Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 September 14 September >

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 speedy delete. meets the criterion for speedy deletion as no indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Enterprise[edit]

Centre for Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub left by an SPA. Not notable enterprise. See the tags. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NONPROFIT - their scope is not national or international in scale. A google search only found local attention, lacking multiple third-party sources. - Taketa (talk) 05:13, 14 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show tech[edit]

Show tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a specific command used in networking devices. I don't know if WP:NOT includes "not a command reference guide", but.. we're not. Brought here as there's no obvious CSD criteria, though I believe it should be. CrowTalk 23:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the command, it's the procedure behind it that is worth to put it to WIKI. For that I modified the content of "show tech" a little bit to focus on the standardized procedure. Please recheck the current version. 188.193.164.135 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—WP:MANUAL is not grounds for deletion, but lack of notability is. The sources I'm finding in google books only discuss the use of the command. I'm not seeing a broader discussion of why the command is important, its history, competing approaches, etc. that could be used to write an encyclopedic article. In the absence of those kinds of sources, I don't see a clear path to WP:NOTABILITY. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:30, 15 September 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 deckertalk 02:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business and company operating manual[edit]

Business and company operating manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks any sources, appears to be simply someone's thoughts about what a business or company operating manual is. Gccwang (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  There is no value to the current article, as it is not WP:V verifiable.  The topic is is probably covered somewhere in ISO9000, and there is no reason not to have this article, but lacks a champion to cite sources and cross-link the topic with other articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient content to beworthwhile; a proper article would however be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 21 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Girardeau UFO crash[edit]

Cape Girardeau UFO crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable UFO incident. Simply no independent sourcing that identifies this event as worthy of WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per the words from WP:FRIND, what is the "fringe theory" here?  Are you claiming that for Wikipedia to cover this story, that there must be scientific evidence of a spacecraft?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I get five pages of news hits with "Cape Girardeau" and "UFO". Here are some on the first page pertaining to a 1941 incident (e.g. [1], [2]), a 1967 incident (e.g. [3]), a 1973 incident (e.g. [4], [5], [6]), and a 1975 incident (e.g. [7]). This might be worthy of a redirect someplace, but I don't know if there is enough for a stand-alone article. - Location (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also found non-trivial coverage in a goofy pop culture book: [8]. I think more serious coverage is warranted, though. - Location (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that this falls under "original research", however, the back story behind this is that William Huffman of Red Star Baptist Church allegedly witnessed or responded to a UFO crash in Cape Girardeau in April of 1941; however, I found a number of news articles from the 1940s that indicate Huffman moved to Cape Girardeau in November of 1941.[9][10][11] - Location (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this "incident" is based on a claim of one individual who told his wife, who 40 years later told her daughter who then told some UFO fanatics. For an extraordinary claim, the sources are incredibly short of anything close to reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article used to have several references, which have been systematically removed from the article. These may not be reliable sources, but they support notability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Girardeau_UFO_crash&diff=625444888&oldid=625444556
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Girardeau_UFO_crash&diff=625445063&oldid=625444985
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Girardeau_UFO_crash&diff=625445154&oldid=625445063 Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • no they dont. notablity is dependent upon reliable sources WP:42. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think WP:Notability is a better source on this topic. I'm going to restore the deleted references while we have this discussion, so that other editors can evaluate them. It seems odd to delete them before the discussion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • you apparently didnt read WP:N either: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon that, there is no reliable coverage of the alleged incident but there is reliable coverage of the allegation. The question is whether or not the coverage that exists is sufficient for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, no underlying reliable story. Someone has related a story they were told by their grandfather. No significant coverage by reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability and properly describe the topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally, is the topic to you a "UFO crash"?  If so, is that a problem with the title of the article, rather than with the story reported in the sources?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment  The theory of removing references and material before and during an AfD seems to come from the premise that AfD participants look only at the article before !voting, unaware that an absence of wp:notability cannot be determined by looking at the article.  The removal of references and material is evidence that the corresponding argument for deletion is insufficient on its merits.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: please refrain from insinuating that your fellow editors have failed to do due diligence before commenting. Remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I marked my edit "edit conflict", so no one can construe that your !vote influenced my comment.  Your comment on the other hand, is concerning, as if you are commenting on other users, your comment would be an example as per the group notice of WP:NPA.  Please assert you were not commenting on other users; because otherwise, your comment is subject to being moved to your user page, refactored, or deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment to you was intended as a polite reminder. If you think I have acted inappropriately, please escalate to the appropriate noticeboard; this is not the place to discuss other users. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is good that we agree that this is not the place to discuss other users.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Incubate or keep  A look at the history of this article shows that there is article consensus that there are a number of reliable sources available, so incubation may be needed to restore the missing references.  Another point is that Wikipedia is not about TruthTM, but rather topics that have attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Dewey defeats Truman is a classic example of a topic known to lack scientific evidence to support its veracity.  The one remaining reference in the current article shows that from the viewpoint of the world at large, this topic is one of the top four unsolved UFO cases.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • where is this consensus that there are " are a number of reliable sources available"? i am not seeing these reliable sources and certainly no consensus of reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article consensus would be in the history of the article, as previously stated.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • as previously stated, i see no reliable sources and no consensus of such. please specifically identify the sources and the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be asking me to identify the consensus version of the article, which I would say is the version prior to the one that added the AfD notice, as there is certainly no consensus to leave that tag on indefinitely.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to clarify. you stated "there is article consensus that there are a number of reliable sources available," - I am asking you to show where there is consensus about reliable sources that you claim exists.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you seem to be asking me to identify the consensus version of the article, which I would say is the version prior to the one that added the AfD notice.  I can get the date and the diff of that version if that would help.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that because these sat in the article for a while we should consider them a reliable source and that they somehow establish WP:GNG??
  • Billy Booth. "1941-Cape Girardeau, Missouri Crash". About.com. Retrieved November 19, 2013.
  • Ryan S. Wood. "The First Roswell: Evidence For A Crash Retrieval In Cape Girardeau Missouri In 1941" (PDF). MUFON. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
  • Philip Rife (2001). It Didn't Start With Roswell. iUniverse. p. 146.
Pardon me, but I consider that position absurd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you agree that those sources are in the consensus version of the article?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what I said was, "...there is article consensus that there are a number of reliable sources available...".  As I recall there was also a dead link that was improperly removed, in fact, the next edit after removing the reference was to add the "notability" tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if you have nothing other than the sources above and a dead link as your "reliable sources" to establish notability, then we are done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to put words in my mouth, I can do that by myself.  For example, that word "notability" does not appear in my !vote to which your are replying.  Seems that I must repeat myself.  "The removal of references and material is evidence that the corresponding argument for deletion is insufficient on its merits."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Here is the "dead link", [12].  Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage consists of regional news items with a focus on claims made by Harley Rutledge. Not really enough for its own article, but it may be appropriate to have summaries of the various Girardeau UFO sightings at Harley Rutledge. OK, it looks like there are actually several separate claims of various "UFO crashes" connected to Cape Girardeau. But the one this article concerns seems to have been originated by Leonard Stringfield. And I can't find a preponderance of reliable sources that show it's notable enough for its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two additional news stories have been added as references. If three independent news organizations have decided this is notable enough and credible enough to cover, that seems like evidence that this is a notable topic. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikipedia is not the news. the IB times itself is not a reliable source on this subject as their article lead proclaims to be about 4 cases that have not been explained and includes Roswell which most certainly has been explained. and the two that have been added are not actually "news" they are the local "human interest filler" fluff - Tyler Texas news "East Texans Shares "Family Secret" Of UFO Sighting" and Cape Girardeau new "Close encounters of the Heartland kind" = local woman has urban legend she is promoting. (and note that one of them did not even put enough research and editing to capture a spell check conversion of the woman's name from "Charlotte Mann" to "Charlotte man"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A 1941 story is still being reported in 2006 in the regional newspaper, link, and you are arguing that this is news reporting?  By that argument we need to remove everything subsequent to 1941 from the encyclopedia, since it is just news.  Your personal opinion that the Roswell case is "most certainly" "explained" is not from a reliable source, and is in any case a matter of interpretation.  Noticing that the transcript of a TV report spelled "Mann" as "man" is probably worth mentioning, but it does not change the substance, which is repeated in our other mainstream sources.  One of the points made in that 2008 report from Tyler, Texas is, "The UFO crash of 1941 in Missouri continues to be researched and investigated today. So far, the story has been included in two books and one documentary."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pin your argument of notability on an article that gives precedence to a story about a two headed rat snake, then by all means go ahead. but regurgitated "news of the weird" is not WP:GNG . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now you don't dispute that the sources are reliable, but this is silly-season filler?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable references to have an entire article to itself. Goblin Face (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there are some reliable references?  Which are the ones you consider reliable?  What is unreliable about the others?  If not an entire article, where should it be a partial article?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to readers  2Over0 has reverted my last post.  The edit remains in the edit history, and contains content relevant to this discussion regarding WP:DEAD LINK, as well it identifies as off-topic two comments and as a personal attack one comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  WP:TPO states, with emphasis in original, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  2Over0 started a discussion on my talk page, but when I asked a question he/she has not replied.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  2Over0 has administrative rights.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The irony here is that you were refactoring other people's posts improperly: [13]. Take it to ANI if you have a problem. - Location (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having commented prior to reverting the inappropriate refactoring, I am WP:INVOLVED here; my admin flag is irrelevant. Location says everything else that needs to be said here. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is insufficient coverage of the allegation - and that is all this is - in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to form a stand-alone article. Regarding those few reliable sources that do exist, I have no objection to placing this material in Leonard Stringfield as per LuckyLouie's argument above. - Location (talk) 04:03, 22 September 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 deckertalk 06:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Silverstein[edit]

David Silverstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to be about a non-notable person per wp guidelines, with not a single reliable independent source regarding his notability (a single reference in an obscure source doesn't rise to the occasion, imho). Onel5969 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage found. I especially looked for any confirmation of his role in arranging a Dalai Lama visit but couldn't find any. (Hint to future article writers: including "Who's Who" in the bio just makes you look desperate.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 15 September 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.

Fresh Kid Ice[edit]

The result was redirect to 2 Live Crew. (Non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Fresh Kid Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suggest the same result as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresh Kid Ice, a redirect to 2 Live Crew. This rapper has not received enough independent coverage in reliable sources and he never released any notable or charting solo albums. All the sources in the article are about the group rather than him. This article has been bloated beyond belief compared to the previous AfD version, but almost the whole article is about the group now. STATic message me! 16:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suggest the same result as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresh Kid Ice, a redirect to 2 Live Crew. This rapper is part of Platinum selling group, discovered the current A-List rapper Flo Rida, he is the first Asian rapper on a Platinum selling Album. There is sufficient covering about him. And if we have to delete his page we would have to delete pages of Dj Yella, Mc Ren, other 2 Live Crew Members,Pete Best, (who didn't have great subsequent careers after their group) all underground artist, and so forth. If 2 Live Crew never had a Gold record or wasn't part of group that had a lot of coverage I may agree with the above user. User:Filmman3000 12:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons to DJ Yella, MC Ren or Pete Best are completely off as those subjects have been covered separately and have released notable solo albums. The group is most certainly notable, but notability is not inherited. STATic message me! 03:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok in that case go delete pages regarding The Wu Disciples La the Darkman, Shabazz the Disciple, GP Wu, Achozen, to name a few. I do not want to influence the deletion of their pages, but by the standards you are giving me they are to delete and should only have a short paragraph on the List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates. User:Filmman3000 18:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the first thing I see on Notability Inherited Keep She once worked with someone famous – Keeper. The dude worked with Flo Rida, Insane Clown Posse, and even Vanilla Ice independently from 2 Live Crew.Filmman3000 (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 16 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:11, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 21:00, 2 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally closed this a week ago as Redirect but at the time of closing I failed to spot Filmmans comment who now wants it relisted [14] so to keep everyone sweet I've relisted for another week (God help me!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :*(This rapper is part of Platinum selling group, discovered the current A-List rapper Flo Rida, he is the first Asian rapper on a Platinum selling Album. And if we have to delete his page we would have to delete pages of artist who didn't have great subsequent careers after their group all underground artist, and so forth. Also in that case we would have to go delete pages regarding The Wu Disciples La the Darkman, Shabazz the Disciple, GP Wu, Achozen, to name a few. I do not want to influence the deletion of their pages, but by the standards StaticVapor is giving me they are to delete and should only have a short paragraph on the List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates. I see on Notability Inherited Keep She once worked with someone famous – Keeper. The artist worked with Flo Rida, Insane Clown Posse, and even Vanilla Ice independently from 2 Live Crew. If 2 Live Crew never had a Gold record or wasn't part of group that had a lot of coverage I may agree with this other user.) Filmman3000 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:*(Having spent time researching and editing hip-hop artist pages, I feel qualified to share my two cents. Yes, as Filmman3000 pointed out, there are numerous hip-hop artists pages on Wikipedia that are likely not relevant enough to merit its own page. It is quite subjective to say whether a certain artist is relevant. The best way to solve the matter is to refer back to Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). Which, in a nutshell require the subject to be referenced in numerous reliable sources and to be notable for more than one event. In the case of the Fresh Kid Ice article, the references cited are overwhelmingly dealing with either the 2 Live Crew as a group or Fresh Kid Ice's involvement with the 2 Live Crew. For this article to remain in Wikipedia, additional reliable sources need to be introduced that reference Fresh Kid Ice's biography outside of the 2 Live Crew.) Djrun (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hok Kolorob[edit]

Hok Kolorob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone once did put a AFD but then they removed it (so there is no discussion about it) so a redirect would be the best Wgolf (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - album seems to be notable. Online sources are hard to come by since back then when the album got released (2006), online news portals were not much available in Bangladesh. However, I have found a recent feature article about the album here. --Zayeem (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kmzayeem-Good point, its not like out here in the US or in places like the UK, Canada, ect. where we have been able to get sources online for YEARS. Thanks, I'll keep this up longer though to see the outcome go through of course. Wgolf (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --Zayeem (talk) 08:58, 15 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adheko Ghume[edit]

Adheko Ghume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously prod-does not seem to meet the album criteria-should just be redirected to the singer. Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:30, 14 September 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 deckertalk 06:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Umar Vadillo[edit]

Sheikh Umar Vadillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An economist promoting his ideas about currency, etc. Judging by the sources cited and a Google search, neither the man nor his views appear especially notable (WP:BIO). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muamlaatism, where the article about his economic theory was deleted.  Sandstein  21:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dmol (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unremarkable academic with an unremarkable theory. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:32, 19 September 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 deckertalk 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Moore (Australian filmmaker, composer, author)[edit]

Phil Moore (Australian filmmaker, composer, author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. Does not meet GNG nor do I believe he meets any other notability criteria. J04n(talk page) 21:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete unreferenced BLP. created by a single purpose editor so likely AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim to notability. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:35, 21 September 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. Tone 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical personification[edit]

Typographical personification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was proposed for deletion with the comment, "Non-notable and original research. I can find no substantial sources for any of this stuff." I moved this to AfD to allow it to have more widespread scrutiny. I note that Titivillus, and some of the other named fairies and demons said to afflict printers, do seem to show up in GBooks searches, but whether there is a coherent topic here or not, I am not so sure. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to delete this article. All the words appear in texts in different languages, as far as I understand. An encyclopaedia is the right place to explain them to non native speakers. Requesting individual sources for each of them is overkill, as the content often is trivial to native speakers of the languages. Having one article for each of them would be overkill as well, as they are basically the same entity. Mlewan (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the five sources currently in the article, two are dictionary entries that say nothing about "typographical personification", two are very short primary sources, and one only talks about Titivillus, not typo demons in general. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found indicating that the topic is notable, the article should be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD proposer. There are no reliable sources to be found for any of these creatures. The only sources in this article are two links to a now-defunct website featuring user-submitted amateur art, and two dictionary entries regarding the etymology of the Spanish word for "baby rabbit" (???). The only half-way decent entry is Titivillus, who already has his own article. And he is a demon for messing with medieval scribes' handwriting, not typographical errors, so it's not even quite the same thing. I looked for sources that could be used as a basis for a proper article, but I could not find anything beyond name-mentions that did not go into any real detail. Reyk YO! 23:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and PROD. Searching for the term "Typographical personifications" yields nothing (other than lots of Wikipedia mirrors picking up this article). I searched for "Typo fairies" and "Typo demons" and didn't find anything either. If some of the supposed specific fictional creatures such as Trykkleif -- if they exist -- then perhaps there should be a separate article on that term, for each one. This Wikipedia page should not serve as a catch-all category for numerous fictional creatures. If they 'exist' as concepts worthy of wiki-articles, then the proper thing to do would be to float individual articles, one per creature, and add the category "Typographical personifications" at the bottom of each article. But to declare that there is something called Typographical personifications is essentially an act of original research. Further, this article does not meet the WP:GNG by any stretch, almost appears to be a hoax.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 20 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trần Minh Toàn[edit]

Trần Minh Toàn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had this as a prod but changing it to a AFD-does not meet wiki standards for a soccer player yet. Wgolf (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:48, 14 September 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) 02:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 14 September 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 all (nomination withdrawn) except The Rise and Fall of the Romanov Autocracy (speedy-deleted G7 at author's request). JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of the Romanov Autocracy[edit]

The Rise and Fall of the Romanov Autocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, one of several play-stub articles created solely because of one actor who once performed in them, along with:

Johnny Johnson (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blood on the Neck of the Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Farewell, My Lovely (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frozen Assets (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ideal Gnome Exhibition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Google books search found nothing substantial on these. I nominate them all for deletion. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I don't know what search engine you use but let me see:
I'm guessing that you google book searched The Rise and Fall of the Romanov Autocracy only and because it turned up nothing you assumed the others were all non notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, I looked up all those titles in Google Books and couldn't find any significant mention of PLAYS by those names. Maybe the UK version has different databases than the US version, but I found lots of mentions of the titles as names or phrases, but not as plays. The fact that the articles didn't even mention the author's names made it more difficult. Regardless, the articles' only proof of notability is that they were connected by the same actor, so those should have been tagged for notability issues months ago. I will add all these sources to the talk pages of the respective plays so that they can be added to the articles to establish notability. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones that have plenty of sources, either given in the article or showing up on a search, such as Blood on the Cat's Neck. Delete the others, if there are any. I find a multiple submission of unrelated and very different articles very confusing. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have deleted The Rise and Fall of the Romanov Autocracy per WP:CSD#G7 at its author's request. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: And now I see that two of those articles have now been redirected to other articles and that the other three have been filled in. Whoever did all that, thanks! Am I allowed to remove the deletion tag, or do I have to wait until more folks have voted? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just "withdraw" the nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw remaining noms, unless other people want to contest their notability. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would an admin please withdraw this as requested? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 16 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Van Toan (footballer)[edit]

Nguyen Van Toan (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a soccer player as has not gone pro Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:53, 14 September 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) 02:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 14 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Công Phượng[edit]

Nguyễn Công Phượng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a soccer player as not a full pro season Wgolf (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:54, 14 September 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) 02:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phan Văn Long[edit]

Phan Văn Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yeah does not meet the soccer thing. Wgolf (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:56, 14 September 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) 02:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this player doesn't even seem to have a Soccerway profile, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't played in pro league, no significant coverage, failing WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Morever, the "article" is a stub of one single sentence, and the infobox doesn't even have caps and goals in the non-pro team he did play in or his national (u20) caps and goals --SuperJew (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:34, 15 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Quang Hai (Hanoian footballer)[edit]

Nguyen Quang Hai (Hanoian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another one that does not meet the soccer bio players standard Wgolf (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:57, 14 September 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) 02:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoàng Thanh Tùng[edit]

Hoàng Thanh Tùng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet bio notability for soccer players Wgolf (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 14 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phan Văn Đức[edit]

Phan Văn Đức (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon if ever for this player Wgolf (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 14 September 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. Tone 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trần Minh Vương[edit]

Trần Minh Vương (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another one by the same user that seems to not meet the sport guidelines yet. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 September 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. Tone 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phạm Trùm Tỉnh[edit]

Phạm Trùm Tỉnh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not played a full season so too soon if ever Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 September 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. Tone 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Tuấn Anh[edit]

Nguyễn Tuấn Anh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bunch of these unsourced prods by the same person-this guy has not played a full professional season yet so it falls under too soon I believe. Wgolf (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 September 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. Tone 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ahmad[edit]

Mirza Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. At least 3 WP:SPA contributors, including the creator and another whose username indicates WP:COI. I couldn't access the Times article. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 September 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-administrator closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case-Mate[edit]

"Withdrawn by nominator"

I have reverted the present Case-Mate to one of the earlier revisions that made sense. Thank you for those who have participated in the discussionCheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 01:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Case-Mate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written for a advertisement. It is not allowed, I have acknowledged the Wikipedia standards for deletion. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 19:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANYONE MAY JOIN THE DISCUSSION, NO MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS TO REINFORCE YOUR OPINION. PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOU'VE PLACED AN OPINION ON MY talk page.

Rules:

You may not delete or undo any other user's opinion. I will personally delete those that are vandalism.

No multiple accounts as I have mentioned.

You may not change someone other user's opinions.

Be respectful and reasonable.

Thank you.Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 21:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's nothing in the article; an SPA blanked it before you took it to AfD. I suggest reverting to the reversion as of 13 September, 18:52 [36], before the article was defaced. Altamel (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Altamel Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to execute it.Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 23:46, 13 September 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 deckertalk 02:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Burks[edit]

Anthony Burks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Every single source I can find out there is either self-generated or non-reliable. The only provided reference is trivial, non-specific coverage. There is no verifiable proof about the Cornell Museum collection claim. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-until some sort of evidence anyone can find. Wgolf (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as can't seem to find any evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel are not self generated sources. Acess world news is a database of newspaper articles that was my primary source. I will make a call to the muesuem to give first and second source verfication of the piece of artwork along with more source information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.179.52.165 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There just isn't anything in depth yet to establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 03:58, 20 September 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 Ted Cruz. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a standalone article. I'm redirecting instead of deleting only because several people advocate a merger. Redirecting allows merging any useful content from the history, subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  17:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz In Defense of Christians controversy[edit]

Ted Cruz In Defense of Christians controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the event that is the subject of this article has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, the event occurred on 10 September 2014, and I am of the opinion that the event does not meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Furthermore, the tone of the article is not neutral and can be seen as an WP:ATTACKPAGE or WP:POVFORK. Therefore, if the subject is to be written about it should begin at the Ted Cruz article, be neutrally worded and well cited per WP:BLP, and if the content grows and that article meets WP:TOOLONG, than it could be possible that this article be recreated as a sub-article. Therefore, I do not support salting the name space at this time, just deletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, leaving open the possibility of merging any relevant information into the Ted Cruz article. I strongly considered making this nomination myself, based mostly on a lack of notability per WP:NOTNEWS. And the nominator's concerns regarding it possibly being an attack page also have merit, given the thin (and almost entirely critical) list of sources currently in use. LHMask me a question 18:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ted Cruz... Roberticus talk 18:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given it some thought, and as the creator of this article, while I of course would prefer that we keep it, I'd also be open to a merge. Most of the content could be merged intact into Ted Cruz and given its own section under his U. S. Senate career. However, the controversy over Tobin's comments is not directly related to Cruz and might be better merged into Jonathan Tobin. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, any merge would not likely result in most of the article being "merged intact." In all likelihood, at most a neutrally-worded paragraph would be merged into the main article. LHMask me a question 15:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. Not enough for standalone article.--TM 15:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or posisbly Merge into Ted Cruz. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. There just aren't reliable sourcing showing how this event matters long term--at best this is WP:TOOSOON.-- danntm T C 00:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Scott McConnell has argued that this controversy is already spreading beyond Cruz and will likely widen into a broader schism within the conservative movement. [37]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding more opinion pieces that happen to agree with your view that this is causing a schism among conservatives does nothing to further the case for keeping this article. LHMask me a question 16:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ted Cruz. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON. Can be reinstated as separate article if warranted by continued press coverage.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly Merge into Ted Cruz. The controversy was controversial because it was Cruz and it really doesn't look like it amounts to much. It looks to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON.I am One of Many (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to the suggestions above, this controversy has persisted for a significant period (coming up on two weeks) - which is not a "short news cycle", and has been covered beyond the confines of the conservative commentariat, receiving notice in the Israeli media, among others. Moreover, while its long-term significance remains to be seen, there is ample discussion of how this controversy illuminates divisions within the US conservative movement. I'd be concerned that a merger would result in cursory treatment of a complex matter. We may want a better title, however. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Two weeks is not "a significant period of time." LHMask me a question 23:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Two weeks is sufficient for for plenty of events deemed notable for Wikipedia. Obviously, such vague standards are open to different interpretations, but WP:PERSISTENCE makes explicit mention of persistence beyond a "relatively short news cycle". Clearly, we are several news cycles into this controversy. Secondly, I make note that the aforementioned policy notes: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. (emphasis added). Certainly this has become a significant source of analysis and discussion. Gabrielthursday (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor event. I'm not sure it should even be included in the article on the Senator unless it becomes significant in an election. I am very reluctant to delete article on the basis of NOT NEWS, which I think we use to hide our head in the sand about what will clearly be seen as important events, but making articles such as this is a clear violation. If the NOT NEWS policy means anything at all, it applies to this NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 21 September 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 deckertalk 05:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Aux Vaches (Muslimgauze album)[edit]

Mort Aux Vaches (Muslimgauze album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A album with no info on it at all. Wgolf (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as a redirect to Mort Aux Vaches appears unnecessary... Roberticus talk 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - album stub with no significant coverage refs. Discogs listing does not establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 September 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 deckertalk 05:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MyGica[edit]

MyGica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability Jac16888 Talk 17:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - technology hardware of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up sales links, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage. Blackguard 02:23, 20 September 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. Was deleted as copyvio by RHaworth. j⚛e deckertalk 05:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMSTECH Inter Islamic Network on Virtual Universities[edit]

COMSTECH Inter Islamic Network on Virtual Universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, promotional entry about a non-notable organization. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. article has been improved and notability established (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture of Bigfoot[edit]

The Capture of Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding evidence of notability Primefac (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A book (Bigfoot!: The True Story of Apes in America, by Loren Coleman, p. 209) states this movie "capped" the era of Bigfoot movies. "All I Need to Know about Filmmaking I Learned from The Toxic Avenger" by Lloyd Kaufman and James Gunn states (humorously) this is "the best film ever made about a man in a cheesy fur coat falling down in the snow... over and over again". There are plenty of other sources out there. As a result, I guess this movie is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Slovakia relations[edit]

Bangladesh–Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The relationship and article is based on a loose collection of facts. Only one leader visit in 20 years of relations. The article says Bangladeshi exports of 100 million is euro is significant, which it isn't really as Slovakia imports USD74 billion a years. And these exports are clothing which is what Bangladesh exports everywhere. The 2 countries only drafted an agreement but I see no evidence of it being ratified. Lastly neither country has a resident ambassador. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article should be kept according to the general notability guidelines. Slovakia was visited by Prime Minister of Bangladesh, so the relationship is significant. Nomian (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wait, what? The general notability guidelines require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - that's significant coverage of the formal diplomatic relationship between these countries. A stop-over in one country by the leader of another isn't an indication of anything beyond it being a nice or convenient place for a stop-over. It says nothing about the formal diplomatic relationship between the two countries. In fact, there isn't anything that says anything about the formal diplomatic relationship between the two countries so this fails WP:GNG comprehensively. St★lwart111 13:00, 22 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi to English dictionaries[edit]

Sindhi to English dictionaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic; sources are links to specific examples of the genre. If there is anything useful here, it would belong in the article on Sindhi language. Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TRPoD's sources appear to reach WP:GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate article. with adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 21 September 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 deckertalk 05:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seerat Kapoor[edit]

Seerat Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress with only one role.-Too soon. Now someday yes, but not today. Wgolf (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as sadly no evidence no any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 14 September 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:SK #1 (admittedly out of process since I participated here, any editor should revert if they feel this is out of line) j⚛e deckertalk 18:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sleeping States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA and has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Deleted at 2006 AfD as copyvio. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted A9. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outnumbered The Mixtape[edit]

Outnumbered The Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously deleted as a speedy, seems unotable as a mixtape as well. Wgolf (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The artiste's article has been deleted four times, and is now protected. A9 could apply here... Peridon (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 September 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star vehicle[edit]

Star vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, no sources, does not merit separate article. Zombiesturm (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: definitely needs vast improvement, but unless there is a concrete offer to incorporate the term elsewhere, the article should stay. Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a merge discussion is appropriate for AFD. Let us stay on point, please. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the next best thing when it's notable to retain the material when deleting an article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the first place, the article does already have a couple of sources, although they are currently listed under "External links" The concept of the star vehicle is certainly notable. Here are some books that discuss it as a marketing concept and, according to at least one writer, as a distinct genre of motion picture: [50][51][52][53][54][55]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 deckertalk 02:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (technical summit)[edit]

Amalthea (technical summit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising for a rather recent started series of meetings (started in 2010) by a very recently started university (started 2008). Many sources are not about the summit or are just passing mentions. So besides the advertising, I doubt about notability. The Banner talk 13:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 14 September 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 deckertalk 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukaku special[edit]

Lukaku special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable association football move/skill. LRD 11:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. LRD 12:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a non-notable type of goal. No references either. IJA (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely non-notable. GiantSnowman 08:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable football term/concept, personally I've never heard it used at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely non-notable. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not notable. Spumuq (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: All In. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maris racal[edit]

Maris racal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. Was only a runner-up of the show she joined. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 10:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Press[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Impact Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD resulted in no consensus. Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete Could find no references and no information to fill in the article. I added it to List_of_political_magazines in the "no longer published" section with a link to the Web site. If this article is kept, then the magazine name should also link to this article. LaMona (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources for this, including [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. There are also a number of citations. It is difficult to find them because "impact press" can refer to other things including a notable publisher and a search for it produces a lot of results related to impact, press, and upset steel forgings. A search for "impactpress com" (its URL) produces mostly relevant results (including 42 citations in GScholar) as does this search suggested at the last AfD. IMPACT Press (magazine) would be an unambiguous title. James500 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 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 21:21, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (confess) @ 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LiliAna Rose[edit]

LiliAna Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer-songwriter, one-time X Factor contestant eliminated in early rounds. The references in the article are: a Wall Street Journal blog post about the X Factor episode she appeared on, a CNN Marquee blog post also about X Factor, a blog post on the UK folk revival that doesn't mention her at all, a blog post that is unavailable (even through the Wayback Machine or Google's cache), and a couple of print pieces about an ancestor. My own search only found 'X Factor' contestant (apparently) a Muhlenberg grad from the Lehigh Valley Morning Call, which looks like a local human interest story, and MTV Staffer LiliAna Rose’s Music Career Gets A Boost From Perez Hilton on the MTV Newsroom blog, which pretty much just announces that Perez Hilton plugged her in a post. Her only album is self-released. I don't believe this is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. — Gwalla | Talk 20:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gwalla | Talk 20:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:49, 29 August 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 20:48, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 10:21, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epy and Ardiv[edit]

Epy and Ardiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A band from Malaysia whose only claim to fame is on Youtube. Granted Youtube is huge and tons of people have came from there (well not tons, but you get the point), but this is just 2 people who seem to have nothing else to say and no refs and nothing going to this. Wgolf (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 August 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 20:47, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 10:20, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small College[edit]

Small College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonverifiable notability of a Korean educational movement Staszek Lem (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 30 August 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 20:47, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 10:20, 13 September 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John J. "Bald Jack" Ryan[edit]

John J. "Bald Jack" Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If this does not meet WP:TNT I don't know what does. Launchballer 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TNT is only an essay. Do you have any policy-based arguments for deletion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 10:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliable refs. No need for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep while whether some of the listed (print) sources amount to WP:SIGCOV is questionable, their breadth seems to indicate that this meets the bar on notability... Roberticus talk 19:02, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yahosheanism[edit]

Yahosheanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find reliable third-party sources on the subject. Kbseah (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:20, 7 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nomination. Even the article in The Newswriter is written by the same person. There just isn't enough here to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ground Zero | t 12:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I read the article and I do not want such religion promoted on Wikipedia. MyUsernameHasAlreadyBeenUsed (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom BlueSalix (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda Institute Of Higher Education, Najafgarh[edit]

Vivekananda Institute Of Higher Education, Najafgarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This university appears to fail WP:NCORP. As far as I can tell, there is no significant coverage of this institution, and the tone of the article is rather promotional. Note that based on the context of the article, this university is unrelated to the Vivekananda Institute Of Higher Studies, which is registered in West Bengal rather than Delhi. The one reference on the article links to a publishing company rather than a school. Altamel (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:32, 29 August 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 20:09, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 10:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Iliev[edit]

Alexander Iliev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established either as entertainer (WP:ENT) or academic (WP:Academic). Minor Guiness records (out of thousands published) do nothing to establish notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 30 August 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 20:07, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (gab) @ 10:17, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ReOS[edit]

ReOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG, etc. Notability has been questionable since Feb 2010 Mr. Guye (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 30 August 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 20:06, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 10:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Babylon 5 episodes. j⚛e deckertalk 05:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Now for a Word[edit]

And Now for a Word (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable television episode does not deserve its own article. Tagged for lack of notability since June 2011. Mr. Guye (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 30 August 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 20:06, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 10:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Babylon 5 episodes. j⚛e deckertalk 05:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Race Through Dark Places[edit]

A Race Through Dark Places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable episode Mr. Guye (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 30 August 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 20:05, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 10:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am okay with the redirect option. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Babylon 5 episodes. j⚛e deckertalk 05:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions and Lamentations[edit]

Confessions and Lamentations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another unremarkable Babylon 5 episode. Mr. Guye (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 30 August 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 20:05, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (indicate) @ 10:16, 13 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Region Music Festival[edit]

Northwest Region Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambiguous notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 30 August 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 20:04, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 10:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no claim of significance... Roberticus talk 19:06, 13 September 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 Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Legacy. j⚛e deckertalk 05:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri Dawn[edit]

Centauri Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pulp-science fiction book based on computer game. No viable references available to demonstrate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 August 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 20:03, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 10:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Legacy... Roberticus talk 19:10, 13 September 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. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 paintings[edit]

9/11 paintings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this borders on WP:LISTCRUFT. This article says in effect that there are paintings about 9/11 - but there are no articles on WP so go look at these links. Not sure if this info could be merged somewhere else Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:50, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 10:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR this is synthesis, no evidence that the topic of 9/11 related paintings is itself notable provided... Roberticus talk 19:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. May actually be notable, as the New York Times of all papers wrote about it. However, I can't find enough coverage. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Babylon 5 episodes. j⚛e deckertalk 06:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revelations (Babylon 5)[edit]

Revelations (Babylon 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another unnoteworthy episode. Mr. Guye (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:46, 6 September 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, Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 10:13, 13 September 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 Social media. Spartaz Humbug! 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social IT[edit]

Social IT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an WP:OR jargon-laden essay with nothing in terms of actual content, almost to the point of being incoherent and spammy. There appear to be mentions of the term "social IT" floating around based on a cursory search, but this article provides nothing from reliable sources. If anything, even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT applies. Kinu t/c 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fine piece of buzzword bingo with spam links strewn about. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename or merge with information technology. What the article seems to be about is "use of social media in information technology." There are a couple of links referring to how companies are using Facebook and social websites in their IT, for example making solutions to IT issues public and searchable. Gccwang (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a 469 page book on the subject of "social information technology". That is fairly conclusive proof of notability. I suggest stubifying or redirecting this page. We are going to have to include this expression, at least as a redirect. James500 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Social media which seems the best target at the moment. If at some point in the future someone writes a properly sourced encyclopedic article on this as a distinct topic to Social media, fine, but for now I don't think we should keep it. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 9 September 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 10:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic is notable as indicated by previous comments and [64] and [65]. But, there's a copy-paste issue to be dealt with so something beyond a pure keep needs to happen here. ~KvnG 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Social media. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 21 September 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 deckertalk 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Hudson[edit]

Emmanuel Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Between appearing on an MTV show and having a lot of YouTube hits, there was enough claim to notability to avoid speedy deletion, but I didn't find anything in the way of reliable independent references. --Finngall talk 15:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 August 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 02:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Wild 'n Out, which seems to be the only significant thing he's done. Doesn't satisfy any notability criteria so a dedicated article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 9 September 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 10:01, 13 September 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. After two relistings no policy-based consensus to keep. The single "source" for the article is not independent of the topic and a paucity of other sources puts this below the notability threshold and the requirements of WP:ORG.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhashaindia.com[edit]

Bhashaindia.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with the reason "Has one reference (even if it's a self reference)" — no, it is no reference, only a link to the website in question. Microsoft created many websites, and there is no evidence that this particular one is noteworthy. The article has no references at all. Cursory search finds only passing mentions. — Keφr 07:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 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 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article doesn't demonstrate encyclopedic relevance, and I didn't find much from a Google search to do so either. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 9 September 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 09:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servalan[edit]

Servalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sci TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader, The Essential Cult TV Reader and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:11, 28 August 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, 2 September 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 09:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains useful and interesting matter for devotees of the series, I'm not sure that the character merits an entire article though, it would be good just to include this information in the main Blakes Seven article. For balance, then, details of all the other main, or recurring characters would also have to be expanded. It's a lot of work.Plingsby (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Plingsby (talk) if it not notable or has any third person sources surely a better compromise to deletion would be to merge to Characters of Blake's 7. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I didn't realise that there was such an extensive article out there (it's not mentioned in the "see also" section of the main Blakes Seven page.) This article is well-constructed and as I said, interesting to fans (like me) of the series. A lot of work has obviously gone into it. It should not be deleted, merger with Characters of Blake's 7 is the way to go. Plingsby (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree Plingsby (talk) Servalan maybe should be merged. But Roj Blake really needs to be discussed also. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we don't agree. I don't have the impression that you know the first thing about this show or how huge this character was back in the day. Have you read any of the sources provided above such as A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7? The topic is quite notable and our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf all these so called articles are notable by all means add sources I am not against character profiles I love them so long as it has sources to show that are notable. I am just sick of people screaming notable with character bios which literally have one line and no sources and people wanna argue its notable and don't wanna add sources. I would argue WP:PROVEIT Andrew I am not having a go at you. I am just making a general statement if you can bother to create an article you can be bothered to find sources to justify its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roj Blake[edit]

Roj Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sci TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including British Science Fiction Television: A Hitchhiker's Guide, Solar Flares: Science Fiction in the 1970s and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:11, 28 August 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, 2 September 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 09:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you are so confident that this article is notable Andrew why don't you add sources to the article to improve it? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:14, 14 September 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 deckertalk 05:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de la Rubia (organist)[edit]

Juan de la Rubia (organist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability test for musicians - WP:MUSICBIO.  —Waldhorn (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 August 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 02:20, 25 August 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 02:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. There does not appear to be suitable coverage of this individual; at least as a google search would show. I notice the Spanish and Catalan language versions of the article appear to have the same issue. PNGWantok (talk) 04:11, 2 September 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 09:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He has three CDs listed on Amazon [66] but I can't find reliably published reviews of them. And there is lots of press announcing his concerts, but I couldn't find any reviews of those either. So this seems below the mark for WP:NMUSIC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 19 September 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 Edexcel#Diploma in digital applications. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate in Digital Applications[edit]

Certificate in Digital Applications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No referenced content, article is too short 1999sportsfan (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edexcel#Diploma in digital applications, which has about as much info on it as this article anyway. No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, even after being tagged for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 27 August 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 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good nomination Op47 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 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 09:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Edexcel. This is a particular course of study at a particular school. Inherently not notable. Just plain deleting it is a viable option too, but redirects are cheap. BTW, the fact that the article is too short makes it a stub, and that's not a reason to delete. But there are plenty of others reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 13 September 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). Of note is that this can be boldly redirected, and if reverted, then discussion could continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Vault Vol. 01[edit]

Demo Vault Vol. 01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This album fails WP:NALBUMS because it has not been discussed in third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 August 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 02:49, 2 September 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 09:45, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus: The Devil's Primate[edit]

Klaus: The Devil's Primate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails WP:GNG A mention in the Sunderland Echo is the only source I could find. This film meets the criteria of WP:NFF at best. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 23 August 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 deckertalk 05:10, 2 September 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 09:44, 13 September 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Zarrilli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vincent Zarrilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not really seeing anything "notable" here able being a critic of the Big Dig. Many people have been critical of it, but this also reads like a promotional piece for the man, with an entire bibliography slapped onto the end. Furthermore, of the sources that are linked, only one mentions Zarrilli, and that one doesn't really go into too much depth other than a few mentions in relation to the story. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I haven't seen a "Back the BB" sign in years, but they were very common in the 80s and 90s, and the Pot Shop is a pretty common presence in tourist trap shops around Boston. That said, I can understand the nomination, as Zarilli hasn't had much to say in years, but he was a notable, if minor, figure in the controversy over the Big Dig. Haikupoet (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Previous AfD produced no delete !votes.  There are reliable sources to show that this topic is not a hoax or something made up.  AfD is not cleanup.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 5 September 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 09:44, 13 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Billot[edit]

Victor Billot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Elguaponz (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my original post on the article's Talk page: Victor Billot doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. Co-leadership of a party outside of Parliament isn't enough (see WP:POLITICIAN), which leaves a standard comms job, editing a student magazine, and two un-notable bands. Even his official site is empty except for an email address. Elguaponz (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do any of these mentions establish notability? If he's simply quoted as Alliance co-leader, I don't believe that's enough (see WP:POLITICIAN) Elguaponz (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Billot is from Dunedin, so I've had a look through the Otago Daily Times archive. They have 61 articles on him, but I grant that some of those are opinion pieces written by himself. Their archive goes back to 2008 only, so it misses the period when he was co-leader, when no doubt there would have been even more coverage. I concede that he will not have anywhere near as high a profile outside of Otago, but suggest that he's (just) notable enough to warrant his own article. I've expanded the article a bit. Schwede66 19:29, 4 September 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 09:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per Schwede, but would it be possible to make it clearer what he is notable for? Maybe the Otago Daily Times makes it clearer. If he's notable for having been a politician maybe the article needs to lead with that fact, not what he is doing now.CoronaryKea (talk) 11:15, 22 September 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 deckertalk 06:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DOS 0[edit]

DOS 0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, Wikipedia is not a changelog. Second, searching for "DOS 0" on the Web or Google Books gives only white noise. View statistics show literally zero hits before this page was created. Nobody looks up "DOS 0" (On second thought, this may not be a good argument; this tool measures articles hits, not searches. Though Google Trends notes about seventy searches per month and declining, but only from Portugal, so these are probably false positives.), because nobody uses this name. It has been contrived by the page's creator. — Keφr 10:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does seem to be a WP:PTM violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page has so many problems and violates so many policies that I don't know where to begin. All of them stem from the fact that the article has no purpose. For example:
    1. It groups loosely related links because they are all preview releases and have DOS in their names. (WP:IINFO violation.)
    2. Although it is plausible to refer to 86-DOS, QDOS and FreeDOS as DOS because they are all disk operating systems, it is aberrant to use "DOS" to refer to the title portion of a specific version of them. (WP:PTM violation.) It is analogous to saying operating system 3.1 to mean Windows NT 3.1.
    3. The title is inventive. (WP:TITLE violation.) Let's assume that a computer program titled "DOS" actually exists. It is uncommon to use "DOS 0" to refer to its prerelease versions.
    4. Even if we ignore WP:PTM violation, the number of links is artificially increased. Most of these links refer to one article and the whole page can be summarized into three links.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 September 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 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Codename Lisa. The entire premise of this page is that various pre-release versions of MS-DOS are referred to as DOS 0. This is a dubious claim. Reyk YO! 23:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:38, 15 September 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Doan[edit]

Jenny Doan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

dubious claim to notability, single source Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 September 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 09:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Tom, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:41, 14 September 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. Copyvio (e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=kF1hBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=%22These+networks+collaborate+under+the+umbrella+of%22&source=bl&ots=Ejc3ZkEHQ0&sig=Sunyxms6FjBb4uH1mWM8xictzC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SBwfVLXMEMefyASQ6YDgCQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22These%20networks%20collaborate%20under%20the%20umbrella%20of%22&f=false) j⚛e deckertalk 18:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PulseNet International[edit]

PulseNet International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current state the article is a copy-paste from Pulsenet. Gccwang (talk) 18:06, 5 September 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 09:32, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aatisha Naik[edit]

Aatisha Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress with an AMAZING two roles! Or should I say two unotable roles. Maybe someday in the future she will deserve one. But not now. Wgolf (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:25, 13 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Finnbogason[edit]

Perry Finnbogason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An actor who has had just had a few roles and was on a show for 5 episodes. I think he might fall under too soon from the looks of it-but his last role was 5 years ago so it is too soon if ever. (To be fair the article did start in 2011 so it probably looked like he was going somewhere) but I would hardly say he has a successful career so far. Wgolf (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We really have to do something about the wholesale copying of IMDB into Wikipedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:37, 21 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Diaz Anadon[edit]

Laura Diaz Anadon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not meet notability guidelines, and the article is a stub that has undergone a criterion RD1. Dekema2 (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria, even in the longer and now-redacted copyvio version. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while agreeing previous version of article was substandard, but after searching, references were found and added. Her work is cited heavily with 451 citations mostly since 2009. That's roughly 100 citations per year. Plus, being the director of the Belfer Center of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is an important position. She received prestigious awards -- one presented to her at the House of Commons. QED sharp cookie, active academic, well quoted, important position, meets WP:PROFESSOR, also energy and water tech policy will be increasingly important in coming decades. All considered: publishing, awards, top position, suggests she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With the exception of CS, I'm not an advocate of GS for the hard sciences (the subject is a ChemE by trade). WoS shows statistics that are very much in line with the "average assistant professor at a top institution": around 150 total citations and h-index 7 with some short quotes of her work in the media/web-o-sphere. I think this is the archetypical WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:22, 17 September 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. Whereas the article was considerably improved during the nomination, I still see no consensus w/r notability. Defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Agom Kebang[edit]

Adi Agom Kebang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unreferenced. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was not unreferenced, but rather the one reference was poorly formatted. I fixed that. A simple Google search shows that this website/organization has played a critical role in recent years in revitalizing the language and literature of the Adi and Mising language speaking tribal groups of northeastern India. Sources are ample and readily available. I have expanded the article and added several more sources. Any diligent editor can do much more, as I do not have the time today to read detailed sources such as a readily available article from the International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Sciences and Software Engineering, which credits the work of this website in advancing automated speech recognition in the Adi language. Clearly notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear case of WP:COI, generally logo/seals of companies is not owned by editors where the contributor of this article claiming to be the copyright holder of the logo used in the article. For me there is no indication of importance. — CutestPenguinHangout 13:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most educational and noteworthy. — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 17 September 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 America's Got Talent#Season 10. j⚛e deckertalk 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America's Got Talent (season 10)[edit]

America's Got Talent (season 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Crystalballing. Contains no references and season 9 isn't even over yet. Musdan77 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As there actually is a section on season ten of America's got talent on the America's got talent article, and this does seem like a legitimate search term, I'll nudge my vote from delete to redirect to America's Got Talent#Season 10. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what ended up happening to the S9 article; it was salted and locked until early May when all the details were known. That action seems appropriate, but should wait until venues for auditions have at least been named and secured. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 14 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles (terrorist cell)[edit]

The Beatles (terrorist cell) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This short article fails to explain why The Beatles analogy was invoked. It offers nothing beyond what is already covered in the better written and more informative article Jihadi John. The other alleged members ("George" and "Ringo") are nothing more than shadowy figures who are anonymous captors. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As you can see from my "views on Wikipedia" on my userpage I think new articles should be given more time before being nominated for deletion. This article could have been started as Draft then moved to mainspace when ready. I would suggest that the article creator move the article to Drafts:The Beatles (terrorist cell) and redirect this to Jihadi John.~Technophant (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Technophant. Move this article to the draft namespace, set this page as a redirect, and when more information is available, re-create this article from that information. At that point, it might even be prudent to merge Jihadi John into it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is rather premature at this stage, however, it is notable. If more info becomes known(which is likely will.) this article will have to be created again. Why delete it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonsJoe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The question is whether the topic is notable. For example, as reflected in GNG coverage. Not whether the article itself -- in its present form (though that is now after additions debatable) reflects the notability of the subject. A secondary question is whether the other article should be re-named to the name of this article, and the material merged. But that is a secondary question of merger. I'm leaning to being of the view that the topic is notable, and therefore deletion via AfD would not be appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Epeefleche's comment, topic is notable and does not warrant deletion although merging might be an issue as a proper article on the subject should focus on the group's methods not just the individual (johnny jihad). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jihadi John should merge to the bio on Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary since his father had now identified him as Jihadi John in US Federal Court today as part of a plea bargain. Bowser777 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. There is no official nor legitimate registration for this group as The Beatles anywhere in the world. This should be enough. But also, Wikipedia would be unjust to the legacy of The Beatles and to millions of people around the world who know them and love their music, including children. Worldedixor (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This !vote has no basis in wikipedia guidelines or policies. We -- fairly obviously, I would think -- don't delete articles because the subject of the article is not "officially registered" somewhere in the world. Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Is there any WP rule that says that we all have to !vote and comment the same way in Wikipedia? If so, please tell me which one so I can reverse my !vote. Also, Jihadi John (the person not the name) is notable but what about the other "Beatles"? How are they notable? What evidence do we have that they called themselves The Beatles, and does it matter? Otherwise, who called them The Beatles and why? Just because they had British accents? I am open to logical arguments but not to dismissing my !vote for speedy deletion and my supporting comments. So, for now, I will stick to my !vote but I will respect consensus (not numbers or repeat !votes, but rather logical arguments supported by responsive answers to my reasonable questions). I will also stand up for what is right even when I am standing alone. -- Worldedixor (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know WP:COMMONNAME, and I know the difference, but I still disagree here. Now, answer my question please! Am I obligated to reverse my !vote and comment? or are editors permitted to disagree in a civil and assertive manner, and still agree to respect consensus at the end? That was my main point! You are permitted to make your !vote and comment, but no editor should be permitted to belittle mine. right? Also, I asked reasonable questions. Please answer them with logical arguments. Worldedixor (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per my above comments, and those of qwerty. If a merge is considered, it should be of the constituent element (Jihadi John) into this one. Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that Jihadi John has been merged into this article by an IP edit there's no choice but to keep it. ~Technophant (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, easily passes WP:GNG, esp. since Jihadi John's inclusion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy? At this point, given the above (and especially if there are one or two more !votes along these lines), I would think a speedy may well be in order. Perhaps even nom may at this point agree, given the changes to the article since the original nomination, and the above comments. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that it's been merged with Jihadi John. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As of now, it is unmerged and The Beatles (terrorist cell) is again a poor article compared to Jihadi John. WWGB (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, - its Undue, certainly at this point, there is nothing said about the other two in RS that I have heard or seen - , so no need to be created at all, a sentence in the John article -'the three were called the beatles by their captives' - what else is there to say really - the only material unique to the article is perhaps ringo starrs comment - and with that comment he laments this use of the name, which in its way this article promotes, in a needles way, starrs comment can be on the 'j john' article - so I vote to merge it with the 'jihadi j' article. Sayerslle (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jihadi John per WP:CFORK. Jihadi John and Beatles are the same thing. Sources are not sure if John is one or more persons and use Beatles and Jihadi John interchangeably. Wikipedia is confused about this. -- GreenC 14:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you are reading. That's not true. As the article clearly reflects, multiple high-level RSs indicated that the Beatles are not one person, but rather multiple people. Jihadi John is one of them. As with the band the Beatles, we have an article on the band ... and if a member is sufficiently notable separately, also on the member. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a high level source that says Jihadi John is "one person"? Is it the same person in each video? Is there a high-level source for that? I see a lot of conjecture by the press and independent analysts, not official intelligence agencies. -- GreenC 14:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Green Cardamom isn't questioning whether or not the cell has multiple members, but whether or not it was the same member performing the murder each time. moluɐɯ 15:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Jihadi John is the main focus of the references, making most of the notability for this group inherited. moluɐɯ 17:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging, redirecting, splitting, etc. are conversations to be had in other fora. The references in the article establish that the Beatles nickname is widespread; whether that name is secondary to Jihadi John, OR whether Jihadi John is secondary to the group, OR whether the two should be covered in separate articles is a conversation to be had on the article talk pages in question. The topic seems notable enough that summary deletion is not needed. --Jayron32 19:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is a mess and is going round in circles. It is a classic WP:CONTENTFORK. Jihadi John contains all of the necessary material. Almost nothing is known about George and Ringo except that they have British accents.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, There's really no content to this, just a rather silly nickname that deserves maybe a sentence. They aren't even a "terrorist cell", as the title claims, just some individuals among the IS fighters who happen to have English-accents (not even Scouse ones!). It's not even clear whether there are supposed to be three or four of them. It just seems that a fourth figure - a guard - had to be added to make the numbers of the Fabs. The actual sources refer to three individuals. This should be a sub-section of the Jihadi John article. Nothing more. There is no "terrorist cell". Some of the sources are also being misrepresented to present this as a defined group. The infobox for the name is sourced to this "The Beatles terrorist group". New York Post. Retrieved 12 September 2014. In fact this merely refers to a "terrorist known as 'John the Beatle'", not to a group. This article is a bloated one liner, created only because some editors love the journalistic concept of killer Beatles. Paul B (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of your assertions are at odds with RS sources that appear as refs in the article. There is content. Supported by many RSs. Many RSs refer to this as a distinct group within IS -- not as you assert some random disconnected individuals who share only accents. The articles differ as to whether there are three or four of them, but that's fine; as always, we simply report the difference in RS reporting. Much of the article is about what the group does. Some is about individuals; and while John is the lead character here, there is also RS coverage of each of the other members, in addition to the coverage of what the group as a whole does. The article reflects the RSs, not OR views of editors. Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If these RSs say that, I can't see it. There is certainly no evidence whatever presented of a "cell" in the good sources. It makes sense that English speakers would be guarding/talking to English speaking hostages (and with each other). The only information about the possibly non-existent "group" doing anything is that 'George' reads the Koran and is apparently not very bright. I see no indication whatever that the Fab Three-or-Four are acting as an independent or coherent group. Your response also does not address the central issue. This is worth no more than a throwaway sentence or two - maybe a paragraph at most. There is nothing to deserve an independent article on such feeble evidence. The principal source is footnoted separately 8 times (creating the impression that the article has more sources than it does) and is an utterly witless article in the Daily Mail, a generally deprecated source, which has a load of silly speculation about how Jihadists spent money on "£200 prostitutes" etc etc, and which mentions the Beatles label a few times [67]. This is really the only substantial article and it's from the least respected paper, regularly a topic at WP:RSN for its lurid fantasies. Most of the sources make similar very brief passing references. This is not article-worthy. Paul B (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you can't see the content. About the group. And the other members of the group. And the RSs that refer to this as a group. It's all quite apparent I would think to anyone reading the article, and reading the many RS sources that serve as refs. The Latin phrase is res ipsa loquitur. On the side opposite the RSs is your personal point of view. But that view is not supported by the many RS refs in the article. The coverage of the group clearly meets GNG -- even if you personally don't like it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)
Pointless Latin phrases are a resort to silliness. You still haven't responded to the central point that these are passing references, not substantive discussion, and that the principal source is from a deeply suspect journal. Paul B (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True -- but on point Latin phrases are an effort to communicate properly. The article reflects over two dozen news articles, including 10 in which the Beatles are a focus of the title of the news article as well as the text of the article. And what you pejoratively personally view as a "deeply suspect journal" is only one source -- there are over two dozen other sources reflected in the refs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INHERITORG. There are two notable things to which this group is linked: the beheadings themselves which are covered in detail at 2014 ISIL beheading incidents, and the manhunt for the executioner which is covered at Jihadi John. All the notable content is covered at those two article. There is no significant coverage of the group itself (as required by WP:N); all mentions are incidental to the two notable topics i.e. the beheadings and the manhunt. Some brief background info about the group can be added to Jihadi John in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, but a separate article is unnecessary and redundant. The lack of substance in the article demonstrates this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mischaracterization. The vast majority of the article is focused on aspects relating to the Beatles other than the beheadings (that section in the article is a mere 2 sentences) and the manhunt (that section in the article is also a mere 2 sentences). Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely reported by news media and thus notable. DylanLacey (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most appropriate place to describe other members of the group than Jihadi John (e.g. George, who doesn't have enough known about him to warrant a separate article). And definitely notable as per comments above. Kidburla (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge Assuming it is true this is mostly a passing item in most sources, with little but the most cursory explanation. No reason to give terrorist groups publicity because they decide to use famous people's names to promote their acts. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with WWGB. This article was originally suggested to be merged into Jihadi John, not the other way around. It was changed into the current merge tag, after this. Jihadi John alone is more notable than the cell that he belongs to. George and Ringo are not notable. Therefore, I agree that The Beatles (terrorist cell) should be deleted and Jihadi John should be kept. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you are referring to. You refer to a "current merge tag." There was no merge tag on the article at the time you wrote the post, nor since. And whether or not John is notable, the group can also be notable (as with the music group the Beatles, whether or not John Lennon is more notable). If it meets wp:GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the "current merge tag" on Jihadi John's article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gourney Detoure[edit]

Gourney Detoure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been a orphan for over 5 years now. The only thing I could find while looking him up was a Youtube page with this name. Wgolf (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm here by way of the academics and educators delsort listing, but Detoure appears not to be an academic, so WP:PROF may not be the best notability criterion. Nonetheless I found absolutely nothing relevant in Google Scholar and Google Books. I believe the subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per David Eppstein. I also found nothing after much searching. Subject fails WP:GNG. Wondering how this article lasted in Wikipedia for so many years, unchallenged.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 05:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diya Seva Sansthan[edit]

Diya Seva Sansthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm finding very few sources about this group. Many links were included which I removed since they were only passing mentions. Maybe someone who know more about India could get this up to snuff, but I don't see that happening. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:18, 13 September 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 Renee French. j⚛e deckertalk 05:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Soap Lady[edit]

The Soap Lady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable children's book from a non-notable publisher, unsourced article that's been a stub for almost eight years now. Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author Renee French. I found one solid review. That's not enough for a freestanding article, so a redirect seems appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:18, 13 September 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 Vlado Georgiev. j⚛e deckertalk 18:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do svitanja[edit]

Do svitanja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been tagged for 4 and half years. I think this could just be redirected to the singers page. Wgolf (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, then delete I would consider a redirect to be a generous outcome. LaMona (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Smile Shop[edit]

The Smile Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Georgian group failing WP:NMUSIC. Their only claim to fame is having released one single, and having represented Georgia at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013, where they placed fifth. A search on Google on "The Smile Shop" returned a number of hits, but all except one of those were to dentists or similar, and the only hit that mentioned the group was to this article on WP. Thomas.W talk 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 August 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 deckertalk 06:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:17, 13 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowcast (Air Quality Index)[edit]

Nowcast (Air Quality Index) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

FailsWP:GNG There is no supporting evidence that the formula or algorithm itself is called the Nowcast. The algorithm is used to deliver a Nowcast on Air Quality which is simply a report on conditions as they occur. The algorithm is not notable and we have an article on the Air Quality Index. See also Nowcasting (meteorology). Cult of Green (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting evidence that the formula or algortithm is called the NowCast by the most authoritative sources (EPA's airnow website and EPA's own web site) are at this link:

http://airnow.supportportal.com/link/portal/23002/23002/Article/16118/How-Does-AirNow-Make-the-Current-PM2-5-Air-Quality-Index-AQI-maps
According to this webpage:

To generate the map, AirNow has to convert the latest hourly monitored readings to the 24-hour AQI. We do this using a “NowCast” -- a combination of monitor data and air quality projections to show current air quality in the 24-hour AQI form. The link above contain this link on the EPA website for the details of the NowCast:

http://www.epa.gov/airnow/faq/Nowcast-formula.pptx

The title of this document is Computing the NowCast and the content contains the formula for computing the NowCast identical to the one in the NowCast Wikipedia Article.

See also pages 55-57 of this epa presentation: http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/presentations/1_en_air_pollution_emergency_response_system_-_us_experience_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfitzsi (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sfitzsi (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 August 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 deckertalk 06:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Redirect to Air Quality Index and add a reference to sources for the formula. There is no reason that this formula should have its own article. Also note that it is used in the UK, as I found nowcasts for London, so it would be good to investigate how widely it is used and include that information. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support a redirect Cult of Green (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Here is a reference to the formula: http://www.epa.gov/airnow/faq/Nowcast-formula.pptx I will add it to the NowCast article.

I disagree that that there is no reason the formula should have its own article.

Suppose I live in asia, and I check this link http://aqicn.org to see how the air quality is today (note the information on the bottom of the page saying the US air quality index (AQI) is used for the map). When I check today, the air quality index is red(unhealthy) and I decide my asthmatic child should not play outdoors at school. But when I check tomorrow the air quality index for the same hour of the previous day has changed. Now it is green (good). What has happened? Quite a mystery. The Nowcast formula clears it all up. Today, the weight of the last hour is 1/2 in the Nowcast formula (assuming the previous twelve hour concentrations are variable cmin/cmax<.5) used to compute the AQI, but tomorrow the same hour will only have a weight of 1/24 in the 24 hr average used to compute the AQI. So I am not dreaming, the air quality index that concerned me yesterday has changed from red to green. It is because the Nowcast used to compute todays AQI weights the previous hour (a lot) more than the 24 hour average that will be used to compute the AQI for the same hour tomorrow.

I think it is important to clear up this mystery, because so many people around the world use the EPA air quality index to plan their day, and gauge their health risk. The US EPA's AQI is a bit like the US dollar, it is being used as a sort of common currency to judge health risk from air pollution, especially in asia. The Nowcast deserves its own article, because the details are important.

I would certainly support an addition to the NowCast article to include the UK, but as I am not familiar with how the NowCast works in the UK I will have to leave this to others.

Sfitzsi (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 13 September 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 John Dahlbäck. Michig (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Walls[edit]

Golden Walls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A EP that has been tagged since 2009 for notability with no updates since then either. Nothing is written about it and would just make sense to just merge it or redirect. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 August 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 deckertalk 06:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Ziampazis[edit]

Dimitrios Ziampazis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been tagged for nearly 5 years now for verification, notability and a orphan. Only thing I can tell is that he is a local reporter somewhere in Greece but that's it. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 30 August 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 deckertalk 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable suggested by the article or Google search.--Rpclod (talk) 03:16, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2472d AF Reserve Flying Center[edit]

2472d AF Reserve Flying Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not really seeing anything notable that this unit did. There are citations, but they are mainly primarily sourced (although, there is nothing wrong with this), but it's mainly due to the lack of any credible claim to notability that I am convinced that this isn't a notable unit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion. This unit was the holding organization for active duty members of the Air Force whose mission was to train reservists un the Kansas City area. In addition, the article is misleading, the center was never assigned to Airways and Air Communications Service, it was under Air Defense Command from 1946 to 1948, then Continental Air Command. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 30 August 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 deckertalk 06:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fafnir (journal)[edit]

Fafnir (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added independent references to a national newspaper and a regional newspaper. Mlop (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And two more secondary sources. Mlop (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 August 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 deckertalk 06:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:12, 13 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro José de Zavala, 8th Marquis of Valleumbroso[edit]

Pedro José de Zavala, 8th Marquis of Valleumbroso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thoroughly nonnotable marquis -No.Altenmann >t 05:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the time this person held his title, would a marquis have automatically sat in Spain's Parliament, in the way that British peers did until recently? If so, he would be automatically notable as a member of a national parliament. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 August 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 deckertalk 06:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Mainly because it is new and hasn't had a chance to grow. However, the marquis-dom was not listed on the page for Spanish nobility, although there is a full page for this person in the @sp wikipedia. I added it now to the list on the Spanish nobility page. The Spanish language page could be placed in the queue for articles for translation. There appears to be a full biography there, but it has no references! LaMona (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As noted by User:LaMona, the Spanish version of the article is far fuller, though almost without sources (it does list a couple of books, but without ISBNs or any attempt at inline referencing, making it impossible to see what information in the article they would support). If I am reading the article correctly, the subject played a minor but quite likely notable part on the Royalist side in the Peruvian War of Independence and, so far as I can judge, he later rose far enough within the Spanish army to meet WP:SOLDIER. PWilkinson (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:12, 13 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture Research Station of Gonbad[edit]

Agriculture Research Station of Gonbad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is completely unsourced and has been for six years. I can find no substantial coverage, besides WP and its many mirrors, other than trivial name drops here and there. Reyk YO! 11:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 11:54, 28 August 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 deckertalk 06:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can find articles reporting research coming from the station: 1 three separate articles abstract. I also got 23 hits on the "Gonbad research station" in FAO's catalog, but for some reason display is not working. I will add some links to the article where I can, and perhaps we can reconsider. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, these are the insubstantial name-drops I mentioned in my nomination. One of these is about durum wheat, the other is about canola. Is there anything about the research center itself? Reyk YO! 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage found, and without coverage there's very little that we can source here. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 20 September 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 deckertalk 05:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Zvekan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Csaba Zvekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC - none of his bands have contained notable musicians, he has not been involved with major record lavels,he has no releases himself, and fails WP:GNG --Mdann52talk to me! 10:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:10, 28 August 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 deckertalk 07:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the references are a motley collection of webzines, press releases and 404 errors. I found no reliable sources indicating any particular notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:25, 13 September 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. Consensus is clear. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giannis Poulopoulos[edit]

Giannis Poulopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:16, 29 August 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 deckertalk 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to keep, based on later votes Delete There are 2 refs here, but both just mention his name, in a context which confirms he is a singer/songwriter. There are articles in 2 other languages, but they have less references, and less reliable. There is one real claim to meeting WP:MUSICBIO, that his album was one of the best-selling Greek albums. However, this is unreferenced, and I could not find a reference. Unless its notability can be proved, this should be deleted. I have contacted Wikiproject Greece for help with references etc. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poulopoulos is one of greatest Greek singers of laiko in the 70s, 80s and beyond. There are Greek references about him but one has to know how to find them. For instance, look at this Google image search where the magazine Espresso calls him in Greek "The legend of Greek song" on the front page, also here. This is one of his many records with Minos EMI a major record company, see Minos EMI. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referencing needs to be improved, but I don't see a notability issue here under WP:MUSBIO. Multiple releases on major labels, charting singles, etc. The main issue seems to be that Greek-language sources are not as easily internet-discoverable as English-language sources, so someone will likely need to visit a physical library to dig things up. One article to start with might be a profile on pp. 104–108 of Δίφωνο issue 38 (1998), indexed here, but there are a lot of newspaper/magazine profiles over the years. --Delirium (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Delirium. I fully agree with your comments. Here are eleven articles on Poulopoulos from gossip-tv.gr. "gossip-tv.gr" is used as a source in hundreds of other articles of Greek music and artists. Another Poulopoulos article from Espresso newspaper, Poulopoulos article from Proto Thema (See Proto Thema). Poulopoulos sings Federico Garcia Lorca on the label of the "Lyra" record company, See Poulopoulos today from tv-greek.com, See Poulopoulos today from youweekly.gr. Another espresso cover story, more from Espresso. Article on Poulopoulos from the Greek Star Channel and another. I think you get the idea. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I withdraw the nomination after these new sources presented. I hope the same or other users will add them to the article and thus this discussion will have served to a good end. Thank you all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for withdrawing the deletion nom. I see you specialise in AfDing Greek singers. So far you tried to delete one of the top legends of Greek laiko. I can't wait to see your next nomination. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you look at my past nominations and you will see that you're wrong. (Out of the reply: I have a Greek singer's CD in my car and I listen to it frequently, although these days I go more for Indila.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe you. I also see you have a sense of humour. I suggest you go to youtube and listen to Poulopoulos's "To agalma". It's one of my favourite songs. I hope you like it. I would give you the link but I'm not sure about copyright issues. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to AfD Kurdish singers too [68], and even prehistoric flutes must go [69]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least they weren't living legends, as in this case. It would be hard to top that amongst Greek musicians. Who could possibly be next? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:01, 14 September 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 Gazprom. j⚛e deckertalk 05:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gazprom EP International B.V.[edit]

Gazprom EP International B.V. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Holding company established just for tax optimization reasons. Not notable as a stand-alone company without Gazprom, which has a separate article. It is hard to see a distinction between their operations and operations of Gazprom as a corporation. If there is anything worth to be kept, it should be included in the main Gazprom article. Beagel (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 30 August 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 deckertalk 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Gazprom. I concur with Beagel's comments as nom.--Rpclod (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gazprom. While I'm not sure that this will ever be a useful redirect, leaving it pointing to the parent company isn't going to hurt. --Michig (talk) 09:59, 20 September 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 rediect to Paresis#Limbs. Michig (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsilateral monoparesis[edit]

Ipsilateral monoparesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ipsilateral monoparesis is not a major concept in neurology - it simply means weakness in one limb. There's also contralateral monoparesis, but that doesn't mean we need another article on that. The definition given in the article is wrong, it does not necessarily mean a spinal cord lesion. I would delete this page, and if someone was interested they can look up the definition of "ipsilateral" and the definition of "monoparesis." Further discussion of etiology and other related topics can go on the monoplegia page. Gccwang (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 August 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 deckertalk 07:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ipsilateral monoparesis is mentioned in passing in some textbooks, but as a syndrome in itself, it lacks coverage in suitable secondary sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paresis#Limbs, where monoparesis is mentioned. The textbook ref in the article looks like a reliable one, but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in secondary RS to satisfy notability. Nonetheless the term seems to be used in RS like the textbook cited, so a redirect is reasonable. monoplegia would be OK except that it is an unreferenced stub; paresis has a couple of refs and is in marginally better shape. --Mark viking (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paresis#Limbs agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summer in Paris[edit]

Summer in Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 August 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 deckertalk 07:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable. Not Notorious. Not Necessary. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree it is not notable. Spumuq (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neither the article nor a Google search suggests WP:GNG is met.--Rpclod (talk) 03:32, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardev Sharma[edit]

Hardev Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs or info basically, but this looks more like a inherited issue-his kid is famous, which I think that this should be merged to that article. Wgolf (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:39, 29 August 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 deckertalk 07:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gautham Krishna Ghattamaneni[edit]

Gautham Krishna Ghattamaneni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Issue of being too soon as well as notinhertied. Granted it is a child star, but has only had one role so far. So in that case its much too soon for this person. And from the looks of it his parents are famous so that issue as well. Someday perhaps he can have an article-but not today. Wgolf (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:33, 29 August 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 deckertalk 07:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reviewing the article of the one film in which the actor has appear, I think his publicist overreached when writing this article. He does not appear to have "starred" in it. Given his pedigree, maybe someday he will be a star, but now is WP:TOOSOON.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 13 September 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. Consensus is to delete both articles  Philg88 ♦talk 06:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Ge (artist/director)[edit]

Hu Ge (artist/director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page, as well as its history and the contributions of its main editor, scream of self-promotion (or hoax/fraud). While the page has 14 web references, References 1-5 and 12 do not seem to contain his name anywhere and References 6-11 and 13-14 are dead links. There are no other language versions of the page, I don't even know what the Chinese name of the person is. A search of "Hu Ge" + "WAZA" also didn't generate any meaningful result beyond Wikipedia, which makes me wonder whether this person actually exists. I am also nominating the following related pages because even though the art collective does seem to exist, it's not being mentioned in most references either:

WAZA (art collective) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Timmyshin (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability evidence found in google search, books etc. Perhabs notable for Chinese language Wikipedia but not here untill the artist becomes notable. --Wikishagnik (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't deny that he is not notable, but if he is notable for Chinese Wikipedia he would be notable here too. There is no such thing as someone or something being notable in one language and not another. _dk (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I did not mention he is notable in Chinese Wikipedia, just that he might be notable. Secondly and more importantly, without reliable (WP:RELIABLE) and verifiable (WP:VERIFY) sources the notability of this artist will always be open the challenge (WP:NOT). --Wikishagnik (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Articles about living people it's very important that information in the article is verifiable. throwing some broken refs at the end of the article and some other refs with no explicit relationship to the content, means that nothing in the article is verifiable, also a condition for notability. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nusrat Blood Bank[edit]

Nusrat Blood Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG categorically. A search for Nusrat Blood Bank excluding Wikipedia brought up no results. I looked up the founder Mehfooz Ahmed (with blood, but excluding WP and Facebook) and all I really learned was that someone with that name had had a record-breaking renal stone. Ouch. I'm sure this is a great organisation but it's very new and definitely doesn't seem notable yet. The only reference actually says "makes no mention ofr Nusrat Blood Bank" so effectively no references, then. Mabalu (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually this may be a candidate for a speedy delete as I've just seen on creator's talk page it has been repeatedly recreated. FAO User:Osarius who dealt with it previously. Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources at all. —teb728 t c 00:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if this is not a hoax, nothing suggests that it is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage in reliable third party sources. No sources at all. Fails notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:39, 14 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superfunctional[edit]

Superfunctional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a product that does not establish the product's notability. Page about the company selling it was speedily removed as spam. An earlier of this page was too, but I don't know what the content was (TheLongTone was the nominator). PROD declined by page author. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable product from a non-notable company. Lugia2453 (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - press release without any references.--Rpclod (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a product with no visible notability. AllyD (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above me - Non notable product with no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:43, 13 September 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. No notability argued, this close is without prejudice to a redirect at Reliance Communications if any verifiable content mentioning Reliance World can be and is added there. j⚛e deckertalk 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance World[edit]

Reliance World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains zero sources, making it original research. Additionally, there is no indication of notability. Part of a large series of Reliance-related articles that need consolidation. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only reference is purportedly its own website and even that does not appear to exist any more.--Rpclod (talk) 03:55, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Narcissism[edit]

Gender and Narcissism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article relies on one 2013 chapter by Schoenewolf, and is clearly intended to promote his views. No evidence of his interpretation by anyone else Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—I"m finding a single passing reference on gscholar for <"Gender Narcissism" Schoenewolf>. I've not been able to locate the essay/paper or the book collection in gscholar. Basically, I'm not seeing any evidence that this concept ever gained any traction. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:17, 31 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sourcing I can find comes from the author of the theory himself - I can't find any other reliable sources that refer to this theory. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:48, 13 September 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 FM (Canadian band). j⚛e deckertalk 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Deller[edit]

Martin Deller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just one line and a link to a website (granted it is official at least) Though from the looks of it, this should either be userfied or a redirect to that band. Wgolf (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NMUSIC does not grant every individual member of a notable band an automatic right to keep their own separate standalone BLP; rather, it specifies that if their notability is purely band-dependent, and you cannot adequately source that they've done notable things independently of the band (e.g. producing other notable artists, releasing solo albums, etc.), then they should just get a redirect to the band. So no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write and source a more substantial article than this, making a more substantive notability claim than just his membership in the band, but as things currently stand this should be redirected to FM (Canadian band). Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 1 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the opinions above. A stand-alone article is not justified. Do as they say. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band. Nothing here to justify keeping a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 20 September 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 Uncanny X-Men#1975–1991: Chris Claremont era. Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manoli Wetherell[edit]

Manoli Wetherell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced as to her job and the notability that the job creates. The fact that a comic book uses the same name for a character is not noteworthy (the comic character is a news reporter & this BLP is a broadcast technician). Fails WP:GNG. – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm the creator of the entry. I agree that as it stands now deletion is appropriate. I wonder, though, if it might make sense to have an entry for the Manoli Wetherell character simply as a Marvel character, and possibly note there the inspiration as to the character? AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Without looking at the supporting references, or how the character fits into the series, you might add mention at Uncanny X-Men#Publication history. I see various characters given brief introductions in that sectopm. (Or there may be another series which is more appropriate.) I do not opine on whether the Manoli comic character is notable. But I do not think the development of a comic character with the same name confers notability on the real Wetherell person. – S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I've made a short addition for the Manoli Wetherell character, with an appropriate cite, as you suggest. AtomikWeasel (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:05, 13 September 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 argument that this is advertising is compelling and noone has bought into the sources provided. Spartaz Humbug! 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GIADA[edit]

GIADA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Article reads like an advertising page which has it's own logo and web store address. Describes products sold, location and founders, generating brand placement. utterly non notable. scope_creep talk 22:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources I was able to access and translate did not impress me. They were tangential in their coverage and or too short to meet GNG. The article is hugely promotional and as written clearly runs afoul of WP:ADVERT. Since WP:NOT is policy and trumps guidelines including WP:N, the article needs a major rewrite to be kept, even if notability is established. All of which said, I don't read Italian so it is possible that there could be sources out there that ring the notability bell. But as of right now, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP in addition to the SPAM issue already noted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relister's comment: I closed this as "delete", but am reopening the discussion after a list of sources possibly indicating notability was submitted on my talk page. It follows.  Sandstein  16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of sources
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I've also relisted as after the above issue I believe this merits a further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My review of translations of the additional listed materials suggests that they are glorified press releases. The "articles" really only support that there is one store in Milan, which is not notable. Also many of the "articles" discuss future plans but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Rpclod (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to obtain more input per sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am submitting to your attention some more third sources that, in my opinion, prove that Giada satisfies the requests to be on Wikipedia. Two of them are from front-rank nationally relevant newspapers: La Repubblica and Il Sole24ore. Where available, I have added a link to the corresponding page on the web. Thanks for your attention, I'm confident that this will help to reconsider the case positively.
  • Roddolo, Enrica. “Ecco il mio business, prezioso come Giada”, Il mondo, 27 September 2013, p. 12-13.
  • Crivelli, Giuglia. “Giada sbarca in Montenapo, stile italiano, capitali cinesi”, Il Sole 24 Ore-Moda 24, 6 September 2013, p. 22

On website: “Giada sbarca in Montenapo, stile italiano, capitali cinesi”

  • Ciullo, Giovanni N., “Il percorso inverso di Giada Italia Cina andata-ritorno”, La Repubblica-Affari Finanza, 7 October 2013

On website: “Il percorso inverso di Giada Italia Cina andata-ritorno”

  • Epiro, Stephanie, “Giada opens in Milan”, wwd.com, 17 September 2013.

-Silvia.gasparri (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2014

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. Per this discussion, the article won't be deleted; it's basically a split between article retention and merging. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch University Dubai[edit]

Murdoch University Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not sufficently explain why this satelite campus of a Austrailian university is independently notable. Content is also covered in the parent article in a section in addition 5 of the currently 8 "references" are from the university (or a sub devision of itself) and the final ones only talk about the university at large. The final references either don't mention the university system at all or are given to the overall university system (and not the Dubai sattelite campus. This article should not have been moved to mainspace by Neha Thomas (who appears to have a SPA focus on Murdoch University Dubai). I'm calling the question right now to determine what should be done with this page as I would not have promoted it out of the Articles for Creation bullpen in it's current Advert/overlapping content. I have no objections to this being sent back to Draft space, but I would ask that creation protection be added to the mainspace address to encourage improvement in the article. I also have no objections to merging/redirecting this article into the Murdoch University (but also ask for the redirect protection (PP-Full) to force a spinout development/discussion to occur. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article as it currently stands is promotional crap written by someone with a COI, but the topic is notable enough. I don't currently have access to any archive with either WA newspapers or The Australian (which has by far the best higher education coverage), but I'm pretty confident that if I did I could write one. I did find this and this, but I think not being able to find more says more about my news database access than it does about the notability of the topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interviews with employees of the specific satellite campus are not independently reliable and probably part of the PR push. What makes this satellite campus so important, what needs to be covered in this article that couldn't be covered in Murdoch University? I see you make the argument "I could improve this", then it is reasonable that you support either of the ATD that I propose (Put it back in Draft space for review by AFC or MergeRedirect to the parent article). Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is independently reliable when said interview occurs in a reliable source. Sorry, no - this is a notable topic, and merge-and-salt or userfy-and-salt are not things we do to notable topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to see if someone can improve the article. If more sources can be located to demonstrate notability, I would vote to keep. If not, redirect and merge with Murdoch University page. Cpuser20 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"See if someone can improve" means putting it back in AFC with the creation protection right Cpuser20? Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that was something people do, what I was saying is see if someone can fix it during the AFD process and we'll decide then. Cpuser20 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something commonly done, and it's something I would adamantly oppose. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - A fair amount of the article is about Murdoch University. Those bits that aren't could easily be merged into that article(what isn't already covered there). AlanS (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Constant issue in Australian university articles are where components (departments/campuses/centres) are held to be notable. Murdoch has had over timeother external presences overseas - they should be in the main article. The test for notability for components/campuses should have a much higher level than assumptions of a campus outside country of origin being enough. satusuro 01:13, 30 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep international Branch campuses of this sort are sufficiently distinct and significant to be treated as independent institutions.

Comment: It seems that whatever side previous contributors to this discussion have took, they do agree that the article needs more independently verifiable sources and is rather slanted. Whatever course of action is adopted, we can use other non-controversial Wikipedia articles regarding satellite campuses as a reference point such as New York University Abu Dhabi.

I have included a few links that could be added as sources for this article. The first one specifically talks about the founding of the Dubai campus and could substitute the link currently used in the "Founding and history" section. Additionally, the article is not affiliated with Murdoch university and it talks specifically about the Abu Dhabi campus.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/education/murdoch-university-opens-dubai-campus http://dubaiinformer.com/120918/murdoch-university-screens-its-first-free-film-festival/ http://www.uae.embassy.gov.au/files/abud/12-11-02%20murdoch%20university%20dubai%20graduation%20speech.pdf

Also, if my comment fails to generate any more discussion, I suggest that anadministrator removes the proposal for deletion and simply replaces it with tags regarding NPOV and Verifiability since this discussion seems to have otherwise stagnated.

Yster76 22:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how any of the arguments too keep override any arguments that have been put forth for merge/redirect. This debate has been going on for a while now and there has been no material added that justifies keeping of an separate article, nor are has there been shown to be any material from which a separate article could be rightly constructed. The fact remains that all of the content for this article that is under consideration which is reliable is already covered by the main article. AlanStalk 12:50, 23 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Lane (television personality)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sarah Lane (television personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All references provided link to employers, her own blog, or primary works by the author, not meeting WP:GNG/WP:N, as well as WP:NACTOR/WP:ENTERTAINER requirements. Was previously nominated for AFD 10 years ago, and the discussion (more like voting "keep" because they had heard of her, not because she had enough independent significant coverage) had no policy basis at all. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure that WP:NACTOR applies, but fails WP:GNG WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  It can be seen by inspection that this is an on-screen tech reporter who has appeared not only in local broadcasts in the Silicon Valley tech market of San Jose; but has appeared for years on various national broadcasts.  Just to be sure I wasn't missing something, a search on Gbooks for ["Sarah Lane" TechTV] provides the snippet, "For the underground geek audience, late-bloomer Kevin and Sarah were like Brad and Angelina."  This topic has been attracting the attention of the world at large for a dozen years (WP:N).  As reported in the first AfD, there is a body of coverage available regarding Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Google Book "snippet" was just that, a mention. Definitely does not qualify as significant coverage towards meeting WP:GNG. Citing the broadcast work itself also does not matter, since it's not independent of the subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, a "snippet" is not the same as a "mention".  As for the implication that WP:N is constrained by WP:GNG, no, wp:notability is defined in the lede of WP:N as a topic which is "worthy of notice".  I'm not arguing to WP:GNG here, I'm arguing directly to WP:N, as amplified in the nutshell.  The proof by assertion of what qualifies as significant coverage also falls because significant coverage is defined by the guideline, not by what Wikipedia editors claim is significant.  Significant coverage within WP:GNG includes single sentences that are not defined as trivial coverage, and is a fairly low bar.  Further, WP:N does not require independent sources, that is a WP:GNG issue.  TV audiences are created by the choice of viewers, and not by the broadcaster, so are independent in any case.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you're saying exactly here, but the article does still fail WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. All of the references provided in the article are self-referential. An online search turned up a short article in Wired [70] but otherwise nothing, except lots of articles about other people by the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 15 September 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine in Star Trek[edit]

Medicine in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article make use of original research to compare fictional medical technology with real world advancements. Only one reference to real world technology actually mentions Star Trek. Simply not enough here to make a real encyclopedia article. Daniel(talk) 18:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If there's not enough here then we can just add some more and deletion would disrupt this. See:
Andrew (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 September 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 00:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I appreciate that some "X in/of [insert cult series name here]" articles may be unduly crufty, but I think there's sufficient sourcing out there to substantiate notability. And this article doesn't even currently mention the tricorder, for which some legit sources are already cited in our existing articles for tricorder and medical tricorder. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are actually quite a few reliable sources about medicine in Star Trek. In addition, many more articles I found made mentions about how such and such medical advance would surpass medicine seen in Star Trek, so the subject of medicine in Star Trek does appear to have some mainstream interest. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:31, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships of New Girl[edit]

Relationships of New Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a guide for detailed analysis of a TV series. KonveyorBelt 19:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom; furthermore, article as written is incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the show. ubiquity (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 September 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 00:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Given the standard set of articles that already exist for this series (New Girl, List of New Girl episodes, List of New Girl characters, notable episode articles) there's just no need shown for this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My first reaction to seeing this page was "Why the bloody hell do we even have this?" .... As noted above we already have List of Eps, Characters AND series guides on main article .... So I'm not really seeing any point to this article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:52, 19 September 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 deckertalk 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Akhoond[edit]

Imran Akhoond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of musician that doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Only source is a linkedin page. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a redirect to the above article from the Wikipedia namespace:

Wikipedia:Imran Akhoond (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Imran Akhoond|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One does not simply pass off one's linkedin profile as an encyclopedia article (it would be G12 material if the creator was different). No sign of notability, just the usual abuse of Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I've speedy deleted the redirect as G6 housekeeping (Artifact of a move, no incoming links that are not a result of being listed here, etc). No comment on the merits of the article, though I believe that MER-C has the right of it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:23, 9 September 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 00:58, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanooj-Nanoch[edit]

Nanooj-Nanoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent hoax. Only G-hits are blogs. —teb728 t c 05:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC) By G-hits I mean those that mention "Nanooj-Nanoch". —teb728 t c 09:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify -- Not a hoax. The sources look genuine, but reflecting on-going cutting-edge research. So far the researchers apparntly ahve a couple of tablets in an unknown local language, which they can read, becasue it is in a known script. However, WP does not like publishing primary research. It may well be that in a couple of years, they work will be published. At that point the article can be updated (for new publications) and uploaded. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge University and ScienceDaily references are genuine but make no mention of “Nanooj-Nanoch.” The wordpress and blogspot references are not reliable sources. The article has the appearance of being at best a fringe theory. —teb728 t c 09:30, 5 September 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 deckertalk 20:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; reliable sources don't mention this "language" and sources that do mention it aren't reliable (ie one blog post). Looks like a hoax to me. Jinkinson talk to me 23:00, 5 September 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 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. While the 2009 (not 2012 as the article says) discovery of the cuneiform tablet seems to be verifiable, a Google Scholar search gives no hits for either "Nanooj-Nanoch" or Nonuuj-Nonukk. The bulk of the article appears to blatant original research at best, and pure fantasy at worst. This quote from one of the cited anonymous blog posts tells the story: "And, given the tenuousness of the information, I am unable to publish the information though traditional peer-reviewed channels, which pushed me to share it with you all in this limited form intended for a select few colleagues and friends. When all the information is available, I do plan to publish officially (so please do not steal these early thoughts). Also, full disclosure, I am not a senior accredited authority on the matter. I am, however, an ambitious graduate student at a respected collegiate program." We should get rid of this—the sooner, the better.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have also accessed the 2012 paper discussed in the Cambridge research summary. It confirms that the tablet contains only the list of 144 women, whose names suggest they come from a previously unknown linguistic group. The rest, about the mysterious deities, weaponry, and 'unending warfare', seems to be complete invention.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reliable sources discussing an item of archeological research have been grafted on to a silly fantasy about unknown female gods being perpetuated on blogspots and forums. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources cited on the article, looks an absolute mess. Goblin Face (talk) 15:33, 19 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krewe of Orion[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Krewe of Orion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Last AfD (in 2008) was closed as no consensus. Since then the sub-stub has sat there, heavily tagged, without resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge This is a Baton Rouge Krewe that gets local press at Mardi Gras time. It seems that if a few sentences about Baton Rouge Mardi Gras are added to Mardi_gras#United_States, then that could include a mention of the Krewe of Orion, which seems to be the main parade Krewe there, plus a link to the web site. LaMona (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 August 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 deckertalk 20:24, 5 September 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 00:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if a few sentences a bout this MG is added to the general article on US MGs, this particular group wouldn't be mentioned thee any more than any other. It's disproportionate. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a redirect to Tacna if the topic becomes mentioned there. j⚛e deckertalk 02:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bolognesi Way[edit]

Bolognesi Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What little information there is here should be added to Tacna, Peru. ubiquity (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 7 September 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 00:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and not really worth keeping in any form. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 20 September 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. This is a case where there is no numerical majority, but where the people who advocate deletion make a much more persuasive argument than those advocating keeping the article, who make general claims about Google searches or reliable sources but can't name specific reliable and relevant sources when asked. This does not prevent recreation if somebody does find reliable sources about the topic.  Sandstein  17:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Africans in Poland[edit]

Black Africans in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonsensical article with no WP:RS. Considering that it was first created in 2007, it hasn't made any progress in establishing WP:GNG and, most certainly, nothing verifiable about the WP:TITLE, the authenticity or use of the term, nor even where the majority of the 10,000 are from (or whether it excludes or includes black peoples who were the progeny of American soldiers post war). Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article does need some work, but searching Google it does seem like this topic is notable. There was an article in the Taipei Times about African immigrants in Poland: article link. I can try to incorporate it into the article. --Gccwang (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly be a more relevant position from which to develop it, Gccwang. I can see a point in elaborating on problems facing diasporic ethnic groups from Africa living in European nation-states. As it currently stands, it appears to be about how nice it is in Poland with no context or any noticeable Wikipedia precedents, therefore falling under WP:E=N. There are articles for Eastern Europe such as Afro-Russian, Racism in Russia, Racism and discrimination in Ukraine, as well as for Central and Western Europe (such as Afro-Germans, Persecution of black people in Nazi Germany, Blacks in France, African immigration to France). Under such circumstances, however, this article would need to expand its categories, as well as be presented using an appropriate WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Actually, I've noted that there is already an article on Racism in Poland with a relevant section. This article appears to be treated as a child article, whereas it is merely an old, undeveloped stub which should be merged and developed in the short entry there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The topic is notable, but the article at present fails to provide any useful and referenced information. The section in the racism article Irina points to is better than this mess, and the article as it stands could be simply redirected there. That said, I'd like to point out that the article as originally created was more informative; unfortunately it since got hijacked by some trolls bound on portraying Poland as racist, with the prior content replaced by a "Poland is racist" rant-type content. Gutting of useful content at [71] IMHO, while supported by WP:V, removed any vestige of usefulness from that article. I did some search trying to find out information to restore this, but I couldn't find much; interestingly a portal dedicated to the topic states that there are no official statistics for the number of Black Africans in Poland ([72]). The best I found is the said NGO's publication (a free ebook) about the history of Black Americans (known in Poland in a more politically correct terms as Africans) in Warsaw: [73]. At this time I have, however, no time to read it. One could also try emailing the NGO at [email protected] , the odds are good they have an English speaking staff who may point to more publications. If somebody can point me to some, preferably online, I volunteer to at least stub this topic in a reliable way. PS. If this is kept, I'd suggest moving this to African diaspora in Poland (per category structure).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances you've described (and having checked its history), I'm even more dubious about retaining the article. To be honest, the recent events in Ukraine have brought out anti-Russian, anti-Ukrainian, and anti-Polish trolls in a multitude of articles related to anything about these regions. The information is basically unsourced (as it is in the Racism in Poland article) and only differs in having a brief list of notable black Polish citizens. It's essentially non-information posturing as information. Unless someone intends to develop it properly, I'd prefer to see this article deleted, but would accept its being turned into a stub and moved to your proposed category lest it be turned into a WP:COATRACK for trolls. While I'm certainly not dismissive of the subject of racism in any nation-state, if there is anything of substance to be developed, it can be developed from scratch under a relevant WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable, and RS are there. Article needs a bit of work though. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you qualify what you mean by RS, Ism schism? There's nothing there but an RS verifying that there are some footballers of African origin being recruited, plus a reference to the word 'Murzyn' (Moor, as with other Slavic languages) which may or may not be construed as being pejorative. The problem is that the article hasn't had any work done on it for years and is, essentially, a badly constructed and uninformative duplicate of the information in the Racism in Poland article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. What RS? I explained in my comment in detail that this article has no RS to speak of. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea of what RS apply here (other than using it as a WP:COATRACK using a few articles about racist incidents in order to misrepresent the extent and occurrence of white supremacist groups in Poland, or general extent of prejudice in Poland). As I see it, the only real difference between the information already available in Racism in Poland and this article is that of the list of notable people of African origin. That being the case, perhaps this article under discussion should have the unreferenced lead and straggly single paragraph body be scrapped, and the entry be turned into a list of notable Polish people of African origin. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 16 September 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 00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question Piotrus, I seemost of the individuals listed are not in any sense Americans-- does the term "Black Americans" apply to them in Poland also? DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 21 September 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. No point in dragging this out. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Gopee[edit]

Avi Gopee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria of Notability WP:BASIC Kingroyos (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is notable as well as the person. Please check the official page verified by facebook Avi Avioffiradio (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 10 September 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 00:54, 13 September 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 deckertalk 05:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Muth[edit]

Keith Muth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
AfDs for this article:
Matchworld Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I recently saw this old page which was kept after a "No Consensus" AfD seven years ago. Both then and now it is completely lacking in independent, reliable sources. I found a couple of sources better than those in the article via a google search ( [74] [75] ) but in my opinion they are not sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 August 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, 5 September 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 00:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator - the coverage is insufficient to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 20 September 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. Though as Honda CR85R.  Sandstein  20:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honda CR85R Expert[edit]

Honda CR85R Expert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish its WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for six and a half years, unresolved. There may be a plausible redirect target, but I don't know which one. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, I found a detailed review/test at the Motorcycle USA website [76], and another one at Motorcycle Daily [77]. But I'm not an expert in this area. A plausible redirect target would be Honda CR85R (essentially the same machine, according to Motorcycle Daily), but the article doesn't exist. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge/Redirect with Honda CR series until somebody creates Honda CR85R, then it can go there... I'm surprised the motorcycle afficionados have not already created both articles... —Gaff ταλκ
* Better: move to Honda CR85R and include expert as subgroup. —Gaff ταλκ 01:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 13 September 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 Move. Will move the page to List of research institutes in Seattle and allow editors to make changes described in this discussion J04n(talk page) 18:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Global Health Alliance[edit]

Washington Global Health Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the critiera in WP:ORG because there isn't sufficent coverage in independent, third party reliable sources where the Washington Global Health Alliance is the main subject. The Wikipedia article is three sentences, plus three long lists of names all of which are sourced to the subject's website and press releases. The only decent source is at Puget Sound Business Journal [78], and it's very short, under 300 words, and it's merely a routine announcement that the WGHA is moving -- see WP:ROUTINE Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If a creator agrees with deletion, as here, and there are not a lot of other contributions to an article, I would be inclined to agree to delete/redirect. But is there no Research institutes in Seattle article to redirect this to? Perhaps it should be moved to that name and edited. There could be information, such as redlinks and so on, about the topic of research institutes in Seattle that is NOT "captured in Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington". A list-article about them would complement the category and provide redlinks for articles that need to be created, and would provide a redirect target for the institutes that don't merit articles, and so on, per wp:CLT. So perhaps this should be moved or redirected, instead? --doncram 23:13, 9 September 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 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article were renamed "List of research institutes in Seattle" after Category:Research institutes in Seattle, Washington, then I would strip all the extraneous information from this article and adapt it for the new purpose. I do not want to modify this article so drastically before this discussion closes and I am not sure I should just cut and paste this content to start a new article like that, but if that seems acceptable, then I would do that. One source for such an article would be the list of members from Washington Global Health Alliance, which would be a better use in that article than as a self-published source here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / redirect, is what i think is appropriate then. Thanks User:Bluerasberry for your further comments. I agree with you about hesitating with such a big change while the AFD is in progress, but it can be done at the conclusion of the AFD, if there's consensus enough. Either moving it and editing it to be about all research institutes would be fine, or maybe it is slightly better to redirect it and creating a brand new article at Research institutes in Seattle as target article. There is no list of research institutes per se in the U.S. yet, in Category:Research institutes in the United States, but it does seem to me that a list-article about the ones in Seattle is okay, as there are enough of them to make it worthwhile. Yes about using that source that way. And when someone creates a U.S.-wide list-article of research institutes they will obviously link to this one. We don't have to start by doing a U.S.-wide list; it's fine to start with one area like Seattle. --doncram 16:02, 13 September 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. j⚛e deckertalk 05:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Yearley[edit]

Steven Yearley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

simply not notable. fails WP:ACADEMIC. No ghits. but we know he has a namesake who is a convicted rapist.  Ohc ¡digame! 09:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)  Ohc ¡digame! 09:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the national academy of Scotland. He co-authored a book chapter on "epistemological chicken" and, though I am not smart enough to figure out what exactly that is, he is pretty widely cited because of it. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 10:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - GScholar gives an h-index of 30, and 10 papers with over 100 citations each - high numbers for what I believe is not a particularly highly-cited field. PWilkinson (talk) 12:35, 7 September 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 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely published and widely cited academic. GBooks has independent sources discussing his work. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 20 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Path of the True Heart[edit]

The Path of the True Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. IusticiaBY (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IusticiaBY (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original location Wikipedia:The Path of the True Heart as well as the categories Category:Characteristics of Nature, Category:Universal Values and Category:Personal Experience, which were especially created for this article should also be deleted. --Mps (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


- please note (again) contribution in Wikipedia rules over relevance, thanks

- please note too, in the English edition of Wikipedia we don't appreciate the relevance deletion inquisition going on in the German version, this hurts and demotivates many, many people and was never intended by the founders of Wikipedia, it compromises both valuable volunteering and evolution of content

- deletion of any article, demonstrating accurateness and positive (thus non violating) content-contribution is not acceptable, Lila has outlined that we want to go back to the positive and kind roots of Wikipedia

- If articles won't be read a single time for ten or twenty years no one will complain then if these articles will be archived (a.k.a natural selection) but the pursue of rational breeding is against the heart / DNA of Wikipedia
thanks--Marlaterra (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

requesting withdrawal of AfD nomination and close of discussion as elaborated above; precious time of volunteering for Wikipedia is to be focused on creating and improving informative, useful content not deleting valuable contributions
thanks--Marlaterra (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no claim of encyclopedic relevance here and no independent sources. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as elaborated above--Marlaterra (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. I would suggest the author consider Wikisource or Wikia. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see where this has gained any coverage in reliable sources that would show that this is notable. I see plenty of WP:PRIMARY sources, but not any that are independent and in reliable places. As far as the speech above goes, Wikipedia was never intended to be a repository about every subject under the sun and by that I mean that the original founders always had the intent to exclude various topics. Initially they figured that this would be done under the context of common sense: a page about a successful Japanese manga would be included, while a page about a recently launched webcomic would not. Over time they (and other Wikipedia editors) realized that people were taking advantage of this in order to promote things, try to add wildly non-notable things to Wikipedia, etc, so they tightened the rules and made it harder for the non-notable things to remain on Wikipedia. I can actually point to one of the AfDs that made Wikipedia more strict about notability for books/written materials. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Deceived) In other words, again- Wikipedia was always intended to be exclusive rather than all inclusive. It's highly, highly unlikely that we will ever return to the pre-rules period of Wikipedia. You're welcome to try to argue your point at some of the various avenues (WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG, for example) but I would say that your chances of overturning years of rules is pretty much nil. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead and remove it, I'm not interested in an endless deletion debate, the decreasing number of contributors is the answer to the relevance/notability breeding. Happy breeding --Marlaterra (talk) 14:05, 22 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_September_13&oldid=1142627309"