Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 March	30 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation911[edit]

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

Article creates the appearance of being properly sourced, when it isn't actually. The sources are all press releases, brief mentions, or articles about reputation management in general and not this firm specifically. Quick searches in Google News and Google Books for legitimate profile stories to meet WP:CORP come up empty. CorporateM (Talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easy search name, so results should be easy to repeat. I also found nothing on Google books and Google news. I saw no third-party independent sources on the first two pages of Google web. I also checked [site:businessweek.com reputation911], because investing.businessweek.com is, in my experience, fairly reliable as an indicator of wp:notability, but this firm is not listed. I also looked at most of the references in the article. Note that some of these, such as the ones from NYT and Washington Post, have older accessdates, because they were originally prepared for the [Reputation management] article, so don't expect to find Reputation911 listed in those references. There are a couple of press releases. The only third-party independent source I saw was the one from Green Bay, and there is certainly some WP:GNG significant coverage there, but not a lot. WP:Alternative outlets is suggested. Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial coverage outside Boston finance-related sources – which appear to be paid press releases. CrunchBase is okay, but not enough to establish notability. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete press releases are no independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 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 03:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks[edit]

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

This article is a monograph by user:EdLake, the name matches the webmaster of a conspiracist site, www.anthraxinvestigation.com (which is cited in the article). In line with the author's conspirtacist leanings, it is a lengthy novel synthesis from published sources many of which are not actually saying quite what the author claims. It's a WP:POVFORK of course. A proper timeline would be acceptable, but this fails WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- 34K of material was forked from 2001 anthrax attacks. So, does the topic of this article merit a standalone article?

If I am reading the revision history properly, this edit is User:EdLake's sole contribution to this article. He added several unreferenced paragraphs at the top of the article, that may constitute original research. A cursory examination of his other edits, lower in the article, look like they are neutrally written and properly referenced.

If the problem is that the lead paragraphs lapse from compliance with WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, or both, but the actual timeline portion of the article is OK, couldn't we just cut or rewrite the problematic lead paragraphs? Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find separate timeline entries very helpful when reading about events like this. I think this could be useful. Bali88 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A timeline of the attacks is worthy of an article, but this is just a soapbox for conspiracy theories. Orser67 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete timeline of these events could be built, but this is a long way from it and it would be easier to toss it and start again. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork Secret ^account 18:26, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Flash (series)[edit]

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

I couldn't find significant coverage of this game in reliable secondary sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do the GamesRadar & Newgrounds coverage not count as reliable secondary sources? And possibly the Informer page as well? TheSilenceOfNoOne (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSilenceOfNoOne: Newgrounds, not at all. The GamesRadar one is a reliable source, but it doesn't exactly have significant coverage by current standards. We usually want to see articles which are dedicated to the subject, so that the main topic of the article is specifically the game. Top 10 lists don't quite cut it. For instance, PC Gamer publishes a "Best Free Games of the Week" article, but since it's not significant coverage, we can't just read that list and make a new article for every game on it. Also, mMany of the other sources you used aren't reliable. In the future, I'd recommend using WP:AFC to create new article so that you can get feedback on the article before it gets added to the larger Wikipedia. Additionally, if you are creating a video game article, head to WT:VG and make a post there asking if people think a given game (or topic) is notable enough for an article. I'm sure people (myself included) would be more than happy to assist in determining notability, and even help you find reliable sources to use for the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any in depth coverage of these games. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information, and this flash series is not notable enough for its own article. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 20:10, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Douglass[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF, since his GS h-index is only 14 (which seems a bit low, though I may be wrong) and virtually none of his research has been reported on by reliable sources. There is one exception to the latter statement, however, which is one study published in 2008 [1] , which got a lot of media coverage (at least compared to his other research) and was later debunked by Santer et al (as noted in the article). However this doesn't establish notability beyond BLP1E, since even the coverage of that study is rather scant. Jinkinson talk to me 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C3. The number of new fellows per year in the APS is limited to 1/2 of 1% of their total membership [2], making this the sort of highly selective honor that #C3 describes. I'm less convinced by the NYAS fellowship but we only need one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes consensus mark of WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 22 in the average-cited fields of condensed matter physics. Also some impact in the climate change area. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment How are you calculating the h-index such that I get 14 and you get 22? I, for one, am using Google Scholar and typing in "author:Douglass, David H.". I also have the Scholar H-Index Calculator installed. Jinkinson talk to me 22:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By searching for "D H Douglas", the name under which he publishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Was that a typo, or did Douglass spell his last name with only one s on every study he ever published? Jinkinson talk to me 21:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo. Sorry, it should be "D H Douglass" Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as having three papers with >100 citations each. As a matter of WP:BALANCE, however, the climate change coverage (for which he is not notable) should be kept to less running text than his other academic work. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:34, 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 Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability, source links don't work (and are to blogs anyway). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DDSA Games And Entertainment[edit]

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

I could not find any coverage of this company in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 18:10, 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.

April 2015[edit]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. PunjabWiki99 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apurv Gupta[edit]

The wikipedia page Apurv Gupta is constantly a source of vandalism and character attack. The first instances of vandalism were noted on 29 March 2014; 18:02 and administrators had requested protection or deletion. The current page created is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy as it constitutes an "Attack Page." Created for the sole reason to defame a living individual and substantiated by irregular evidential articles that do not seem to be consistent with the facts presented in the body of work, this page is being referred for speedy deletion. As a sincere gesture and humble apology to Apurv Gupta, the page has been blanked until it is deleted permanently. PunjabWiki99 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2015 (IST)

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

According to WP:AB , Constant vandalism on the page, therefore requesting protection or deletion for the time being. Bonzostar (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO BerkeleyLaw1979 15:16, 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. Withdrawn j⚛e decker ^talk 15:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tautological place names[edit]

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

~~Per WP:LISTN - I can't seem to find any reliable sources discussing these as a group, and~~ much of this list seems to be WP:OR. ansh666 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now questioning whether I've violated WP:Deletion is not cleanup... ansh666 18:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then, I'm going to withdraw this AfD. It does need better criteria for inclusion (which includes sources), but that can be settled on the talkpage. ansh666 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a source in which the topic appears as a heading: Tautological Place Names. There's plenty of other sources which discuss examples of such in various ways. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." I'll take your word for it, though. ansh666 18:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numerous books discuss it in the plural - suggesting some at least will have a discussion of some of them as a group. Agree it needs more referencing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 15:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gasser[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHOOPS and does not seem to meet WP:GNG as all coverage of him seems to be local. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG as he has been the subject of several independent articles as an individual, such as this and this and this. The sources in the actual article just need to be strengthened. Rikster2 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some independent, reliable sources to the article. Rikster2 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable college player. He will go down in Wisconsin basketball history as the first player to record a triple double. In addition to the coverage Rikster found, here is an article on him in the Deseret News, which isn't exactly local. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is not on him, but rather on the game. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable player and a key player on the current Wisconsin Badgers basketball team that is on the brink of a possible Final Four. A two time Big Ten all-defensive team player and is the only player in Wisconsin Badgers basketball history to record a triple double. That in it self is VERY notable as no player in over 110 years of Badger basketball has ever recored a triple double but Gasser finally has. He will be a four year starter on a top college basketball program. The page already has many notable citations and links. Redmen44 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please read WP:NOTE to make sure you understand what notability means in relation to Wikipedia editing. Without independent, reliable and verifiable sources there is no notability. Luckily another editor has found some good sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's all good. Case closed. Redmen44 (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple independent article on him. Royal broil 03:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since addition of some good sources by Rickster2 the subject meets WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does meet GNG. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we close this disccusion? The page meets all standards and the player is even more notable with the Wisconsin Badgers making the Final Four. Redmen44 (talk) 09:37, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Bruce[edit]

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

BLP, who is also a minor, arguably "notable" for only one event. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails all notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an article describing single event that lasted for a news cycle, not a biography. Serious concerns regarding notability, especially for an article about a minor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:32, 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 delete. Wizardman 02:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Boyer Baseball[edit]

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

Delete as unverifiable. I've ran multiple searches using google, mlb.com and I find nothing on this player. I don't see he was drafted and ultimately the article states he didn't sign with the club anyways. I'm not sure that this counts towards notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete verifiable or not, the article doesn't really even make any claims of notability. Unless I've missed something, being selected in an MLB draft is not sufficient grounds for having an article here. Northern Antarctica (₵) 17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes incorrect factual statements.. He was not drafted by the Rockies in the 2011 draft [3]. All I can verify is that he did play in high school in 2008 [4] but I can find no record of him after that. This should be an easy delete call. Spanneraol (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further editors to this AfD may have difficulty in following the discussion without knowing that a section entitled "Baseball career" has been deleted from the article, ref. Unscintillating (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the first page of Google hits for ["Mark Boyer" Rockies OR baseball], I found a page claiming (I didn't go so far as to check if the source allows self-publication) that Mark Boyer played at Patriot high school. I also looked at the link provided by Spanneraol for the list of Rockies drafts in 2011. I've seen no indication of wp:notability, or reliable encyclopedic content to consider redirect and merge. Fails WP:BLP. Unscintillating (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High School baseball players are almost never notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Bosnia[edit]

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

This article is a partial unattributed copy&paste (a violation of WP:CWW) from the long-existing article about Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina (a violation of WP:CFORK), at a tendentious title that can't be verified in any reliable sources (a violation of WP:NOR). Overall, a newbie mistake, but my WP:PROD was declined and I'm forced to use AfD. What a waste of time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having read Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it looks like you are right. 23 editor (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You seem to be right--Duck404 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, and it's not as though the Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina article is overlong.TheLongTone (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10 (recently created page that duplicates an existing topic). ansh666 17:22, 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bach Chamber Choir[edit]

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

Lack of notability. This choir is mentioned on the web in a few places, but I couldn't find any sources that assert the choir's encyclopedic importance. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing even close to meeting WP:NMUSIC. The only online references I could find were its own web site, event announcements, and a fairly trivial mention in the Milwaukee Sentinel. The article's lede consists of text copy-pasted from this and this. The Orchestra section consists of further copy-paste from the first of those, and the Joining the Choir section contains copy-pasted material from this. These are quite probably copyright violations. If, however, the article is retained, all copyvio needs to be removed, and the article should be renamed, for example to Bach Chamber Choir, Milwaukee, since many choirs around the world are called Bach Chamber Choir (just Google it). --Stfg (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet notability requirements. They don't have any important coverage in any papers, don't seem to have any notable or prominent members, etc. There are definitely other issues with it, but it doesn't even come close to the requirements, so it should be deleted. AndrewVerbus (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royal broil 00:25, 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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 03:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Boone County Fire Protection District[edit]

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

Very small fire department, reported in the great deal that a local newspaper would do. No general significance. No spectacular events. No significant references DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill local fire department, with only the expected run-of-the-mill local news coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Cullen and WP:MILL. We usually have deleted or merged fire and ambulance departments of smaller communities, unless they clearly pass WP:GNG or have some unusual history or status. For examples, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beacon Volunteer Ambulance Corps (merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perinton Volunteer Ambulance Corps (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syracuse University ambulance (merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton City Fire Protection District (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pichilemu Fire Bureau (userfy, ultimately deleted), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockland Paramedic Services (delete). Bearian (talk) 21:49, 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. Deleted by Jimfbleak as A7.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pickle dee[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:20, 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 procedural close. The Draft: namespace is already essentially a sandbox. In any case, this would be dealt with at WP:MfD, and WP:AfD doesn't deal with moves. (non-admin closure) ansh666 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:1 Adoff[edit]

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

Article should be moved to a sandbox. AfC'd in the past. »Petiatil ^{( talk  contribs)} 05:53, 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 03:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revosiete[edit]

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

Lack of notability per WP:BAND, no WP:RS, only links to trivial or self-published sources. Previous AFD "lacked consensus" due to only contributors contesting. CSD twice, removed without further discussion. Please re-read WP:GARAGEBAND --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, only one contributor contesting, but also no one voting for deletion even after two relistings. A nomination alone does not a consensus make. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. Google, using the Verbatim option (to avoid websites with users named "revo7", for example), gives around 40 hits, none of them independent reliable sources. Also, nothing in the article indicates that the group would meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. The first reference requires login and the others aren't reliable sources for establishing notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band per WP:BAND. No independent coverage. No charted singles or albums. I agree that WP:GARAGEBAND fits this case here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 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 Procedural close. It is not appropriate to nominate an article for deletion on the grounds that it should be merged while there is already a merge debate in progress (actually, there are two). In any case, merges can be decided on by editors without the need for an AfD. Spinning Spark 18:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue the merge discussion on Talk:Mouthwash#Proposed_merge_with_Oil_pulling as the other discussion has been closed to keep things together. TY Lesion 12:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oil pulling[edit]

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

I am placing this nomination on behalf of another user. I will have him place his nomination rational shortly. Safiel (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mouthwash. My understanding is that for the most part, any useful material has already been merged. There is also a merge discussion going on which looks like it will end in a support for merge. Safiel (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, the user I placed this on behalf of is User:BenBurch User talk:BenBurch. Safiel (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Lesion is increasingly convincing me of the need for a merge) - but we definitely need this title available at the least. "Oil pulling" as the name of a practice is getting significant media coverage, and people will come here to look it up - it gets thousands of hits a day, with peaks in the tens of thousands - David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange stats. What happened in this March (peak 50000 views/day) to make so many more people look at this article than has been normal in the previous months (normally 1000-2000 views/day)? Lesion 17:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if someone can demonstrate that it can be expanded using reliable sources enough to justify a stand alone article, otherwise seems like duplication currently. Atm, there is little content on oil pulling which has been easily merged... but there is room to expand a stand alone article if someone is willing to do the work. Problem is reliable sources. To discuss the effects of oil pulling on health, we would need WP:MEDRS sources. Only 7 sources on PubMed with search "oil pulling"... most appear to be primary sources. However, there are ~170 results for search terms like "essential oil mouthwash", not sure if it would be OR to link these to the oil pulling article if those articles do not explicitly use the term. I had a look for sources on oil pulling in google books too, and the first few pages were Alt med industry type books which were not reliable sources so I gave up. Might be worth also pointing out that oil pulling could be significantly expanded using non MEDRS sources, from a historical and cultural point of view, as long as such sources were not used to suggest that these essential oil mouthwashes have health effects, or to contradict what the more reliable scientific sources are saying. Lesion 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rationale is that the content is already merged with Mouthwash and that this should be a redirect to that article. --BenBurch (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 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 03:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reischea Canidate[edit]

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

This article cites no references, nor in my opinion establishes notoriety. »Petiatil ^{( talk  contribs)} 04:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subjects twitter page is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto mayoral election, 2018[edit]

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

We haven't even gotten through the 2014 election yet (pray for us, I beg thee all), so I'm really struggling to think of a single remotely plausible reason why we would already need an article about the next one after that. For extra astonishment, this is referenced exclusively to sources that are about the current election and don't even offer hints about 2018 — I especially love the assumption that the election will be held on October 27, 2018 just because the current one is happening on October 27, 2014. (Er, no, not how that works, especially given that October 27, 2018 is going to be a Saturday!) Delete until we can actually write much more substantively about the 2018 election than just a two-line stub acknowledging that there's going to be one. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON for this article. Let's wait until we have something worthwhile to say before we rush off to create articles on future elections. Could also be redirected to what I suppose is the main article, List of mayors of Toronto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as reliable sources are discussing the 2014 election, not one 4-1/2 years in the future. Though tempted to make a Rob Ford joke, I will refrain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd be really curious to know why the article was created. If the creator could chime in, that would be great. Too soon for this article. Bali88 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm the delete-nominator and not the creator, I can offer some insight into that anyway. The creator is a frequent editor of Prvoslav Vujčić, a poet in Toronto who recently on his own website asserted that he was going to run for mayor in 2018 — but obviously has garnered no substantive media coverage for that claim since it means nothing 4.5 years out — and they created this article shortly after adding said claim to Vujčić's article. (For the record, though, I've already stripped the statement from his Wikipedia article as a primary-sourced claim of no practical significance at the present time. If and when he actually registers as a candidate in the actual registration process beginning in January 2018, then it'll warrant mention. But until then, stuff can change.) Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Bali88 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why is WP:WAYTOOSOON a redlink? ansh666 17:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTAL. If pre-election coverage is wp:notable, in a way such that the election itself will not change the pre-election article, then such an article would be appropriate. Incubation is not currently practical for events more than a year out. Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As stated previously, WAY too soon. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:10, 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. Courcelles 19:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encounter Lutheran School[edit]

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

Non-notable R-7 school. We don't generally have articles for such schools unless they are especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests notability, fails WP:NSCHOOL. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 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. People on both sides of the debate seem to be struggling with the fact that we have no clear policy statement to cover this sort of article. Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES#Politicians talks about it, but it's an essay, not policy. This article is not unique, and it would be good to formulate some clearer policy to cover these. That being said, in this particular AfD, the consensus is clearly to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates[edit]

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

The page is merely a listing of election candidates, thus failing WP:IINFO Stfg (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:IINFO and not notable or useful.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate lists of this type have actually been traditionally allowed on Wikipedia — for just one example out of many, see Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. Truth be told, I'm not fully convinced that they're actually useful under current wikirules — the original 2004-vintage model was that they could hold minibios of candidates who hadn't attained enough notability to stand alone as full articles in their own rights, but the evolution of WP:BLP undermined that, and under the current BLP-compliant model they no longer serve any useful purpose that the main listing of election results isn't already serving equally well. But, fortunately or otherwise, there has yet to be a properly established consensus to kill them off entirely. Like them or not, though, WP:POLOUTCOMES currently does permit them as the standard strategy for avoiding a profusion of "campaign brochure" articles about unelected candidates every time there's an election, and there would need to be a broader consensus to eliminate them across the board rather than deeming this one to be an isolated case that's subject to different rules. Keep, although I say that reluctantly — I would favour a broader consensus that they should all be killed as WP:NOTDIR violations, but I can't support treating this one differently from the practice that currently exists as standard procedure for many other elections. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Wikipedia is a WP:NOTDIR. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:POLOUTCOMES does indeed recognise the use of articles like this as dumping grounds for minibios such as Bearcat alludes to. But this is a classic case of WP:COATRACK. WP:POLOUTCOMES (which is only an essay anyway) also states: "Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article." In other words, it specifically does not say that candidate lists like this should always be retained. In fact, the candidate list that it mentions, New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, has never been through an AfD, so how could it be considered an example of an outcome? (Its history shows one AfD, but this refers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willcott, which resulted in a merge.)
Articles like this are subject to the content policies just as much as any other article. We don't say that all articles on authors (for example) should be retained just because we have some articles on authors. By the same token, we shouldn't say that all candidate lists should be retained just because some are. Where we have IINFO, we should delete. --Stfg (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:POLOUTCOMES says that; I personally put that proviso there, for exactly the reason — the evolution of WP:BLP — that I specified here as the reason why these lists might not actually be useful anymore. The old "minibio" lists certainly still need cleanup to conform properly to current "table of names only" practice, I don't deny that either — but I've frequently asked for assistance in getting that done, only to find that there's no substantive commitment from anybody to actually do so (which, in turn, feeds into my belief that a new consensus to just kill the lists off entirely should be pursued.) That said, however, the list currently under discussion is already fully compliant with the current BLP-restricted practice, as it doesn't contain any unsourced biographical information about the candidates which wouldn't be acceptable in a standalone bio — so while there are valid reasons why we should consider ditching candidate lists of this type entirely, the "no unsourced biographical information" proviso is irrelevant to whether this list should be retained or not.

And the fact that there hasn't been an AFD on the particular list that's being cited as an example is also irrelevant to the matter: there have been AFDs on other comparable lists in the past which have resulted in either "keep" or "no consensus" closures — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, frex — and it was named there as an example of the type of list that was permitted at the time the criterion was drawn up, not as a citation for where the consensus was formulated. The example given in an OUTCOMES summary doesn't have to be one that's been directly AFDed itself, but I'd still be happy to replace that example with the ONDP 1995 list if you feel that strongly about it. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec*2) Please bear in mind that what I'm saying is in tune with the wishes you've expressed, even though my !vote is different. I don't feel "that strongly" about it and I haven't said that I do; I'm simply commenting on the application of policies and guidelines to the present case. Please also note that my !vote is based on IINFO, not BLP which, as you say, isn't violated in this case. The POLOUTCOMES bullet would need more than a change of example, because it currently speaks of the coatrack use. Apparently precedent has overruled the essay, so "the current BLP-restricted practice" needs to be described instead. I have a few questions: (a) is the current practice just precedent, or has a wider consensus already been attempted? if the latter, where? (b) since we both seem to think that lists of this type are useless, do you think there is mileage in asking for a wider consensus on this, or would it be just tilting at windmills? (c) this is slightly facetious, but only slightly ... is it BLP-compliant to allege that someone represents a political party without citing it? Because that's what the present "article" does. Peace, --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article should be properly referenced, but as an article subject it is relevant and some prose could definately be added to it. I'm moving it to become uniform with other articles on 2014 candidates. --Soman (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think that we should have a problem with a list of candidates: the main concern here should be notability. AAP is a new party, and therefore, most of their candidates are non-notable for Wikipedia. On the other hand, AAP is also the party with the largest number of candidates in the fray, and has received considerable media attention. utcursch | talk 06:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me chime in that we dont need to list on WP all the candidates with a seperate page. Thats what revferences are for.Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 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 keep. After two relistings, there's not a great deal of participation in this discussion. Closing as keep per the source provided by User:Doncram and source search link provided by User:Peripitus ([5]) that suggest a significant probability of notability. That said, while AfD is not cleanup, it would be nice for better sources to be integrated into the article. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lefevre Peninsula Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. We don't generally have articles for primary schools unless they are especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirect to Birkenhead, South Australia. It's a valid search term and seems a more sensible solution than deletion - Peripitus (Talk) 20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does though have a history back to the 1850s (rather ancient for South Australia) and this page indicates a fair amount of activity that would be covered in sources. I think though there is unlikely enough to support an independent article of any substance. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. Now that my brain is switched on I've remembered that it would have been known as a 'state school' in the 19th and probably at least the first part of the 20th century. Searching old newspapers with that terminology turns up quite a lot of material. Seems ample to write a good article, and I am sure there is quite a lot more offline at the SA state library - Peripitus (Talk) 10:42, 29 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 16:42, 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, buff bills 7701 00:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the history page mentioned above by Peripitus (itself a source written/updated on 26 May 2011 by Rob Shepherd, Principal, has at bottom a link to [file:///C:/Users/cram/Downloads/The%20changing%20names%20of%20our%20school%20over%20time%20(1).pdf this PDF page], which cites "CHINNER, Errol: School Bells Ringing, Early and Government Schools which served the People of the Port, Hourglass Books, 1996", one apparently valid available source. Given the extremely long and proud history of the school (for its area) and all the historical connections recorded in Shepherd's history, I am convinced that there will be significant coverage in newspapers and histories, probably mostly not online. --do ncr am 02:27, 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 03:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZaapTV[edit]

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

Not-notable appliance brand. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. No independent refs in article. Nothing obvious in google. This was originally a PROD, but it was contested on my talk page, so I moved it to AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7.--Laun chba ller 00:48, 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 03:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neeta Singhal[edit]

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

Seems the reference stated are more advertisment types as they are stating contact details for business Shrikanthv (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 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, → Call me Hahc21 00:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - refs appear to be thinly edited press releases at best, I can't find other sources of notability. BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:18, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fnord[edit]

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

A word from fiction that in a Google search has no reliable sources that I could find. Could be a redirect to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Article is close to a hoax or practical joke. Principal sources on Google seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia and books that are compilations of Wikipedia articles. It is perhaps appropriate that something almost without meaning has no sources but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are sources to be found such as 2011: Trendspotting for the Next Decade. The worst case would be merger into another page such as The Illuminatus! Trilogy or subliminal message. Per our editing policy, this is not done by deletion. Andrew (talk) 19:16, 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, → Call me Hahc21 00:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry allowed me to discover exactly what "fnord" was when I encountered it during work - thus doing exactly what wikipedia was intended to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.246.222 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you describe where you encountered it please as there seem to be almost no sources for its use in the real world. In fact the most important source seems to be Wikipedia itself which is, I am sure, contrary to some policy or other that we have. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of a source which corroborates the article's content see Anarchy Bridge. Andrew (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page, which is hardly a RS, says that there was once fnord graffitied on a bridge Andrew. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very amusing and ironic but WP:MADEUP (Wikipedia is not for things made up one day) seems relevant here, which amongst other things says "All articles need to cite reliable sources; if you can't do that because there aren't any sources documenting what you invented, then your content is unverifiable and should not be posted on Wikipedia." Philafrenzy (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems quite reliable and the facts about the bridge are confirmed by the book given as a source above. WP:MADEUP is not relevant because the bridge, the word, &c. were not made up by the editors of the article. The original works which did make these things up are well documented in reliable secondary sources such as Discordianism in the works of Robert Anton Wilson. Andrew (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussed in RS (e.g. [6], [7]), even used in fiction ([8]). --cyclopia ^speak! 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep neologism that has entered individual notability. Commonly used in allusions, especially in IT. Similar to Grok Foobar, etc- See [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geacron[edit]

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

probably notable--the sources seem adequate--but very highly promotional, to the point it would probably warrant a G11. Promotional features include, the extensive description of how the creator happened to get the idea for doing the project, the extensive quotes from the creator, making up about half the content; the section marked controversy is actually a section where the creator tries to defend himself against possible controversy in advance; the repeated use of the creators name; the space devoted to perfectly routine features of any such site.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism to the extent that routine editing would not fix it is a speedy criterion, but we are certainly entitled to say that any substantial amount of promotionalism is reason why the article should be deleted, and remade by a more neutral editor if any should care to. (The reason would be the deterrence of promotional editing, and this is essentially the argument we use for speedy G5, creation by a banned editor, to deter sockpuppettry) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am especially bothered by the creator's statement that "So there are cases in which the creator has had to make the decision about which interpretation was to be represented in Geacron. Múzquiz acknowledges that "ideally other experts should have participated but it would have been impossible for them to agree" I think scholars will recoil against this claim ("experts surely will disagree so I will ignore them all") because it sharply decreases the validity and usefulness of the website, making it simply the toy of its creator rather than a source of knowledge. As far as I can tell no reliable independent source had endorsed it in any way. Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the website is "simply a toy of its creator" has little or no direct bearing on whether the web site qualifies for a Wikipedia article or whether this article is so hopeless that WP:TNT is the best fix. Please provide arguments for either the web site not meeting notability or arguments in favor of blowing it (the Wikipedia article, not the web site) up and starting over. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it Promotional crap. How did this get through AfC? --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have must have accidentally approved this, as I was working that day and likely confused this with another submission. Feel free to rewrite it, but I should have declined this as NPOV. Sorry about that, as I have no idea how that got past me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that too much, you know what they say about people that never make mistakes (those that never do anything... ;-). --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical remark: Mr. Stradivarius may want to reconsider his decline of the speedy deletion as the decline reason of "Speedy deletion declined. accepted at WP:AFC by User:Kevin Rutherford, so deletion would not be uncontroversial" is no longer true per Kevin Rutherford's comment immediately above. However, the page creator, Celemin, has edited the article both after the speedy-deletion was removed and again after the article was sent to AFD. On March 27, he contested the speedy deletion on the article's talk page. On March 29, he added another comment to the article's talk page. I am going to remain neutral in this AFD. This remark should not be construed as an endorsement or objection to either the speedy deletion rationale that of this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think it is wrong to decline a speedy on the grounds it would be better to discuss it here. Doing that does not in the least indicate approval of the article, just the opinion that it would be better if the community had a chance it see it more widely. I've done this fairly often, Whether the approval of an AfC necessarily implies an objection to speedy for G11 or A7 or similar criteria is an interesting question we will need to resolve. I don't think it prevents speedy for things like copyvio or abuse that the orig. reviewer may have missed. More generally, I would support routine notification of the reviewer who approved the article as well as the creator when deletion process was started. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an argument for notability here, but as the nom observed, the article as written is hopelessly promotional. This would seem to be a case where the only remedy is TNT. Too bad though. It looks like a cool website. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tam[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Few notable credits, and no major award nominations. JDDJS (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has played a notable character in a notable show and also been in the cast of other notable movies. That said, this really needs better references than IMDb. --Jakob (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a person of note to both film and theatre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Srenne1982 (talk • contribs)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jason Tam --Jakob (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Keep played a notable role for 4 years on a major soap opera, in addition to other roles. BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:16, 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.

Reputation911[edit]

Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks[edit]

Super Smash Flash (series)[edit]

David Douglass[edit]

DDSA Games And Entertainment[edit]

April 2015[edit]

Apurv Gupta[edit]

List of tautological place names[edit]

Josh Gasser[edit]

Grayson Bruce[edit]

Mark Boyer Baseball[edit]

Independent Bosnia[edit]

Bach Chamber Choir[edit]

Southern Boone County Fire Protection District[edit]

Pickle dee[edit]

Draft:1 Adoff[edit]

Revosiete[edit]

Oil pulling[edit]

Reischea Canidate[edit]

Toronto mayoral election, 2018[edit]

Encounter Lutheran School[edit]

AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates[edit]

Lefevre Peninsula Primary School[edit]

ZaapTV[edit]

Neeta Singhal[edit]

Fnord[edit]

Geacron[edit]

Jason Tam[edit]

References[edit]