies, like I did when I became a Wikipedian less than a month ago. Original European ^(talk) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Afro-Eurasian, would you please decide what do you want: do you want the article to be deleted (as you suggested) or have you changed your mind. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Afro-Eurasian. Did you read my comment above? Perhaps you didn't because you are too concerned with your little imaginary world. I stated my opinion above and it is clear what I would like to see, as would most others. Interpret it as you wish. But please, do not add unrelated comments on this page. Original European ^(talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to delete it? Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first option would be to have it renamed to a more neutral name that doesn't strictly imply descendants of the Latini tribe, the descendants of Romans, or as you try to imply, Latin Americans. Multiple editors also seek a better option than deletion. Original European ^(talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draga Afro-Eurasian, if my understanding is correct, you suggested that this article should be deleted, because you wanted to rename it. I am afraid, you are a little bit confused. Please clarify what you really want. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what "draga" means, and I am not Afro-Eurasian (see talk page). I am not the confused one. The only reason I even thought of deletion is because trying to communicate with you is like talking to a rock that repeats itself and doesn't understand the concept of basic communication skills, such as listening to what others have to say. Original European ^(talk) 13:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draga, interestingly some hours ago you could speak Romanian [11]. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you suggested that the article should be deleted, because you do not want it to be deleted. Interesting approach. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are other editors that pointed out why it should not be deleted, and since deletion was never my first option (see here), I believe that the article should be renamed and then we can discuss other things regarding the article. Original European ^(talk) 13:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

????? If your favorite option is the renaming of the article, why do you suggest its deletion?????? Do you frequently state the opposite to what you actually want? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've got to go to school and I do not have time to constantly repeat myself (I'm starting to feel crazy). To any other editor that reads this and is against deletion: I apologize for suggesting deletion but as you can see, it was the best option in my head at the time. Like I've said before, deletion was never option number 1. Original European ^(talk) 13:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draga, one who says the opposite he/she actually wants must feel crazy. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging Latin/Romance-speaking articles seems like the way to go, with pages like this redirecting to appropriate sections. I'm opposed to simply deleting this article. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sources provided. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Romance languages, where we could include the phrase: "Peoples speaking Romance languages are called Romance peoples or Latin peoples". There are no less than 24.800 which refer to Latin peoples, the expression is quite often used. A WP:DAB could also be chosen if there are also other meanings except this one. 79.117.180.113 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the 20th-century sources you provided you would have found that they use the expression in the context of the early history of Ancient Rome and her Latins. You may not know but in the Ancient Rome no Romance languages were spoken, because these languages developed after the fall of the Roman Empire. Please try to add proper references and not to waste other editors' time. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so a WP:DAB page is the solution. Why do you prefer a deletion instead of a WP:DAB page ? [Special:Contributions/79.117.180.113|79.117.180.113]] (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Talk page, you will find that either a DAB or a redirection is acceptable for me. However, I suggest that we should wait till this discussion initiated by a clearly disturbed Afro-Eurasian/Original European is closed. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, possibly merge. The suggestion for deletion is apparently based on the observation that "there are disputes". This is insane. We don't delete articles because "there are disputes". --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In accordance with WP:DEL-REASON #5, #6, #7. CaesarAugustusDivusIulius (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing is weak. Article seems to be based on a poorly defined concept, with little agreement on what constitutes a "Latin" person. For some it's someone Latin American, for others anyone speaking a Romance language, for others (like myself), I'd assume it referred to the Latins (Italic tribe). Without broad agreement outside Wikipedia as to who this label should be applied to, it's almost impossible to write an article in Wikipedia on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

User:Lankiveil, I think you are making a confusion. This article is not about Latin persons. It is about Latin peoples, not about Latin people. Please check meaning 1 and meaning 2 from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/people#Noun. Peoples (with the singular form a people) means ethnic groups or nationalities(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peoples). See also tthe en.wp article People: "A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation." 86.127.22.96 (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am capable of reading the article, and have done so, thankyou. My belief that it is a hodgepodge subject that is not clearly defined, nor used widely in the real world remains. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latins were a people that spoke the Latin language. The Latins were not a Latin people. Similarly, the Latin language is not one of the Latin languages. 86.127.22.96 (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil, your statement is not a reason for deletion. When a term has several meanings in use by reliable sources, we create separate articles for each meaning and create a disambiguation page to help readers find their intended article. Deleting an article on a valid topic just because there are other topics that share the same name is absurd. Diego (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is poorly sourced and incomprehensive. Krakkos (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krakkos - what about a WP:DAB page or a redirect? 86.127.26.72 (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should be retained and a proper move request submitted after this discussion is closed. One suggest is to rename the article to "Latin heritage peoples" or even "Hispanic heritage peoples." In any case, the article is useful to describe a particular ethnic heritage and should be kept. Meclee (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, rather rename or merge during a multi-article concerted clean-up effort. A few points about all this mess:

The name could be easily confused with the original Latins: Latins (Italic tribe), which kind of "owns the namespace".
To bring clarity, I would rename it/split it/move parts of the article to Latin Europeans (which is currently redirected to Romance-speaking Europe, which in turn is more of a list than an article) and to Latin Americans.
We already have a Latins article that already has two subsections called Latins#Latin Europeans and Latins#Latin Americans. Those two sections could be expanded and finally point to full fledged articles called Latin Europeans (non existant) and Latin Americans
We used to have a Latin Europe article but is now some sort of disambiguation page with the same name, through the efforts of not so-well intended Wikipedians who are "heavily guarding" it for what it includes (see WP:OWN). The Latin America is just fine. What is really missing are the counterparts, Latin Europe and Latin Europeans.
The transformation of the original Latin Europe into a non-compliant "disambig" page, which doesn't contain Romance-speaking Europe as one of the options creates a bigger mess driven by some people with political agendas and strong WP:POVs. See Talk:Latin Europe#Rfc: can Romance-speaking Europe be added?
While some people try to do the right things here, i.e. find a sensible solution to a proliferation of confusing names and termns, some (read the ultra-nationalist Hungarians Borksoka and Fakirbakir) are sabotaging all the articles related to Romance-speaking Europeans (you can check the edits on all of them), to the point of removing all them into oblivion. The long-shot political goal is to eradicate the idea of Romance-speaking Europeans, especially in Eastern Europe, i.e Romanians in Transylvania, with any price, under the pretext of "scholarly debate", "original research" and "lack of sources". And these kind of actions are not acceptable and not inline with WP.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Codrinb, please try to read the history of the debate before accusing other editors. (1) It was not me who proposed the deletion. (2) I have never stated that Romania or Transylvania is not part of "Romance-speaking Europe" (3) I have never stated that Romania or Transylvania is not part of "Latin Europe". Would you please specify my edits whichI "sabotaged articles related to Romance-speaking Europeans"? Please try to accept that not all editors are driven by political motives or ultra-nationalism, even if this is obviously a surprise for you. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Keep seems to be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article about an ethnolinguistic group. Just because (if) an article doesn't have a single precise definition doesn't mean that it isn't valid; the normal technique is to list the different definitions. There's plenty of other similar articles on other shared histories like Germanic peoples. I'm also a bit suspicious, it's recently been subject to significant deletions, and it's very unclear to me these were warranted. Although there is an article for the term latino, that's more or less a US-only term, it's about the term not the people. Given there does seem to be a broadconcept, and no other article for it (the others are on subsets for particular regions), I cannot vote delete.GliderMaven (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GliderMaven, your above remark suggests that you have access to reliable sources of the topic. Would you please list some of them in order to develop this article. For the time being, we have knowledge only books mentioning certain features of individual peoples which are labelled as Latin (for instance, we know of the situation of AIDS in France and of 19th-century Romanians' claim to be a Latin people). Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be claiming that, for example, the Portuguese people are not considered a latin people; but this is pegging my incredulity meter that you would not find a reliable source stating that this is the case. And they are strangely missing from the article. There is however a category: Category:Romance peoples and it is populated in the way I would expect. Given this, I'm finding that the OED definition is sufficient to keep the article; and you could easily populate the article simply by subarticling all the various latin/romance people's into the article, and people would agree with the article existing having done so. I'm therefore sticking with my claim and belief that this is a perfectly acceptable encyclopedic topic, and the article should and must not be deleted, and I'm maintaining it as a strong keep.GliderMaven (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not claim anything. I only would like to know, based on references to reliable sources, which are the Latin peoples and what are their common features. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ethno-linguistic group. Their key common characteristic is that they are people, or are descended from people, that speak or spoke a Romance language. That's how ethno-linguistic groups work. I have now upgraded my !vote to strongest possible keep. We have the OED definition, we don't need anything else.GliderMaven (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure your above statement is based on a reliable source. Would you please name it in order to upgrade your vote to "the extremely unchallengable strongest possible keep of the entire universe" category. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trivially the OED, also all the other dictionaries define 'latin' equivalently. The call for deletion is utterly without merit.GliderMaven (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 07:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a familiar concept in English usage, although obviously with disputed meaning. (Does it refer to inhabitants of Latin America? Native speakers of Romance languages? Or the less familiar Medieval Greek usage of referring to West Europeans?) As Dab pointed out above, the fact that "thee are disputes" is not sufficient grounds for deletion. (Maybe someone ought to work on including the various ways this terminology has been used, & the history of its differing uses. That would be more productive than waging a campaign for deletion.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It does seem like an appropriate broad-concept article, although merging this with "Romance languages" wouldn't be terrible either. Orser67 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cambrian Archaeological Association. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Annual General Meetings /Summer Conferences and Presidents of the Cambrian Archaeological Association[edit]

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

Article was proposed for deletion, but this was removed with an explanation on the talk page of the article. In my opinion, it doesn't address the reasons for the proposed deletion, so an AfD it is. The reason for the prod was:

No indication why this would be a notable subject, it is not as if the election of the president is a widely awaited event that gets lots of coverage in reliable, independent sources. I don't doubt that we can find some passing mentions from news reports, but nothing substantial. That an organisation has included its internal organisation in its publications is normal, but that doesn't mean that it has a place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following explanation was given for this contribution on the talk page: “This was a contribution intended as a Wiki List, not a Wiki Article and is linked to the main article Cambrian Archaeological Association. The main article is currently being revised in ‘Tyssil sandbox’ and in order to avoid the article becoming too long or difficult to navigate, this list was created. The ‘Cambrian Archaeological Association’ is a very important institution within Wales. It is the oldest, continuously active, learned Society within Wales. Its publications over 178 years are very possibly the most important individual printed sources available for the Archaeology, Local History, Medieval History and Architectural History of Wales and the Welsh Borderlands. This list clearly shows who were the people involved in the Association and has been linked to many bibliographic entries within Wikipedia. It illustrates the very important role of the Association from 1844 to the present day in the cultural life and scholarship about Wales and the Welsh Borders”. Tyssil (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune -- The Cambrian Archaeological Association is certainly an important body. I am far from convinced of the merits of the first major section, but a list of presidents, most of whom are notable enough to have an article is potentially useful, that is as long as the office of president was not just an honour offered to a notable person who was interested, but actually played little role in the running of the organisation. The locations of the conferneces are of rather less interest, but harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cambrian archaeological association is a small charity and this article lists trivial details about its past. Szzuk (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CAA is undoubtedly an important cultural institution in Wales (and in UK archaeology), and the parent article should unquestionably remain and be developed. It is quite normal on wikipedia for articles on societies and associations to include lists of their presidents or other senior officers (e.g. Society of Antiquaries of London for a comparable body), and the notability of many of those who have served as Presidents of the CAA is demonstrated by the number who are bluelinked. The only complicating factor in this case is the fact that, unlike many societies where the presidential terms last several years, the CAA President holds office for just one year, his or her tenure being closely associated with the Summer Conference. This means that the list is unusually long, and would threaten to unbalance the main article if included there. Tyssil states that he/she intends to expand the main article: once that is done, and the question of "balance" is no longer an issue, there might be a case for merging this list into it. Meanwhile, this separate article seems the best solution. I agree with Peterkingiron that the descriptive paragraphs could probably be pruned a little (and, in the list, the "no meeting" years of 1940–45 could surely be given as a block rather than individually listed): however, the location of the Conference is also of some significance, in that the papers delivered there tend to focus on the archaeology of the locality, so the location is also to some extent the theme of the Conference. GrindtXX (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge Not really appropriate for a separate article ; the length is not too long, and can be shortened further by omitting the illustrations; nice as they are, they don;t really contribute to the understanding of the content. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:DGG. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 23:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Tyssil#List of the Annual General Meetings /Summer Conferences and Presidents of the Cambrian Archaeological Association, per WP:LISTN. This could be pared down and have sources added. If the parent article at Cambrian Archaeological Association were to be significantly expanded, then a short list could be merged in there in the future. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As Tyssil seems diffident about doing so him/herself (and in fact appears not to have been near Wikipedia since 27 February, when this proposal for deletion was made), perhaps I can draw editors' attention to the version of the parent article he/she was previously working on in his/her sandbox here. While this is clearly still not finished, it seems to me to be a well researched and thorough account of the CAA, in which the list of presidents does not take up a disproportionate amount of space. GrindtXX (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cambrian Archaeological Association. I agree with @GrindtXX:; the high percentage of blue linked presidents tells me that this is a notable list. The article title is absurd, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 07:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent article about the association, which needs more information about its history anyway. Enough notable names to make it a valid list within that article. I've found bluelinks for a couple of the redlinks, and I suspect there are a few more out there. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Soares do Nascimento[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern that this is a player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements partnering significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tórshavn derby[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original concern that this rivalry between two semi-professional teams still stands as a contravention of WP:NRIVALRY and WP:NOTSTATS. No indication of wider coverage of the rivalry in significant reliable sources to indicate WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 18:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The fact that this match is covered in Andy Mitten's book, "Mad For It", makes me think that the rivalry is worthy of an article, but there's really very little to write about. Nevertheless, lack of content isn't really a reason to delete IMO, although it does make the article pretty thin on the ground. – Pee Jay 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find wider coverage on this rivalry, so it fails WP:NRIVALRY JMHamo (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the Mitten source seems to be comprehensive and reliable, but WP:GNG requires multiple such sources, and I've not had much luck locating another. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Conneely[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable singer; my source search failed to turn up anything relevant. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 04:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsourced article. We need to remove these from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find anything either and of the two external links one did not work and the other did not mention him, so I removed them. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. @pple (☞ talk) 21:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupathiraju[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Just another Indian name without reliable sources that discuss it. PROD was removed by anon without explanation. Sitush (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, nothing notable here, nor reliable. Delete ASAP. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless new sources show up. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalapati[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Just another Indian name without any reliable sources that discuss it. PROD was removed by anon without explanation. Sitush (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG in every criterion. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dantuluri[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. It is just another Indian name with no reliable sources that discuss it. PROD was removed by an anon without explanation. Sitush (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :Fails WP:GNG- This article is about a surname/title in India and according to me it is not showing any significance to take a form of article on Wikipedia, although it can be merged with other article. WOWIndian ^Talk 10:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which other article do you have in mind? These names are commonly used by a variety of caste communities and thus we cannot merge or redirect to any one. If this is an exception to that common situation then we'll need a source that says so. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG irredeemably. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. @pple (☞ talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ely Sakhai[edit]

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

This is a borderline case that deserves some discussion. This article is about an art dealer known only because of his involvement with forgery. He was reported on a bit due to the sensationalist nature of the crime and this story made big news in the art world. On the other hand, the article and his claim to fame are almost entirely negative and his enduring notability is likely to be scant.

A paid editing sockpuppet tried to have this deleted some time back, so its safe to say that someone connected to the article doesn't want it up. Due to the negative nature of the material I think we should consider the request. I can understand the argument for the subject's notability but in my opinion it isn't as strong as the spirit of WP:BLP1E combined with the subject's wishes. Them From Space 03:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I make this recommendation with full understanding that the nomination was made in good faith, that the article has significant problems, and that there are some legitimate arguments in favor of deleting. I think that the arguments for keeping the article outweigh those in favor of deleting. If we consider his arrest for art forgery "one event" then we should perhaps delete. But an article in the New York Times called Art Gallery Owner Pleads Guilty In Forgery Found by Coincidence confirms that he he pled guilty to felony charges, that his career of art forgery lasted at least 15 years, and that he helped forge paintings supposedly by Paul Gauguin, Marc Chagall, Paul Klee, Amedeo Modigliani and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and sold them on the international art market. There is extensive coverage of these crimes in reliable sources. To me, this is far more than "one event". As for the subject's wishes, we can only be sure of them if we have a formal request through OTRS. We do not usually keep articles about routine criminals. I do not think that the long series of crimes this man committed are routine, and that keeping and improving this article will also help improve our overall coverage of Art forgery, a very important topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, agree entirely that the nomination is fair enough. That said, I also agree with Cullen that this is a notable subject with a horrifically badly written article. There are plenty of significant art forgery cases covered on WP and this was a big one; international, multimillion-dollar and multi-genre. I'll have a look at cleaning it up a bit. Glad some attention has been drawn to it, if nothing else. Stalwart111 06:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at cleaning it up a bit; fixing the references and re-framing some of the claims with more NPOV language. I wonder if that goes some way toward addressing the nominator's concerns? Stalwart111 06:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much more organized and it reads better. But I still have issues with the subject's notability. When an article focuses entirely on negative aspects of the subject we should be 100% confident that the subject is worthy of inclusion within an encyclopedia. Our bar for notability is pretty low, and I can live with that, but I feel that our bar for infamy should be a little bit higher, just to dot our I's and cross our T's. Them From Space 15:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unfair. BLP1E is one thing but the case itself gained international attention and has subsequently received ongoing coverage in feature newspaper stories and books (I've added some of both to the article). Though connected to the case, his business deals in Australia have also gained attention (I've included details in the article). With BLP and NPOV in mind, I've also added some of his pre- and post-charge denials and his personal commentary regarding the eventual guilty plea. Though they are based on non-independent sources (press releases published by his company) I have also added some details about his post-conviction business ventures. Stalwart111 02:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds improvised music association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Barely any notable members either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Lukeno94, doesn't add much to the wiki. Freddy926 (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs, the list of people doesn't contain anyone of note. The title hints at a club that doesn't belong on WP. Szzuk (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The vast number of redlinks says it all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Rai Rattan Pal[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. He may have been a minor chieftain - there were thousands of them in pre-independence India - but there are virtually no sources that discuss him. This one is self-published by someone who has no obvious expertise (BSc degree) and it seems likely that the information there in comes from p. 500 of this, which in turn is based on British Raj gazetteers that are routinely rejected as being reliable sources for history. Sitush (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not shown to be notable. We don't even know when this gentleman lived. The same user has created other one sentence pages. See my post on WT:INDIA. All pages should be quickly AfD'd. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence meets our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no reference at all neither the subject is itself notable.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsbookreview.com[edit]

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

No reliable sources for notability -- just PR sites, or routine mentions . DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons.Iniciativass (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per A7 (again) and salted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johncongo[edit]

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

No trustable references, no indication of notability. Even the record label doesn't seem to exist beyond a Facebook page. Iago Qnsi 01:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been deleted previously and is consistently recreated by seemingly the same individual. Bonnie (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Lancome[edit]

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

Non-notable under WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. Article history has been contentious over her disputed ethnic background. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on here that could meet the notability guidelines, per nominator. mikeman67 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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