Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 March	28 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. per discussion, fails sourcing issues Tawker (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar AMR[edit]

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

No sources given, couldn't not find any good sources by searching. —Mysterytrey 23:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...The article states that only two of these rifles have been made. Also, the only source of information on this rifle is Wikipedia or a Wiki mirrors. As such it is not notable firearm.--RAF910 (talk) 21:09, 28 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. Tawker (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Bastard (character)[edit]

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

Unsourced, no evidence that the article meets WP:GNG. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not yet decided if I think Fat Bastard needs his own article, or if there's enough room for him at List of Austin Powers characters, but it may be worth noting that a GScholar search of <"fat bastard" "austin powers"> yields almost 100 hits, including some that (based on the excerpts in the search results) may discuss this character as some sort of archetype or exemplar for various purposes. Possibly worth a look. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can use sourcing certainly, but the nominator seems to forget WP:NRVE... IE: Notability is dependent upon coverage being available and not upon use in an article. In looking, it is easy to find Fat Bastard covered directly and in detail in sources such as Time Magazine, Today, iVillage, Buzzfeed, Us, and Empire, is referenced in multiple books,[1][2] is now an action figure and heck... the fictional character has even been honored by having a wine named after him.[3] Why not source the article to serve our readers rather than delete? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This character doesn't deserve its own article, the examples you found are rather trivial, nothing that could not be discussed in the List of Austin Powers characters.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest as a solution might have been a reason for a non-controversial redirect and merge (not a reason for deletion), only IF the target would not be overwhelmed by that solution. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG. Even were this not notable, it woudln't take an AfD result to merge. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:36, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 21:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDSA-Muñoz Bus-truck collision[edit]

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

contested PROD. WP:NOTNEWS: traffic accident with no fatalities..I see no way this could be an event of lasting importance.. TheLongTone (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:34, 30 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 Early access. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Early Access[edit]

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

Unjustified copy of essentially what is already covered in the main Steam (software) and/or Early access article. So delete and redirect to main article. Does not meet Wikipedia:Article size and WP:NOTNEWS.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Vaypertrail (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What part of WP:TOOLONG has any application here? The Steam Early Access program has received more than routine news reporting, so WP:NOTNEWS #2 does not apply. Here's some more reliable sources on the subject: Kotaku, MakeUseOf, VentureBeat, ArsTechnica, GamerNode, GameFront, MCVUK, IGN, CinemaBlend, GameSpot, PC Magazine, EscapistMagazine, Develop-Online, GamePolitics, GameTrailers, GameInformer, ShackNews, PCGamesN, Edge. Gamasutra wrote an article "The 5 trends that defined the game industry in 2013" saying, "a big factor for alpha funding in 2013 was Valve's introduction of Steam Early Access." --Odie5533 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough content to write about that won't already fit in the other two pages. Everything you've linked to is already in this stub, minus the opinions. And the big factor is early access, not Valve's early access...--Vaypertrail (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamaustra writer believes it is particularly Valve's introduction of Steam Early Access. Many of the other article writers also believe this program is having a major impact on the industry. Other information that can be added to the article would be a History section providing background information on other Early Access programs and Steam Greenlight, a Platform section that discusses how the games are distributed, a Reception section dealing with critical analysis of the program, an Impact section dealing with the impact on the industry, and maybe a Library section discussing some of the more notable games that have been introduced through the Steam Early Access initiative. The article is short, but I only just started it a few days ago so it can hardly be expected to be FA quality so soon. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlight is not the same as Early Access; it's very much orthogonal, so there's no point in discussing Greenlight in depth there. And everything else you have there is exactly what I've got set up at Early access, barring the importance of Steam's program and that's simply because it hasn't been added yet to this other one. Yes, right now, Steam's version is the largest, but that doesn't mean we should favorite it over any other comparable program (particularly Minecraft's approach which didn't even touch Steam). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both are notable, and I don't consider having an article for Steam's platform favoring it anymore than it deserves. Also, there is a point discussing Greenlight because the articles I've read about Steam Early Access discuss its relation to Greenlight. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they are still orthogonal processes; related but not connected in any other fashion beyond being a way for indie devs to take advantage of Steam features. A sentence or two to discuss Greenlight's nature is fine, but a whole discourse on it in an Early Access article would be wrong. And while I'm not saying that Steam Early Access itself isn't notable, it is more the case that of anything about Early Access right now, most of it is centered on Steam's version (take away the Minecraft effect, and 90%+ of what's left is Steam-based Early Access). To that end, the broader topic of Early Access makes sense for the only article to cover it, even if a good deal of it will be about Steam's version. That is, we only need one article to cover all of what all Early Access programs will be, and we should be doing that at the broader topic of non-branded Early access. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as similar to having an article for Kickstarter, while also having an article for crowdfunding. (from below) I don't consider the topic "brief" as there are dozens and dozens of articles discussing both Early access in general and Steam Early Access in particular. As you note, Steam Early Access is the largest early access platform. I expanded the article a bit, though it could still use a lot more expansion, particularly a discussion of Rust, DayZ, and Starbound, three largely successful titles. I'd ask you to look at the page again and possibly reconsider your position. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see it equal. For one, Kickstart is also a company, so there's aspects besides the crowdfunding nature to consider. Second, there are a lot more crowdfunding services/businesses than just Kickstarter, so separate articles for the two make sense. Here, Steam Early Access is one of very few, and perhaps the most important, version of early access. As such, at the present time, it is very difficult to talk about early access without going into detail on STeam's early access since it is the proven replicable model out there for it. Hence the two topics are presently so tied together as discussing them separately makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Odie5533 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early Access. I created that article with the intent that any further detail of Steam's Early Access program could be covered in there along with the importance of other equivalent programs. There's no reason that Steam's specific version needs a separate callout. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I'm not saying that Steam's version isn't notable, but I don't think talking about it separately from the other equivalent programs makes sense. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And to note, this is very much a search term, so the redirect should be left behind. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redirect would have to be left behind anyways, to preserve the edit attribution. ansh666 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any amount of reporting and critical analysis which would ever tip the scales to have an article for Steam Early Access, or are you completely set on it never having an article? It seems like no matter how much support I could find to keep the article, you'd still want it deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future there might be enough sources - right now, no; having two separate articles is an unnecessary breakdown of a rather brief topic. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources about Steam Early Access would there need to be? 25? 50? More? --Odie5533 (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early access and Steam (software), and redirect to the former. I scanned both articles, and the Steam article doesn't seem to make any mention of this at all. ansh666 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW Steam's version is mentioned under "Developer Features" at the Steam article. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reasons for voting merge? --Odie5533 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Masem. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article on the game where this would add to that article. As it stands, this article itself says "Early access rose as a funding model with the release of Minecraft...", so there is nothing particularly notable about the use of "early access" here - it's not the first case, and appears to have simply been chosen as a funding option. I also notice that despite the first use of "early access" funding being for Minecraft, we don't have an article on "Minecraft Early Access". This article is just about the funding option used, and it's not even a notable use of that funding option. RomanSpa (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first case, but it's the biggest and most important one in existence, the one everyone always talks about, and the one Gamasutra specifically commended for pushing alpha funding to the next level. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:03, 6 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 21:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Solomon[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity page about a non-notable person Rockypedia (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. This isn't written in an encyclopedic form (or narrative form for that matter), does not have citations or references and looks like a resume. --PDX er1 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with caution, since there have been a few editors. Vectro (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Vectro on the delete, but I actually viewed the fact that there were few editors as further reason to delete, since the article has been around for 5 years. Almost all of the content was written by the originator of the article, who hasn't contributed to wikipedia beyond creating this article in 2009, and I also found that while a peacock tag was put on the page almost immediately, an anonymous IP then removed it while making some other innocuous edits. Rockypedia (talk) 00:08, 31 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) 01:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nippon Kaigi[edit]

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

Contested A7 speedy. Fairly well cited although cites are mostly print/not readily available. Tawker (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't really understand - there are links to most of the sources listed in the article and even if there weren't, sources need not be online. Some of the sources listed focus on the subject - whole academic papers worth of coverage. I'm not sure how this could be considered non-notable. What am I missing? Stalwart111 22:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anyone who wants to know what the Nippon Kaigi is – here is the information, short to the point and with references. No idea why someone wanted it to be deleted – maybe the one does not like it mentioned per se – who knows.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scope of Nippon Kaigi' s activities is national in scale. The neo-nationalistic positions and the influence of Nippon Kaigo on the Japanese Government have attracted widespread attention. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources, that are independent of this organization. These are cited in the article, including reputable Japanese and international Newspapers (New York Times, Asahi Shinbun), peer reviewed Academic Journals, and books from well-known publishers. The sources allow to expand the article in the future. I think the article reflects the cited sources in a neutral way, I don't see any POV pushing. JimRenge (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. I've linked it to other languages, there are more sources (in the Japanese article). --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:43, 1 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 delete. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yashar Abuzerov[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Previously deleted via AfD (2009) due to insufficient notability. C 679 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 17:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - If a previous AfD !voted to Delete, then it's eligible for CSD G4... JMHamo (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I'd also suggest SALTing. Giant Snowman 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 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) 18:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - He's had a long career in the Azerbaijan Premier League (winning it once with FC Baku), but the online Russian-language sources I've found only provide routine coverage (this is the most detailed coverage I could find but I doubt it's a "reliable source"). Perhaps there is more detailed coverage in Azeri-language sources, but I'm not good at searching for them. Jogurney (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Agree with Jo he has had a long career, but looking at the number of games he has played, he hardly looks like a regular player. Would assume that is title win was as part of a squad rather than a significant player. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 31 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 Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. → Call me Hahc21 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games[edit]

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

Non-notable film, the film has no coverage other than on commercial websites, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels - Google searching the film, it's all Walmart descriptions, fanfictions, torrents, and personal blogs. Nothing that resembles a reliable source. And we need significant coverage from reliable sources for notability. As an alternative to deletion, we can include the most relevant content of the article in the "Sequels" section of the first movie, which is undoubtedly notable. Note that this went through AfD before just a little over a month ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games. Mz7 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are plenty of sources. You just have to be willing to take the time to find them. There are more sources than what you listed above. I don't see what the big deal is about this page when the second movie's page only has a few sources. Plus the third movie doesn't need a whole lot of sources because you can get a bunch of information off the official website which is made by the creators of the movie, which is listed as a reference. Also, Lionsgate Publicity IS a reliable source. It seems like some people skipped over that source. I don't think the page should be deleted. AustinPuppyUSA (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we need sources to show how it is notable. From what I saw of the page's existing sources, most of them were unusable. The thing to remember is that what we need is coverage in places such as news outlets, reviews from reliable sources such as say, Twitch Film (or critic reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes), and the like. Existing does not mean notability. WP:PRIMARY and merchant sources cannot show notability, nor can you use places such as IMDb to show notability either. Nobody is really questioning the factual-ness of the article, but its notability. As far as saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't see where the second film currently meets notability guidelines either. I'll try to find sources, but offhand it looks like it should also redirect to the main article as well. The thing about pointing out other stuff is that in many cases the pages don't pass notability guidelines and haven't gotten nominated for deletion yet... and pointing them out frequently speeds up their demise. Other times you can have films that do gain coverage, but later sequels do not gain any true media attention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reviews out there about the movie now. I added a few links to the reviews in the references.AustinPuppyUSA (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. My edit was taken out because it's not professional reviews. >.< AustinPuppyUSA (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Those reviews were not professional, i.e. blog post reviews and do not contribute to the notability of the film per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 21:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per above. This is the third time that this has come to AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3) Each time the decision was to redirect and the problem is that nothing has been added to show that any of the problems with notability have been met. I found one sole review by Commonsensemedia, but that's really it. Nobody else has given this film any true coverage to show that it merits an article of its own and the sources on the article that were usable aren't really enough to show a depth of coverage. There are things that show that the film exists, but existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) No amount of primary sources can show notability. If the film were to ever gain more coverage then we can always get it un-redirected, but not before then. Given that this has been re-created several times and there has been several attempts to turn it back into an article despite the previous versions, I'd say that the redirect should probably be protected in some form or fashion, possibly by deleting the article history to discourage someone just un-redirecting this. I normally don't endorse that, but the article's history shows that after it's redirected people just un-redirect it repeatedly. Perhaps admin only editing until someone can prove that it meets notability guidelines? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second film seems to barely scrape by notability guidelines and the only thing that saves it overall is that the DVD Talk review is rather in-depth. It's still somewhat in danger of being something AfD-able, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect/Merge (again) to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels until this project gets enough independent reliable coverage to meet WP:NF. Note: The previous AFDs resulted in redirects per failing WP:NFF and being TOO SOON. I appreciate this being returned to mainspace as it has finally been released, but the issue is now one "does this have enough coverage for a released film to meet the caveats of WP:NF". My opinion is no, not quite yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:53, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City of God – 10 Years Later[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary; damiens.rf 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Even with no determination any one could find out that it's notable. In the Portuguese Wikipedia, there is two sources from G1 and Zero Hora ([4], [5]). But if you aren't satisfied with Portuguese sources (even if WP:GNG says "any language"), the basic Google search indicates sources from BBC, Miami New Times and Hollywood Reporter. Only to indicate a few... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to satisfy WP:NF per Gabriel Yuji. A further Google search outputs Highsnobiety and Variety. According to the Miami Herald, this film is also internationally premiering at the Miami International Film Festival. Mz7 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the raft of sources found above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, we've got enough sources to prove notability now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided above substantiate notability without too much trouble. Stalwart111 22:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its recent edits, which left it in harmony with our notability guidelines. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 23:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've found some reviews, so I'm going to snow close this because those along with the current sourcing on the article shows that this passes film guidelines and there's no reason to drag this out for a full week.

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

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

The result was delete. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YouCam Perfect[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable app. Source given is a company press release, NOT a news article. In fact, at the bottom of the given link is "The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content." Spammish, but not to the point of qualifying for CSD G11. Delete for failure to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:WEB. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a run-of-the-mill selfie app. Apps like these usually don't garner significant coverage to attain notability unless they have reason to be special. Mz7 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. As above the only ref provided is a press release. A search did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no outside notability yet. Delete for now, restore if there is a big change.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:39, 29 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 web application. → Call me Hahc21 21:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webware[edit]

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

Article already exists as web application. This one begins with "Webware is the same as a web application, web-app, rich Internet application (RIA) or Cloudware." It's also 100% original research, with no cited sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'd say speedy delete A10 except that it is a ~~good~~ plausible redirect to web application. Meters (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect while this article is redundant with the better sourced web application, the term has been around since at least 1997, for instance see "Webware security" by Edward Felten. So the term is a plausible search term and a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 27 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 WP:G4 by User:RHaworth. I'm salting both entries to prevent further recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's Hot Magazine[edit]

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

Notability. Lack of available independent sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whats Hot Magazine. -SFK2 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which has also since been recreated: [6] Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 27 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TKO Major League MMA[edit]

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

Article about a defunct MMA organization that has no independent sources. The fact that some notable fighters once fought there is WP:NOTINHERITED. Mdtemp (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about a non-notable MMA organization. Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.sherdog.com/organizations/TKO-Major-League-MMA-16 is a reliable source for MMA related topics. Perhaps more reliable sources may be found. Dmatteng (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it exists. However, there's no significant non-routine coverage of the organization.Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 3 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Bongfeldt[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA because he doesn't have 3 top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NMMA because he only has 2 top tier fights. He hasn't fought since 2011 so it seems unlikely he'll get another top tier fight. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMMA. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:48, 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 keep. Tawker (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University College Roosevelt[edit]

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

Not an independent college, but a part of the Utrecht University. Just an outreach location. Advertising. The Banner talk 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS AGAINST DELETING THIS PAGE:

I. It is true that University College Roosevelt (situated in Middelburg) is linked to Utrecht University. It is wrong however to call it 'not an independent' college: financially speaking, and at the level of organisation, UCR is independent. For instance diplomas of UCR graduates mention "Utrecht University", however the college's management is entirely independent, as is it's Board of Trustees. Especially when comparing UCR to similar colleges in The Netherlands, such as UCU (University College Utrecht) and UCM (University College Maastricht), one should admit its special status: it's not just another faculty / campus of Utrecht University. For these reasons, I find it unjust to delete the UCR Wikipedia page, simply based on one argument saying it's "not an independent college". (27/03/2014 - 17.34h).

II. The fact that University College Roosevelt is not independent (which is debatable; it has its own identity, it's financially independent and only in name is it part of Utrecht University) should not play a role in deciding whether or not to delete its page. UCR absolutely deserves its own page. The page is accessed and used a great deal by past, current and future students. People who have never heard of UCR can find information about it on this page, and can use it to determine whether they would like to apply. This is a valuable page, and the fact that it is so extensive should show how dear it is to so many people. The wiki page for UCR is a valuable resource, it seems beyond belief that one would consider getting rid of it simply because it isn't formally entirely 'independent': it doesn't matter at all. Wikipedia has pages on countless provinces in countries, yet we don't say that because the provinces aren't independent that we should get rid of those pages. I urge you to keep this page on UCR online.

A tad ridiculous. Birkbeck, University of London is also not an independent university, but nonetheless (deservedly) gets its own page. In many ways, University Colleges in the Netherlands function in the same way.. especially when located 80 kilometers away from the larger 'mother' university! In fact, see Colleges of the University of Oxford for a whole bunch of candidates for deletion that use wikipedia solely as 'outreach location' and 'advertising'. 87.195.173.178 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's part of another university, but it's effectively a separate institution with its own identity. As the anon above says, we have many articles on such institutions that are technically not independent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should be cut down to the relevant, non-promotional basis - I agree - but the institution itself is definitely relevant. It functions as a geographically and educationally distinct institution. DimiTalen 14:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not see any advertising aspects within this article, moreover at least the UCR is financially totally indepent. GWronna (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GWronna (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — GWronna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sultanpur (Lok Sabha constituency). There is consensus that the article is not notable as a standalone, and a redirect is always a referred option.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra Pratap SIngh[edit]

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

Resume-like article about a local political candidate. No third-party coverage adduced; nor can I find any. As such, the subject fails the general notability guideline. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a promotional piece for a local politician with no third party coverage or notable sources. Total fluff. --21:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Sultanpur (Lok Sabha constituency), in line with common practice at this type of AfD. There is some slight unfairness to this, given that no fewer than three of his opponents seem to be genuinely Wikipedia-notable for their previous political careers, but this is not the place to be making major changes to Wikipedia policy, and the only real alternative policies (including everybody who has ever declared their candidacy for a national legislature, or deleting articles on all politicians coming up for re-election) would have major countervailing disadvantages. PWilkinson (talk) 08:22, 29 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Doran (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Seems to have had a long career in LOI, so there are probably sources out there; however I cannot see them and I'm not sure they would be sufficient to show notability. Giant Snowman 12:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Happy to change if sources can be found but would consider sources that only discussed the sending off to be WP:BLP1E. Fenix down (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 27 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Bugas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for the Filipino national team, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 27 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) 01:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Radin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm completing this nomination on behalf of Strikertype (talk · contribs), who informs us, presumably reliably, that the subject of this article requests its deletion. It seems that this is because the gentleman concerned is a "fringe theorist" who is not very happy with Wikipedia's treatment of his WP:BLP. There as a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Radin. For the sake of this debate please consider me clerk - I do not vote either way. I also ask for procedural reasons that it isn't closed early even if it starts WP:SNOWing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the injuction against SNOW? Just curious. --Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because my feelings are that this should be dealt with very respectfully, as it seems to be a personal request from a living person. There are also legal ~~threats~~ [suggestions] being made, in which case I think it is appropriate that our policies are followed through to the letter. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that WP:BLP applies also in this debate. OTRS volunteers may wish to check Ticket:2014032710008133. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to meet notability standards, well-sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am not sure if I understand this afd. The user Strikertype claims Radin wants the article deleted, but Radin has not published this anywhere official i.e. it's not on his blog. There's many reliable sources and notable scientists on the article that discuss Radin such as Victor Stenger, Robert L. Park, Chris French, Ray Hyman, Massimo Pigliucci, I. J. Good and Brian Josephson etc. There's absolutely no reason why this should be deleted. Goblin Face (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I vote to delete biographies when non-notable and semi-notable people request deletion, but this person is clearly notable. It's not a particularly flattering biography, but it's within policy. It could probably use a bit of work to improve the neutrality, but I can't really say that I would expect a parapsychologist to get a warm reception anywhere but in fringe quarters – and WP:FRINGE limits that kind of coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we should inform Strikertype (talk · contribs) that if Radin really does want the article deleted, he needs to follow the proper protocols (an email to OTRS from his personal email account to verify his identity is one way) to make the request. If we get verification delete as marginally notable. Otherwise, keep. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is silly. He knows he's notable and passes GNG. He knows we're not going to delete his article. This "request" is some kind of misguided protest against Wikipedia because of Jimbo's recent statement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which statement, can you give a link? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[7] - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hurray for Jimbo! --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep we dont delete because the subject doesnt like how they are portrayed vis a vis the mainstream academic view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reviews of his books, enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we delete stuff on the basis that the subject wants it deleted. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What cares what Radin wants? He is a well-known researcher/theorist of "paranormal" phenomena. If he thinks the article is derogatory or violates NPOV policies he or his admirers should pursue those issues. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 27 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, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep, because I prefer not to have an article if the subject does not want one, but this article is well sourced and the subject is very prominent in a rather small field. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and possibly even WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:18, 28 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Sherwood[edit]

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

Non-notable, I don't think we are even talking about paid professional here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Is Women's football fully professional in UK? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: No it is not, see this. Giant Snowman 18:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Lots of external links, but they are all WP:ROUTINE. Fenix down (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:28, 29 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Severinsen[edit]

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

Reason StNicksRocks (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC) The article reads like an advertisement. It is not written in a NPOV and does not cite sufficient 3rd party material to verify the veracity of its content.[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 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done some cleaning up and toning down - and updating. He has further world records after those mentioned. I am surprised by how much coverage there is in the (online) press; I have added some, will look for more, and I believe he meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Obviously. The article meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO criteria. Any issues with language, style or sourcing have been well-addressed by Yngvadottir. (Nominator should have read WP:BEFORE and have tagged this article for improvement rather than submitted for AFD). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:30, 28 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaley Scott[edit]

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

I am Chaley Scott, this entry isn't accurate and is exaggerated and I wish for it to be deleted immediately. Thanks. Chaley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaleyscott (talk • contribs)

Comment The above nomination had been flagged on the article but had not been copied to the log. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the very least, I think this biography needs a complete rewrite. It's more of a rant against progressive parenting than it is a biography. Even if this article were kept, I don't think this would be a very useful base. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sections Views on Parenting, Childcare, and Criticisms and Controversy have nothing to do with this subject. They might belong in an article on Progressive parenting (unless one exists under a different name already). LionMans Account (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources. Is the article a hoax? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- I wondered that, too, but I decided it wasn't worth my time to investigate further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject certainly exists: worldcat finds two books, The unchained child (in one library) and The shepherdess (in twelve). Nevertheless we don't have any evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 30 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shutter (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE; Just a screenshot utility of no real notability. It doesn't appear to be covered in detail anywhere and there are no non-primary sources that talk about it in detail. It also doesn't help that the entire article is a bullet list of features. CyberXRef^☎ 05:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The common name doesn't make searching easy, but beyond finding it in the Ubuntu store and an online review, sources seem scant. Fails WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 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) 01:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch Adenzai[edit]

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

This article lacks notability and is unsourced. It violates every tenet of BLP. Lfstevens (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all a notable person. The article appears to have been created by someone who thinks that Wikipedia is something like LinkedIn. It isn't.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely no assertion or evidence of biographical notability. No reason why this shouldn't be a CSD A7? AllyD (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep restored place article: I now see from the article history that this article has been repurposed from an article about a place to an article about a non-notable individual. This (repeated) repurposing has been User:Shivapandey444's only contribution to Wikipedia. I have restored the pre-vandalism version, which despite its faults, passes as a populated place. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now it's been reverted. All settlements are generally regarded as being notable. Should be renamed Ouch, Pakistan, however, as its name simply appears to be Ouch. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep restored settlement article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD. Thank you for delving deeper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:23, 27 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) 01:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Woronowicz[edit]

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

A minor priest in opposition to GRD/Stasi. A couple of brief mentions in books about West Germany, and lots of self-published ebooks Staszek Lem (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The German Wikipedia has an article about him with four references showing notability. Any German speaking editor can translate that content and expand the existing stub. If it wasn't for the fact that my German is pretty weak, I would give it a try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial references. actually 3 not 4. YOu even didn cout them, not to say about reading, right? German article demonstrates no particular notability. - Altenmann >t 07:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its very rare for wp:de to include rubbish - their quality control is much better than wp:en. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not always. And they have their own criteria for notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick glance at the German WP (in translation) suggests that there is rather more to say than is appoarent in the English WP article. It says that he died in 2011, and provides a longer bibliography of works mostly issued (re-issued?) as pdf files in 2010. The fact that someone took ther trouble to issue the works of a theologian who wrote in the bygone context of GDR (and retired soon after its demise) agains suggests that he was significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It could have been his children. Sources, please. German WP says nothing concrete beyound him being in dissent with GDR and Stasi-watched. But we know Stasi watched everybody. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The German WP may have good quality control, but their lack of inline sources and the fact that the sources in this article are not linked, make it difficult to verify that these are more than just in-passing mentions... --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that difficulty is not being suggested a reason to delete an article. It is surprising to see that although the citations issue is raised here in WP so much that so much still gets into the system without ANYTHING to source it out. I tell people all the time that if you want to state something then you have to provide a means by which someone can determine if it has any level of credibility' we all do not have personal contact with each other and of course there is always the chance that you are not available to confirm.76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, not, that's why I only wrote that as a comment, not a !vote. It is perfectly fine to source stuff to sources that are not online, but that generally does not make it easier to check those sources. Just sayin'. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added an English language source from Googlebooks which makes it clear that he was a highly significant anti-State figure and that his surveillance was much more intensive than that of ordinary East Germans. The de:Wiki article includes a substantial list of his writings. If I get time tomorrow I'll translate the German article.Eustachiusz (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now translated and transferred the information on de:Wiki, and added a little more from google searches. There is a lot more out there and the article could certainly be expanded with more time than I can presently give it, but I think there is enough to show notability as a theologian, a political/ecclesiastical figure and as a writer (with works still in print). BTW the information was not difficult to find... Eustachiusz (talk) 18:34, 30 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Williams (basketball)[edit]

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

I declined PROD, as the article had been previously PRODed and declined, thus the article was ineligible for PROD. In any event, subject fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. No professional experience. Safiel (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't notice the previous PROD. I stand by my PROD rationale: "Fails WP:ATHLETE, not played at a professional level. No reliable 3rd party sources to show notability, fails WP:BIO." Tassedethe (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are literally thousands of people that play at this level, and he has not played at a professional level at all. Perhaps in the future there will be 3rd party sources for him, but at this point he fails notability. --16:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PDX er1 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOOPS. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - don't see many independent reliable sources when I look. Rikster2 (talk) 12:31, 30 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. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mehgan James[edit]

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

Do "stars" who appeared in one or two reality shows deserve an article? This one is particularly poorly referenced, and I don't easily see what I would call in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is correct to use quotation marks around the word "stars" which ought to mean something in this context, but often doesn't. I have been unable to find any significant coverage of this person in actual independent, reliable sources, although the social media publicity machine grinds away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Recollected • 18:02, 31 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. Thanks for your comments. Being bold here and closing as failing GNG and BAND. Please assume good faith in this action. SarahStierch (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena (band)[edit]

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

Insufficient notability, too little dedicated coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 18 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 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND.Iniciativass (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 27 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 Antoni Pizà. Consensus is for redirect, content can be added in author's article if it can be cited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La dansa de l'arquitecte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/La dansa de l'arquitecte

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

Book that is not notable per WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antoni Pizà. This just doesn't seem to be notable outside of its author. I can't find any sort of chatter or coverage of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More information added. --Fadesga (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antoni Pizà I don't see any claims of notability of the book. We would need some sources to show that it meets WP:BKCRIT. Meters (talk) 02:59, 27 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 Bagh, Azad Kashmir. I note, however, that referencing is still needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danna,Bagh[edit]

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

No indication of subject's notability, i.e. a grassy hill 40 km from a city in an unspecified country. (I have fixed that...) This version of the article read like a time share brochure. Nothing has inherent notability, so I'm not sure why this hill warrants an article, except that it is the "highest mountainous location in the north-eastern area of Bagh". There are no references or data for comparison to other hills. (Fun story: The article on Bagh, Azad Kashmir stated "The people of Bagh are brave, courageous and skilled, especially the artificers in the field of bakery & confectionery." Brave, courageous candymakers. You can't beat that! I have boldly removed that content.) I'm not married to deletion, so if a merge into Bagh, Azad Kashmir makes sense, consider this a a vote for that as well. Also, there appears to be a duplicate article at Danna (Pakistan), which I have nommed for speedy delete under A10, duplicate content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 19:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Bagh, Azad Kashmir and then delete Danna,Bagh. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is a gazetteer also (per WP:FIVE), we don't delete articles about a locality or geographical location/place unless it is a WP:HOAX. Also it seems the place's full name is "Las Danna". And from a cursory search it appears the place do exists. So I agree with Cyphoidbomb 's Merge idea to its larger/parent sub division till we have some decent sources to back up that content and the article can stand on its own. -- SMS ^Talk 19:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is accurate. Geographic localities must still satisfy GNG per WP:NGEO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Appending to my last note, it would be better to merge with Bagh District than Bagh, Azad Kashmir since Bagh, Azad Kashmir is about Bagh city but Bagh District covers larger area and thus this mountain falls under Bagh District not Bagh, Azad Kashmir.

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} 10:44, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:V. However if sources are found then I would support a merge as suggested above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Muhammad Ramzan Mehami[edit]

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

Article about a Muslim preacher, originally created as HAZRAT HADI-E-HARYANA MAKDHOOM SHAH MUHAMMAD RAMZAN MEHAMI (R A). I have declined the speedy deletion under the criterion A7, since the reference is real, but it is obvious that the article has no place on Wikipedia in this form; it consists of little more than preaching. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mike but it is obvious that the article has no place on Wikipedia in this form; it consists of little more than preaching. Did you mean the format, writting style or extra informations given in the article by this. I haven't understand properly the exact meaning. But I must tell you that I have corrected some of the format errors, copyedited and corrected some expressions. I don't know about the source because it is not online. But I will try to find some reliable online sources. I was wondering that if you too can help me find some reliable sources. Jim Cartar (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of the given sources might not even exist. I can't seem to find anything else on this individual. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Tabligh Jamaat remains a very important movement. If this gentleman was one of its founders then he is almost certainly notable. Unfortunately, much of this article is a word for word copy of the The Tabligh Movement or Millions of Bearded Militants on the March. I am going to assume this is a good faith mistake. If the cut and pasted material is in the public domain, due to age, then it needs only to be properly attributed, as we do with articles that contain material cut and paste from the 1918 version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. If Ramzan is truly notable, the article could be rewritten. But, if no better sources are found, I would prefer redirecting this to Tabligh Jamaat. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 21 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 27 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. → Call me Hahc21 21:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JNode[edit]

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

(Contested PROD) No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article cites no independent sources, and I have been unable to find coverage in independent reliable sources. (Also, when searching for sources, it is necessary to be careful, as some hits for "Jnode" appear to refer to completely different uses of the same name.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search gave me nothing to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up blogs and forum posts but no significant RS coverage of the subject.Dialectric (talk) 11:27, 28 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. Following the thread here is a little confusing, but if you walk through the history (especially, [8], you'll obeserve that the comments signed "Mitch Greer" and those signed "Spaceagecrystal" are really the same user. Treating this as "nomination withdrawn by proposer". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lickets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would like to nominate this page for deletion, or some kind of modification. I am one of the members of this band and I wrote most of the content in 2008. It isn’t accurate to describe the band this way, since it ignores the previous history and later history of the band and was mostly made in late 2008 with a misunderstanding of the intent and nature of wikipedia. Also, one of the core criticisms of the page seems to be that the tone or style does not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on wikipedia, which I absolutely agree with.

It was nominated and survived a deletion request, and contributors have added to it, but it is still inaccurate. The only other solution would be to edit the content to account for the previous 8 years to 2009, and the last 6 years of this project, and with my understanding of wikipedia now, I think it’s inappropriate for a member of the band to update it. Mitch Greer (talk) 04:22, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, if there is no consensus after standard listing periods (including relists), then this discussion may be closed as delete. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 27 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) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that this should come down, but I think my original intention in making this page was simple playfulness, being excited about the band, but also to try to assert that sources of information like independent radio, blogs and independent journals can bypass mainstream critical and social validation often achieved through marketing. There aren't any sources that cover music like Sound Projector, Textura, Freak Zone, college radio, and things like Lost at E Minor, and these have been the only places the Lickets, and many, many other projects have had any support. Mitch Greer (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess. It's an unusual request, and general practice for an outdated or inaccurate article is to fix it, not delete it. But that said, an unusual request is not an unreasonable one, it seems a harmless request and the band's notability is borderline, so I think we should do the decent thing and honor the request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If fixing is an option, that would of course be ideal, but since so much of it (all of it from what I can tell at a glance) was generated by one of the subjects it would probably be best to start from scratch, not only to adjust the tone but to correct details that really only a band member would know. Apologies if this formatting isn't correct, I'm still very new to wikipedia. Mitch Greer (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so based on the feedback from Andrew Lenahan with the suggestion to fix it, I'm going to go ahead and update it to reflect the current and past history of the band. Spaceagecrystal (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. It's now accurate and I believe the tone is appropriate now, so I withdraw my desire to delete the page, but if this isn't acceptable I absolutely understand. Thanks so much. Spaceagecrystal (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since it has been extensively rewritten by Spaceagecrystal ^walk victor falk^talk 01:53, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 02:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Jones Belize[edit]

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

No indication of notability; Google search comes up with 13 unique results. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though I realise we often give a long rope to articles about newspapers (they rarely get covered by the competition), this is clearly a one-person news regurgitation website, formed only a few months ago. Even a dead tree newspaper wouldn't have time to establish a reputation in this short time. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third-party sourcing to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability at all. To be honest, I would have put this through speedy deletion as uncontroversial. Andy (talk) 02:05, 1 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 delete. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education facilities industry[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. An unsourced article written in essay form. Exceeded 7 days using Proposed Deletion, however template was removed by creator. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article seems to exist mainly to point to Leading practice discovery another article by the same SPA user. Meters (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete All ten book hits are chance juxtapositions; the content (as said above) seems to be an essay rather than an article. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 27 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. → Call me Hahc21 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leading practice discovery[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any independent secondary sources on the subject. An unsourced article written in essay form. Exceeded 7 days using Proposed Deletion, however template was removed by creator. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:VERIFICATION. The term "Leading practice discovery" does not seem to be in common use. One of the articles sources, and the only online source I can find that uses the term "Leading practice discovery" seem likely to have been written by this article's author. Meters (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the author: there's quite a bit in the literature but I am still in the steep part of the learning curve about how to work in the Wiki space. I do leading practice discovery for a living but just need time to pull things together to meet the criteria for inclusion. Michael A Anthony PE (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I recommend you use WP:AFC next time so you can get your articles up to scratch before moving them into mainspace. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:17, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No book hits, no GScholar hits; a large part of the web hits are us or our copies. Surely not notable now. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 27 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Snir Yamin is a singer-songwriter originally from Tel Aviv, Israel.[reply]

Snir Yamin started his music career in 2006, after losing his father in a car accidnet. Together with his high-school band, they first performed in front of a club in the city of Netanya. Back in 2006, the club, named "Muza", was one of the biggest clubs in the Central District of Israel. Snir and the band decided to break up after a year of work.

In 2009, after 3 years of life experiances, writing and composing, Snir was invited to take part in a big production in Israel. It was an Acoustic Night Showcase at the biggest Rock venue in Israel â€“ The Barby Club. Snir performed as a headliner together with three bands. In the same year, Snir has signed a collaboration contract with the biggest cellular company in Israel, Cellcom. The collaboration allowed the cellular company to distribute and use for commercial and promotional contents Snir Yamin's first single, Yofi Shel Sheket.

In 2010, Snir Yamin has started to perform his own original acoustic songs. In the same year, Yamin's released two singles, produced by Reuven Hayun. Those singles were played on Israeli Radio Stations and TV programs such as Reshet Gimel, Kol Israel, Galatz and 88 FM. They were also reviewed in Israeli music magazines, online and in prints. Later that year, Snir was invited by NMC Entertainment company to take part in a charity benefit concert at the Barok venue in the city of Be'er Sheva, together with other artists such as Hadag Nachash, Efrat Gosh, Dudu Tassa (Big names in the Israeli music industry), Israeli Idol winners and Dana Lapidot. It was one of the biggest charity events in Israel in front of 6,000 people.

In 2011, Snir Yamin's got his first recording contract from an England producer who lives and works in London. Snir traveled with the production crew to London for two months for the purpose of tracking his first extended play (EP). The recording process took place at the prestiges SNAP! Studios. The EP was released in February 2014 with Nana Disc Music Label in Israel. The same year, Snir Yamin took part in the biggest yearly event of Israel Independence Day, called Rock Atzmaut. It was a two million dollar investment with the top Rock artists and musician in Israel.

In 2013, Snir traveled to New York for the purpose of cutting a master to his first EP. On that trip, Snir got into a recording studio in the East Village of Manhattan, called The Cutting Room. After tracking a few tracks over two-month period, the studio and label manager arranged with Snir a recording deal for three years. In meantime, Snir released a 4-track EP for international audience called Urban Stories, which received lots of attention from the media in a ways of reviews, features, interviews, sells and ratings. The EP was released in September 2013, with the assistance of NYC based publicity company named Effective Immediately PR and Nana Disc Music Label in Israel.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Solely on the basis of the nominator's and EBstrunk18's arguments, discounting the one SPA, there is consensus to delete. As is often the case with these subjects, it's entirely possible that we might be missing non-English sources. But the overly promotional tone of the article is also a concern. So we'll consider this a soft delete. If the creator would like me to userify the text for them to work on, that would be fine. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yala Music[edit]

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

I did a thorough Google search and came up with no reliable sources covering this subject. I was barely able to find some press releases and other stuff that does not qualify for GNG. I was tempted to speedy delete it per G11, but I decided to go this route instead. Feel free to trout me if I should have indeed speedy'd it. → Call me Hahc21 05:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also did multiple search and no reliable sources. This article need to be speedy deleted. → Call me humain221 06:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With a few different searches, I was able to find two sources that don't appear to be press releases: Wamda.com and Hypebot.com. I'm not sure these push the article past the WP:GNG, as the latter is an interview (those are counted as a primary resources?) and neither blog is necessarily notable. But it does sound like the company is more notable in the Arabic music industry. Is there a better resource search tool than Google for non-US companies?EBstrunk18 (talk) 17:37, 26 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) 02:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did some more digging and found this Wall Street Journal post. But I'm not sure this resource is enough to help meet WP:GNG/WP:COMPANY standards. Maybe a more experienced editor would care to weigh in? I'm going to take a look at carving out the promotional tone of the article in the meantime. EBstrunk18 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wamda.com and Hypebot.com appear like sponsored articles. They have no added value. Google remains the search engine most used in the Arab world. You cannot use Wikipedia for self promotion. This article need to be deleted. humain2 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Humain2: - As I tried to indicate in my original comments, and perhaps did so poorly, I completely agree that the article is pumped full of promotional content (so much so that I had trouble cutting it from the article, as I indicated on article's talk page). For my own future reference, though, I'm curious what makes the Wamda article (the hypebot article is an interview, so that counts as a primary source?) look like sponsored content to you? By no means am I arguing to keep the page, and the blog appears unnotable, but the writer appears to have no affiliation with the company and his content doesn't appear to be lifted from a press release. Again, I'm only asking for future reference; I'd like to be a better researcher. Thanks! EBstrunk18 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EBstrunk18: - Thank you EBstrunk18 for your investigation. The article on hypebot look like sponsored because there is many backlinks with "follow links" to some specific pages to yala.fm and the promotional tone of the content realize that it is a sponsored Article. humain2 (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After extensively trying to find published, reliable, third party resources, and even trying to clean up the promotional tone of the article, I couldn't find the resources nor do anything to help the page meet WP:GNG standards. EBstrunk18 (talk) 19:58, 1 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Storws Wen Golf Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable organization, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources. -- Y not? 13:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brynteg, Anglesey. The content will serve to expand that stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 17 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 27 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 08:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Killen[edit]

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

Notability concerns, as well as promotional tone. The Grammys and other awards are probably sufficient to stave off an A7, but I don't they're enough to constitute automatic notability; I think they were all awarded to albums that Killen had worked on, not necessarily to specifically Killen himself. The only cited source is his agent's firm (who almost certainly wrote the Wikipedia article), and a basic search for more sources turned up nothing significant (and a lot of apparent static from other people with the same name). The article is certainly promotional in tone, though it is perhaps not so unsalvageable that it warrants G11. Regardless of that, though, I'm not overly familiar with the music business, so I'd certainly like to hear more opinions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per grammy.com, Killen is one of the four named winners for the best Latin album award won by Shakira's Oral Fixation. [9] That website doesn't appear to have search functionality for nominations so I couldn't check those. Possibly of more weight to this discussion, here are a couple of book chapters relating to him, which appear to be reprints of interviews in (1) Mix [10] and (2) Musician magazines. [11]. GBooks seems to have more content of this sort. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 27 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Gubitz[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. This is basically an advertisement created in 2008 by his grandson, Bgubitz (no longer editing). — Scott • talk 11:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I've tried to be open and honest about this article and my potential bias. Bgubitz — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 20 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my comment wasn't intended to be rude - "non-notable" is editors' shorthand for "not meeting our notability standards", which are fairly strict. — Scott • talk 17:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 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) 02:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient notability. eg. Glastar competition is something like wikipedia's "picture of the day", from a business. (no disrespect to artist who i find interesting.) - Altenmann >t 07:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really cool stained glass work, that's for sure. But, I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources that establish this artist as a major figure in the art world. Really great work though. SarahStierch (talk) 16:02, 5 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 02:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Israel and Palestine[edit]

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

Article is too narrow in range -- this belongs in the existing article Greek diaspora. (I am not sure if this should really be a merge request...) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge of the small part of the material that is properly sourced. After removing the unsourced material, too little remains to warrant a split. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I do not like the title; and the article is a bad one, but the subject is a legitimate one. It is ptenetially a more detaield article to go with the Hellenistic (ancient) section of the Greek diaspora. Merging it back to that would unbalance that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not split the article into two articles? Greeks in Israel and Greeks in the Palestinian territories. Solar-Wind (talk) 16:31, 26 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:09, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, no doubt. The article's length is quite decent, and I've improved it, take a look. This article should definitely not be merged with the main Greek diaspora article, as the latter briefly summarizes the subject in key points and has no place for such long information. However, the current title is wrong and implies that Palestine is a country, which it has never been of course. So instead of naming the article just "Greeks in Israel", the more appropriate and politically current title would be "Greeks in Israel and the region of Palestine", which will refer both the state of Israel today as well as the geographic region called Palestine. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:05, 28 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) 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Salazar[edit]

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

His one appearance for the Houston Dynamo did come in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, but it was against a USL PDL club. Also this player has not received significant coverage. If he makes his debut this weekend for the Pittsburgh Riverhounds, then I'll withdraw my nomination. But as of right now, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:23, 27 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) 02:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player now passes NFOOTY, needs expansion to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There is long-standing consensus at WT:FOOTY that playing in a Cup against a non-FPL team does not meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Salazar made an appearance in a fully-pro league last night. --Balerion (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why do people persist in wasting time trying to delete players who are clearly going to make a professional appearance very soon, on the bench for fully-professional teams, at the start of the season. If he didn't appear last night, he almost certainly will shortly. Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz. I'm not sure how deletion is going to benefit anything. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per Balerion. Made a substitute appearance on Saturday. Subject now passes WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 02:24, 31 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mihail Aleksandrov (painter)[edit]

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

PROD was removed last August by article author who engages in paid editing. Author failed to improve upon the article since removing the prod. There appear to be no sources conferring notability. Subject fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The references are self-published books and profiles. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CREATIVE. Note that this article was created with a conflict of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sourov0000/Archive.Iniciativass (talk) 06:23, 19 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indications of notability.- Altenmann >t 07:29, 27 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 two keep votes didn't craft an argument strong enough to turn the scales to their side against what most delete votes expressed. → Call me Hahc21 02:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Nazi Propaganda[edit]

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

If we assume good faith, the two sources at best only mention these phrases. I conducted Google searches and it appears that "Anti-Nazi propaganda" and "Anti-Hitler propaganda" are phrases used by pro-Nazi (which I won't linked to here but you can search and see what I mean) and anti-Jewish websites. Notability and NPOV are the main reasons for deletion. I am One of Many (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a random nominal phrase. not a subject of significant discourse in literature.- Altenmann >t 07:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be presenting the twisted mindset of Nazi apologists as fact ("Anti-Nazi propaganda is openly and commonly used in popular Adolf Hitler and World War II documentaries" - !), and no sensible definition of this term seems likely. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be covered in sufficient depth to support an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the article is a stub, but just the fact its being considered for deletion really makes me question Wikipedia's neutrality. If Wikipedia doesn't recognize the article, then I certainly wont be a part of this anymore. - Jonas Vinther
Comment Nazi's are a touchy subject. It is mentioned above that "Anti-Nazi propaganda" appears mainly in pro-Nazi articles, which makes sense; it's hard to find someone neutral who would defend Nazi's, even against a false accusation. If I walked into a crowded room, and yelled out "Nazi's hate puppies!" no one would come to their defense, especially with the risk of being labeled as "pro-nazi." Proving notability for this article will be difficult: neutral, verifiable sources will be near impossible to find. Greedo 8 17:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Adolf Hitler. If there were some substantive content in the article, as to propaganda that was issued by people who knew it to be false, I might take a diffenret view, but at present we have no more than a dictionary definition with two citations, one of which is to a book that has no proper citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant seriously believe this conversation/discussion is actually happening. If you don't regonise Anti-Nazi propaganda exist, you are certainly not a neutral Wikipedian, and a big idiot! - Jonas Vinther
- In regards to this comment, please see WP:ENN. The issue is whether or not it is notable, not whether or not it exists. Also, removing the deletion template as you did here and here is against Wikipedia policy, and does not stop the deletion process; it only makes it more difficult for other users to comment on the discussion. Furthermore, calling other users "a big idiot!" is not civil, please don't do it. Lastly, I would appreciate it if you sign your posts with four tildes like so: ~~~~. See WP:SIGHOW. Greedo 8 21:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had enough. I'm not going to be part of this completely non-neutral encyclopedia, who's also heavily influenced by propaganda. Do whatever you want, I'm leaving. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Jonas Vinther Hold on. You can't judge all of Wikipedia by these few editors. We have a page called Reductio ad Hitlerum. First of all, since the article refutes the fallacy that "It is bad because Hitler did it too" or "Hitler promoted X, therefore it is bad". The fact that we have such an article helps a neutral image. But anyways, this article doesn't seem notable to me, because we do not have any examples. If we can find examples, then the article can stay for certain, because if we are able to find examples, the article is notable. I say we should allow time for examples to be found before we destroy it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People, also remember that we can display content without promoting and endorsing anyone's opinion's or arguments. In other words, just because we reveal other's opinions doesn't mean we agree with them. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated "keep" even though you concluded that the article is not notable? We don't keep article on Wikipedia based on the hope that they will someday become notable. I am One of Many (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Guye I actually do have dozens of examples, but before I could continue the stub article, it was nominated for deletion. That's what I think is very rude, and non-neutral. I agree that you can't judge an entire page because of "some" certain users behavior. I had a pretty bad day, and perhaps I exaggerated. Yet, I stand firm in my belief that if this article gets deleted, in the belief it's not relevant, or that Anti-Hitler Propaganda doesn't exist, I will, with certainly, leave, because that would prove that this encyclopedia is not neutral. I could add much more details to the article, but then I want to be assured it's not going to be deleted. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources that go into depth about this topic and thereby establish notability, then do add them. This is an encyclopedia. Articles must by notable and neutral and the article does not meet these criteria yet. Consider that there may be good reason why "anti-nazi propaganda" is not notable. Quoting from propaganda "Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position". Due to the facts of what the nazis and Hitler did, ant-nazi and anti-Hitler propaganda likely played little or no role influencing attitudes towards nazis or Hitler and thus it lacks notability. I am One of Many (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly do that, but it would seem like such a waste if it were to be deleted. If we can conclude that the article deserves to be an article and not deleted, I can add tons of information and sources. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I think Anti-Nazi propaganda is very notable, but nobody talks about it in the fear of being labeled as a pro-Nazi. Personally, I'd say it could boost Wikipedia's neutrality image, that this article is kept. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the term probably exists, the article provides no references to reliable sources that discuss it, making the article a dictionary definition at most. Also, the (original research?) content seems to be, incredibly enough, an inept attempt at Nazi apologism. Sandstein 20:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a non-notable example of the phrase "anti-X propaganda". Sjö (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there is an article for Nazi Propaganda, I'd say it should be kept. Besides, like I said in another comment, I think it's very notable to all serious historians, but no one really takes it any further in the fear of being labeled as a pro-Nazi or Nazi symphatizer. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot deny the existence of Anti-Nazi/Anti-Hitler propaganda. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:05, 2 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 02:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran national football team starting XIs[edit]

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

Original research and non-notable... JMHamo (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~The article creator has been blocked for one week for a different matter, so I think this AfD should be closed after their block expires to give them a chance to have their say.~~ JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has been blocked for a further week for evasion, so I withdraw my comment above. JMHamo (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could see what the consensus is from other members of the Football Project. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously JMHamo (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure how a list of who was in the starting line-up for a bunch of matches can be said to be OR (especially given that each line-up is sourced) but it's certainly unencyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - line ups for inherently non-notable matches, if these matches were notable in themselves then they should have their own articles, they are not so the line ups are equally not notable. Any information here can be contained within the current squad / recent call-ups section of the national team article as long as it is relevant. @ChrisTheDude: The players playing is not the OR element, what is OR is the formation, which is not provided in any of the sources. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the Original Research piece so succinctly Fenix down. It was late when I submitted this AfD and I should have been much clearer in my nomination rational. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the matches were notable, the article could easily be re-jigged to simply show a list of names for each match rather than a formation. Deleting the article entirely because the formations are OR would not be appropriate. As it happens I think the article should go anyway, but that is not a strong rationale to delete..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTSTATS to the extreme; this is an encyclopedia not a football fan site! Giant Snowman 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per above. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, suggest author contributes to the user-generated Transfermarkt website if they wish to take part in a fan site. C 679 18:30, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasunori Hayashi[edit]

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

This article is about an obscure person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1CBFan (talk • contribs)

Keep. Definitely notable. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Saying WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't override the fact that this person doesn't meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC. Being published doesn't establish notability, and I don't see any independent reliable sources that this person has made a significant impact within or outside their field. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:41, 26 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 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWith all due respect, User:Ahecht, this scientist does meet WP:PROF, as is evident from his GS h-index of 39. [12] Jinkinson talk to me 00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standards in WP:PROF don't say that an h-index determines notability, and 39 is just a WP:BIGNUMBER. From WP:PROF: "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others." Also: "GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The warning above is directed at people who are not familiar with the world of scholarly publishing and citations. Most of the other contributors to this AfD, from their edit records, are. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep on basis of stunning cites on Google scholar. 9-edit nominator is invited to withdraw the nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The nominator seems to have been here only on Sept 20 of last year... The AfD has languished in limbo since then. Somebody must have transcluded it correctly yesterday. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Along with the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (two papers with over 1000 cites each in Google scholar, etc) I think the Japan Academy Medal is the sort of "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level" that is described by #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AFD was created more than six months ago by an editor who has made two--count 'em, two--edits since then, one of which was to create a talk page for a nonexistent user, and none of which have occurred more recently than September 20, 2013. I think we're wasting our time trying to communicate with him. However, I can't help but wonder why this malformed and misinformed AFD languished for so long before anyone noticed it. Jinkinson talk to me 04:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per the above. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citation evidence is not overwhelming for this field, but the career corpus and participation in some impactful work would seem to meet at least WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Requires some prose, but clearly a significant researcher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 29 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. → Call me Hahc21 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Care in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Article has no useful content. Platitudinous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

Comment. Maybe a re-write better than a delete. There definitely does exist some sort of direct care somewhere in the UK. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. The test is verifiable notability. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:35, 26 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 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no reason to believe it's notable. After reading the article, I'm still not sure what it is. Profession? Business? The practice of taking care of people? Greedo 8 17:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a dictionary definition for a concept. No refs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears a neologism and original research (WP:NOR) by a one day editor. Why wasn't the author notified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 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.