Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 April	12 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrogino G. Awesta[edit]

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

Subject is a person, but write-up discusses a publication which appears to be the subject's PhD thesis - no third party coverage - all refs are either self-published or about secondary publications by other authors. No indication of notability under WP:N nor WP:BIO. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-For some reason it comes across as a essay to me. Wgolf (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This seems to be an essay, most of it isn't even about Ambrogino G. Awesta, but is an essay about the areas they work in. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment and keep. Yes, article as written is about a book not the author. But that does not mean the article needs to stay that way. That is what editing is for. If I can find info about the author, I will blank the page and start an article about him, only referencing the book. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be indicating that the book is not notable, but you want to keep the article for it unless you find something notable about the author? Wouldn't it make sense to delete the article, currently about a non-notable book, then you're free to draft an article about the author later? Kuru (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rambling essay, non-notable author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mis-titled article about a book that does not seem to meet WP:NBOOK. I could find not sources to support anything notable about the author. Kuru (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College's 4Boston Club[edit]

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

Article about a college student club, referenced exclusively to the college's own internal student newspaper — which, while nominally independent of the club, is not widely distributed enough to count toward meeting WP:GNG — and other content on the college's own website — which is an entirely invalid primary source. Further, the article makes no claim of actual notability that would satisfy WP:ORG, but serves only as a statement that the group exists — which is not what gets an organization, student club or otherwise, into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in sources not associated with the subject. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources. School clubs without national reach have generally been held not to be notable. Scarcely an assertion of notability, never mind a credible one. This is a slamdunk. Ravenswing 06:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absent independent coverage.TheBlueCanoe 14:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exists but lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 31[edit]

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

Just a random list of trivia. Only sources are totally unreliable or irrelevant, except for feb31.com which is a robots.txt'd Wayback link. Nothing reliable gives any encyclopedic info on the use of it as a joke date, just trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to February 30 or delete. It seems like this could be merged or redirected somewhere, but I can't find anywhere obvious but the aforementioned article. I don't think we need two articles on nonexistent dates in February. What's next, an article on February 32? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a bit lost as to why we need articles on dates that don't even exist?, Not so fussed on 0 Jan etc but IMho this article's pointless –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sawchuk[edit]

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

Non-notable, per WP:NACADEMIC, and a lack of secondary sources that are non-affiliated. All of these sources provided are affiliated, except for the French one, which appears to just have a passing mention of Sawchuk. A Google search shows no reliable sources that cover her in detail. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reworked article. All sources appeared to be by the subject of the piece. Subject appears to be a significant researcher in the small academic field of aging and technology. While I would grant that there are few sources outside of academia for her life, I have utilized university news and seminar publications as well as printed books to substantiate her prolific international teaching and research experience. In as much as it was possible, I avoided using web material that came from her research projects directly. It may be that the French press has additional information, but 1) the article that was cited was not accessible (subscription only site) and 2) not speaking French I do not know how to search for data. SusunW (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ageing and technology is a tiny field, and is not really an academic field unto itself, but more of a tiny, not yet established, subset of a larger academic field. As I quote WP:NACADEMIC, "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided." You could also judge based on the WP:GNG guideline, which I have done below:::I will divide sources into multiple categories, to explain why they are not satisfying of WP:GNG

Affiliation, of which the first source, second, forth, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty first, are some.

Not in-depth coverage of Sawchuk, of which the third, sixth, seventh, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, twentieth, and twenty first, are some.

Unreliable source, of which the eighth is one.

Miscellaneous reasons, like the fifth source, which is just a search results page of stuff Sawchuk wrote. This also includes the ninth source, which is just a testimonial by Sawchuk about the benefits of a research program, put on the website of the research grant. This is kind of like having a testimonial by someone who got a subscription to the New York Times, that talked about how good the NYT was, was published in the NYT, and then using that testimonial to establish notability.

Also, Sawchuk isn't really notable under WP:NACADEMIC either, as even if you were to assume that "ageing and technology" is an actual field of study, by applying the so-called "average professor test", she is really just an average researcher in the field of ageing and technology, and is not any more notable than anyone else in the field. Also, Sawchuk doesn't satisfy criterion one of WP:NACADEMIC (which you are arguing), as she hasn't been cited much, her lectures aren't very prestigious (just run of the mill), and she hasn't really done anything that would make her notable. As stated, we should delete, as she, as a subject, is non-notable. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion @Chess: I do not believe that it is logical to assume that simply because she works at, attended, or led a lecture/conference at a University that the press department publications of that university are influenced by her. Like any news outlet, they report on newsworthy happenings. I admit that I do not know Wiki policy here, but it seems logical to me that we must assume in good faith that university presses would reasonably follow journalistic ethics, as much of their revenues are derived from printing reputations. Many academics do not have the international experience that she does and while it may not be as extensive as some, hers is extensive. I did not list all the conferences I found, only enough to substantiate that she has international lecturing and visiting professor status. She may also meet academic notoriety via section 8. As she has been the chief editor of the Canadian Journal of Communication. The journal was established in 1994, thus has a lengthy track record. It is peer reviewed both by Canadian and International Scholars. Because it is limited in scope to "communication studies as practiced in Canada or with relevance to Canada" it may not have as wide a scope as other journals, but it does appear to be an important journal in Canada, which has a lengthy history. I do not know this woman or the person who originally wrote the article. My review of it and contributions to the article were driven simply because she appeared to me to have made a significant regional contribution. She is no Noam Chomsky or Henry Louis Gates, but Wikipedia doesn't require that she be. SusunW (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - recent expansion suggests significant impact on the field, from fairly substantial sourcing that helps meet WP:NACADEMIC, Sadads (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and a good example of how wikipedia is overcoming systemic bias in its articles; this individual meets WP:GNG adequately and has been innovative in her field. WP:NACADEMIC is met by "any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. I see 4 and 7 easily are met. We also need to remember that it is harder for Canadians to get as wide of publicity than for US citizens. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that the article has been competently sourced, there is obviously no further question of deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that someone other than you two came to the discussion. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Chess: that others should weigh in. I would hope that someone on the Canada project would do so. I have no doubt I will learn from you as well. Every editor I have worked with has taught me something about using Wikipedia. It is a difficult system to learn. @Ipigott:'s skill is invaluable as he speaks many languages among them French. Asking someone to weigh in with documentation is exactly what collaboration is about IMO. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to be notable, among other things, under WP:NACADEMICS # 8 "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." In this source she is presented as "the editor" of the Canadian Journal of Communications. "The editor" would mean there is only one editor, and that is the "head" of the journal as required under this criterion. The journal is described as a "nationally and internationally renowned journal in the field publishing work in communications, media studies, cultural studies and journalism". Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationales provided by Kraxler, Montanabw and SusunW and satisfies both WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 18:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, per section 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was G5 speedy deleted after being moved to its proper name. I am closing this discussion as moot and deleting the redirect. If an editor in good standing wishes to recreate it and properly source it, that'd be fine.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Medaan Da[edit]

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

Article about a film, lacking any evidence of notability or significance. I was not able to find any sources via a Google search. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG - Mr X 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable and cruft. Quis separabit? 21:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No Quis separabit?... not "cruft" at all... simply a poorly executed article on a 1981 Punjabi film. And it's tough to find sources for a pre-1990s ~~Indian~~ Pakistani film even when the title is so screwed up. WP:BEFORE shows title to be the sourcable 'Sher Maidan Da. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - The editor who created this article is creating a lot of similar stubs and apparently plans to create a lot more. Perhaps someone can help me to get them to slow down and bring some of the already created articles up to standards before creating more.- Mr X 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with a stub if they end up improvable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt-Where did you get India? The article says country: Pakistan, which last time I checked those are 2 different countries. Anyway going for Delete right now. Wgolf (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A typo. Pre-internet Pakistani films are even harder to source. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pakistani films are harder to source but IMHO it needs expanding not deleting which is why I'd rather this get Kept, But seeing as someone's G5'd it this !vote and Michaels are gonna be completely ignored and it'll end up being deleted with the closing admin not taking one glance here so see no point wasting my time improving the article or !voting Keep here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. I can't see this converging towards a consensus. Sometimes AfDs of BLPs will end up with "no consensus default to delete", but that doesn't apply here: nobody in this discussion worried about BLP issues, and the OTRS ticket from 2013 implied that the subject didn't mind having a Wikipedia article. Der yck C. 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Molinari[edit]

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

Blp1e for being stripped of a patent title for .. Er .. stripping. Beyond that utterly non-notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, she was a Penthouse Pet and appeared on the TV show A Current Affair. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neither of which are notable and this doesn't address the blp1e issue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - While I haven't done a fair amount of in-depth research on the subject of this AfD here, the best course of action for this article at this time appears to be to a redirect. Guy1890 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy with that, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The GNG is just about coverage in reliable, independent sources (i.e. references), which this article seems to have enough of. The WP:BLP1E issue is something separate. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes the GNG. BLP1E does not apply to her as she was not a low profile individual. Also a porn career of two years is not exactly one event. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brief coverage for being a state pageant winner losing her crown because of adult magazine appearance, falling afoul of WP:BLP1E. The event itself is non-notable...no 1991 Adriana Molinari pageant crown controversy exists or will ever exist, and an otherwise non-notable person who would not be discussed absent the 1 event. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Molinari meets the GNG. She had three separate instances of news coverage -- when she became Miss New Hampshire, when her title was taken away, and years later when she went into porn. The newspaper column used as an article reference is a good example of the sort of coverage she received, and provides more reliable substantive information than the sources in a typical porn bio here dso, by a wide margin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three instances, first the stripped beauty title, then a penthouse pet winner, then as an adult film star, seems to meet the GNG. Three things add up. GuzzyG (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy are you basing this bunch of assertions on? The first is the 1 in BLP1E. The second Penthouse is not a competiotion and you don't get a page here for being in it and thirdly Porn is not a reason for anyone to have a page. This person is notable for 1 event and that's what BLP1E was written for. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet general notability guidelines. Her title being removed can be mentioned in the article on the New Hampshire pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). This article passes WP:GNG and also crosses the threshold of notability.WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but her IMDB page shows a different date of birth?C E (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Collins[edit]

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

"Ernie Collins" does not refer to anything on wikipedia so there is no reason to have a disambiguation page Joeykai (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joeykai, please see MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL. 4 valid entries, plus 2 valid see alsos. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-per what Boleyn said. Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid and useful dab page. PamD 08:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up: The links in the See also section should be moved to the main section, and the rest of the page should be formatted according to MOSDAB (unlike the mess it is right now) 128.84.125.178 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IP, the see alsos are there because they are similar names not the same, and the page is formatted according to mosdab and is not a mess. Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fair point, but it seems half of the entries refer to "Ernest" and the other half refer to "Ernie", while the See also refers to two further variations on "Ernest"; a better move might be to move the entire page to "Ernest Collins (disambiguation)" since the Ernies are all nicknames for Ernest, and because the main article linking to this DAB is Ernest Collins. 128.84.125.178 (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reason given for afd is incorrect. Referring to something and having the exact same spelling for a title are different things. --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion, notably after the thorough discussion of sources by Tokyogirl79, can be summed up as "no consensus between delete and weak keep". There was canvassing but this does not seem to have noticeably skewed the outcome. The article survives by default by a slim margin, but can be relisted if it is not improved in terms of sourcing in a reasonable amount of time. Sandstein 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMMORPG[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the game. Quinto Simmaco and I read through the references and they are little more than game guides, interviews, and/or Pokemon comparisons. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It has significant coverage in reliable sources, which means it probably passes the notability threshold. Engadget, SiliconEra are easy-to-find English language sources; there many more sources in other languages (which is understandable since the dev himself is Turkish). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

@Salvidrim!, courtesy ping, considering the discussion below czar ⨹ 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I see some coverage, but I don't see it as significant. Engadget and Siliconera are both interviews, which is uncomfortably close to SPS territory. Merlin'in Kazanı and Techshout are trivial. The others may be high-quality, reliable sources, but I think a native speaker familiar with WP:IRS—or, preferably, WP:VG/RS—would need to weigh in on that. They certainly look to me like the spammy linkspam/game guide sites we generally consider unreliable (as others mentioned above), but of course looks can be deceiving. Woodroar (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)

Disagree with user:Woodroar why? Because Woodroar is certainly not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. I believe he/she is under very heavy influence of others and also and an article written by him/her has litte to 0 noteable references (Young)_Pioneers which makes claim very biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I may have been under the influence of others last month, maybe even last week. But I haven't consumed anyone for at least a few days. Woodroar (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were the aforementioned Engadget/Joystiq interview and this PR mention. Not nearly enough to substantiate an article, but one Turkish source looks okay: Oyungezer is a print magazine. For me, this nom hinges on haberimport, which appears to follow a press ethics policy for reliability. If the site was deemed reliable, I would change my conclusion, but its article on MonsterMMORPG appears to be lifted in large part from a press release. The phrase "Oyun sayfasında temel olarak harita ekranını kullanıyoruz." shows up in several other sources as well as another cited source. Repackaged press releases wouldn't count as significant coverage, leaving an interview, a small article, and a few passing mentions. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are unearthed. czar ⨹ 11:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive comments by blocked user
Disagree with user:czar why? Because I found an article written by him/her which I believe he/she is related to Brainwashed_(website) with little to nothing references. So I don't believe he/she is fully objective with this decision and it is biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - When all the references are considered, the game passes notability threshold cumulatively. If and when custom Google search is used to search with the term "monstermmorpg" the following pages are given as search results: game listing 1, game listing 2 at IGN, full editor article at Engadget, game listing at ru:Absolute_Games, news at gamershell.

As for coverage the MonsterMMORPG page has four references listed - video game reliable sources. The listings are as following: full article by Jessica Conditt on Joystiq, full article by Chris Priestman on siliconera (Alexa Rank: 10454 , Page Rank: 5), game listing on GameSpot and editorial given game wiki on IGN. They also include the following references that are English and all have editorial publishing: Kyle Hayth article on browsergamez (Alexa Rank: 208890, Page Rank: 4), Remko Molenaar and Darren Henderson editors article at OnRPG (Alexa Rank: 68021, Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, game listing on whatmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 817321 , Page Rank: 2), editorial game listing and special given developer blog on mmorpg.com (Alexa Rank: 12513 , Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, editorial approved game listing on indiedb (Alexa Rank: 16606, Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on gameslikefinder (Alexa Rank: 50514 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on xmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 209912 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on gameguyz (Alexa Rank: 59045 , Page Rank: 3), game listing by staff Demetrius Crasto on techshout (Alexa Rank: 84868 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on newrpg (Alexa Rank: 1248161 , Page Rank: 0), editorial game listing on mmogames (Alexa Rank: 38427 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on kpopstarz (Alexa Rank: 11928 , Page Rank: 5).

The non english noteable references are as follows: game article and extensive video by Marlene Kless on games.de (German, Alexa Rank: 313642 , Page Rank: 4), editorial game listing on 07073.com (Chinese, Alexa Rank: 3197 , Page Rank: 5), game article, listing and review by Allan Valin on baixaki.com.br (Portuguese, Alexa Rank: 593 , Page Rank: 6), game review by Anh Đức on game4v.com (Vietnamese, Alexa Rank: 9576 , Page Rank: 2) which is currently maintenance but visible at google cache, game review by M.İhsan Tatari on oyungezer (Turkish, Also Printed, Alexa Rank: 34818 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Ceyda Doğan on merlininkazani (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 18095 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Engin Yüksel on teknolojioku (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 16365 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game news on indir.com (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 27852 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on frpnet.net (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 170997 , Page Rank: 4).

There absolutely could be more listings, news or articles added, but when all the information provided is consireded, I believe this game deserves to be listed on Wikipedia. Knost05 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) — Knost05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Alexa and Page Rank don't matter. The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles. We don't care about games databases, fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published articles, or trivial content like two sentences and a screenshot. We need substantial articles written by third-parties to prove that a subject is important enough to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. (What other languages allow or don't allow also doesn't matter. They're all separate.) I should also mention that you appear to be involved in the development of the game yourself, which is a conflict of interest that you should have divulged immediately. Woodroar (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely believe that there are substantial articles proving that this game is substantial enough in importance that it deserves an article on English Wikipedia. According to WP:RELIABLE , news organizations can be counted as reliable. References siliconera, browsergamez, techshout, teknolojioku, 07073 are counted as news sites within Google, who don't count a site as a legitimate news site lightly, meaning these sites have been found worthy and have the authority to be counted as news sites. Indiedb and Baixaki also have a lot of references from websites that are counted as legitimate news sites on Google. Also, MonsterMMORPG being listed at IGN, Engadget, Absolute_Games, GameSpot means this game was noteable enough to get their attenion and get added to their websites by staff members. This is important because they don't simply add every game to their listings, especially Indie games. Add to the list onrpg editors as they have a great history with game journalism. Now, looking into Alexa and PageRank, I believe they do matter. Alexa rank is an important aspect to legitimize if a site has authority/is respected or not. If these sites were not an authority on their subject, they would not get the amount of visitors needed to legitimize it as an authority on Alexa. And per the Wikipedia page on PageRank "PageRank works by counting the number and quality of links to a page to determine a rough estimate of how important the website is." If properly investigated, I believe that you will find that none of these references are fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for my involvement with MonsterMMORPG, I did not know that I needed to divulge whether or not I played this game as I thought this was a discussion about the merits of MonsterMMORPG and not a closed off back and forth between current Wikipedia editors. Who I am to MonsterMMORPG shouldn't matter. What should matter is that the references are evaluated on their own merits. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which they were. And the implications of a conflict of interest should be straightforward. I suggest reading through the guideline if you may have one. czar ⨹ 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "closed-off debate", you're free to participate, you're just supposed to disclose your connections to the subject too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete or {{recategorize}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive comments by blocked user

Disagree with user:Be..anyone delete claim why? Because Be..anyone is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. While quick checking articles written by Be..anyone I found that he published an article which has little to no credibility references which makes article definitely does not pass noteability threshold Microsoft_Download_Manager. Even though I did not notice any major problem with categorization, recategorize seems reasonable option when category number is taken into consideration FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)

Disagree with user:Lady Lotus why? Because Lady Lotus is not neutral nor objective with her claim. While quick checking articles written by Lady Lotus I found there are some major WP:RS problems. For example Beauty_Brands which i strongly believe her own company, has 1 404 returning references and 3 nothing notable references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

FanOfNaruto WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you need to keep this discussion about the article in question and not go after articles that editors have worked on. There is no bias. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its seems the source-hunting has had an opposite effect on me this time - the coverage found so far is extremely weak, with most of it either not meeting standards at WP:RS, or not meeting what's needed to have significant coverage. When these bad sources are stripped away, there's hardly anything left, in sources or source-able content. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)

Disagree with user:Sergecross73 why? Because Sergecross73 is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. While quick checking articles written by Sergecross73 I found there are some major WP:RS problems. For example Danganronpa:_Unlimited_Battle has little to nothing, very thin references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's got to be one of the most bizarre WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments I've come across in my time here at Wikipedia. Even if I did make an a non-notable article (I didn't), I fail to see how that would affect my neutrality with this particular article. (And not that it has any bearing on this article's status, but please see WP:VG/S, you'll see that majority, if not all, of the sources in the article have a consensus for being usable in the capacity that I used them. And there's more that have popped up since then that can be added to the article. So your accusations are both irrelevant and flawed conceptually. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Czar pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. The self-promotion and attempts at ref bombing don't help either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)

Disagree with user:FreeRangeFrog why? Because FreeRangeFrog is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. An example article written by FreeRangeFrog and it has very little to none references Tiefer. According to him/her Tiefer article is noteable while this article is not which clearly displays biased decision FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You cannot point to another article and argue for retention based on that. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano I don't see any other way how to show bias going on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs)

The only bias I can see is from the SPA posting rebuttals to every single delete vote which have no basis in Wikipedia's policies while hurling accusations of bias. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Because there is no bias going on here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disruptive single-purpose account.

Strong Keep. To be able to fairly critisize this article I read a lot of pages and other articles. After evaluating backlinks and all claims here, I concluded that this article by far surpasses overall Wikipedia Video Games articles noteability threshold. I agree with Salvidrim! and Knost05. I feel that there is an extreme bias going on at this discussion. It feels like some editors contacting others to vote for delete. Critiques are being made with bias. At the top of this page I am quoting written text "Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." The bold part clearly shows the bias going on here. I could not resist but to register and make an argument because I can not bear unfairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article is listed here as part of a general list of Articles for creation submissions that have subsequently been nominated for deletion. That's how I found out about it, though it's important to note that any article going through those processes will be listed there. PS: FanOfNaruto has been indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an SPI to check for any socking or meating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant promotion, not enough third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the Silcon Era source is probably the best one of the lot, though that's not really enough. What we really need is significant coverage from general purpose, non-fan based media. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COmment: Here's a brief runthrough of the sources using Google Translate:

Sources

Silicon Era. SE is a reliable source, but this is an interview which is sort of depreciated as a source. I personally don't think that interviews should necessarily be seen as a SPS unless it's one of those scenarios where the post is a guest post by the developer or where there isn't really any real back and forth with the interviewer. There's enough meat to this in the content before the interview to where I'd consider it usable.
Oyungezer. From what I can see, this does have an editorial staff per this page and the article was written by a staff member, which is a bonus. As far as content goes, the article does give off some PR vibes but ultimately seems to be an overview of the game. I'd consider this usable as a RS.
Haber Import. This comes across strongly like it's taken from a press release, either partially or fully. It's not marked as a press release (these are primary sources and cannot show notability) but it also lacks a clear author and I can't really find anything on the website to show that there's any editorial oversight. There is a page of authors, but nothing to show their credentials or even that they were the author of this piece. I wouldn't count this as a RS.
Game4V. This one is iffy. The page looks nice and it's an outright review, which would be helpful, but I can't find anything on there about editorial oversight. This page does sort of give the impression that they have editors, but none of it is clear. Unfortunately since they don't have that posted, I have to err on the side of caution here and say that it wouldn't be usable offhand unless someone can find something more definitive on the website.
Merlin'in Kazanı. This one is similar to the previous one in that there are things like this that give off the impression that there's an editorial process but no real guarantee that there is one. However that's sort of a moot point here since this post is so brief that it's essentially a WP:TRIVIAL source and not one that would give notability.
Teknoloji Oku. This has the same issue with verifying the editorial oversight. This is really what does in most websites. Even if it looks fairly obvious that the page has an editorial board, it has to be verified. Sometimes this can be bypassed if the site is especially well known but this is kind of what harms a lot of foreign language websites- they're usually not known on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that we should accept the websites based on the fact that there is a language bias on Wikipedia, just that this can be a barrier for finding sources.
Engadget. The site is a RS, but this is an interview. It's mostly filled with responses by the developer, so this runs a little afoul of the whole SPS. Personally I do find interviews to be an indication of notability, but I don't think that they should be the only sources.

Ultimately what we have here are three usable sources: Engadget, Silicon Era, and Oyungezer. Two of them are interviews and Oyungezer is a little iffy since it looks to be somewhat based on a press release and doesn't appear to be a review of the game itself per se. It's enough to where I can see arguments for a weak keep, but it really should have more/better sourcing than this if it is kept- otherwise it will likely get challenged and nominated for deletion again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've posted this response two other places, but I wanted to make sure it was seen by the people in this discussion as well. My relation to the game is that I'm a Chat Master for it's chat function and I play the game. I wasn't asked to create an account to argue this point I was asked to go and fix it up as the person that created it did a pretty poor job. When I went to the page to edit it I saw the Delete Nomination at which point I weighed in. I didn't think I needed to state my direct relation to the game, but after reading Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) explanation I understand why this might have been of importance.

'I would like to apologize for my role in the back and forth of it all, but I do stand by my opinion. I believe that this game is getting railroaded when it has a legitimate reason to be added to English Wikipedia. When looking at some other games, as the much more aggressive/unprofessional user added under me, it seems your editors aren't as strict.

'Either way, I understand that as it is the page is lacking, but it does have some articles that would count as references and I hope the page gets a weak keep at the very least so that I have an opportunity to edit it and get it up to snuff.

'Thanks for your time, Knost05 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING. The Superonline Iletisim Hizmetleri user 176.233.41.152 has been energetically canvassing people to come here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More canvassing: Special:Contributions/Vampirelord1985 czar ⨹ 16:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got an invitation by some ip person to come here as a neutral party. I am a bit puzzled by a comment user @Woodrar made. "The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles." May I ask how you would know whether a writer's byline was indeed his true birth given name or a psuedonym? Thanks if you get a moment to answer that. Until then, Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't know for sure, but usually you can take a pretty good guess based on what the name is. If the person writes by the name of "Don Johnson" and/or is known outside of the website by such a name, then its likely their name. If they go by "Doombringer1987", you make a pretty good guess that's not they're real name. Many video game and music websites allow any old person to create an account with any old name and let them write whatever they want. This sort of content fails WP:USERG - it's not considered a reliable sources in the Wikipedia context, and thus, is not usable to prove the notability of a subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was canvassed to look here by the IP user too. Looking at this discussion, I'd like to point out that Delete and Keep aren't the only options, Move to Draft space is a valid alternative - and judging by the knife edge the sources are walking - this would seem the better solution for this article. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed by new user (assuming same IP entity), I agree with the above statement that it should be moved out of the mainspace and put in the draft namespace. ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space for further work per X201. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has enough references, is not orphan, instead of being loosing the time, you should be improving this article.--P2prules (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out with sources you find to be both reliable and cover the subject in significant detail? Also, not being an orphan is hardly a testament to being notable. Virtually any article can linked to if you try hard enough, notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vampirelord1985 canvassed me too, apparently expecting a reliable Keep !vote based upon my "experience, review and edit history of video game articles". But unbeknownst to him I hate vampire fiction and collectible card-games. So, nuke it. ...What? Those aren't valid reasons? Well, OK. Let's go with WP:ADMASQ. Good old reliable ADMASQ. Pax 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed I too was just canvassed on this, based on the sender's belief that "you are a true editor of Wikipedia who works to expand it instead of shrinking"... which is a frankly not the most likely claim to make about my editing history, but does make it clear which way the canvassing is pulling. This discussion should be weighed with such canvassing attempts in mind. (I am not casting any !vote on the article myself; I have not reviewed it and have other things to do with my day.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got canvassed, too. I don't really have a problem with sending it to draft space, but I'm a bit worried that it might end up turning into massive drama like Heaven Sent Gaming (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Heaven Sent Gaming). If people are willing to put up with the SPAs, promotional edits, and other drama again, go for it. Unless Jimbo puts me on the Wikimedia payroll, I'm unlikely to babysit the article, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When/If this is moved to draft may I start adding to it and cleaning it up? Thank you for your time everyone, I'm sorry some have made this a less than easy discussion.Knost05 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knost05, you should start cleaning it up now; if the article really can be salvaged (I'm still hedging my bets) then it should be improved before the AfD closes. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Of course, I'll get on it as soon as possible. Thank you again everyone for your time and patience. Knost05 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed. :l By the IP listed above. However, I don't exactly see any reason to delete the article, so... ~~Weak Keep~~? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, this (possible sock-puppeteer) canvasser is starting to grind my gears. Speedy Delete per G11. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I was notified about this by the mad canvasser, I see no reason not to offer neutral input.

The Siliconera bit is good, as listed at WP:VG/RS, which says that its "Interviews can be used in any article"; and Engadget is also listed as an RS. That's two good sources (although they're both interviews, which makes me a little hesitant, but not enough to change my !vote), and I unfortunately don't know Turkish to be able to do anything more than speculate based on the structure of the rest. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Supernerd11. Between the Silicon era piece which is listed at WP:VG/RS, and also the Engadget one that is also listed there, this article subject has significant coverage over multiple sources, and has crossed the threshold of WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The canvassing issue aside, there appears to be substantial enough coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was canvassed to keep this, however looking at the sources and reading through our guidelines and polies about this topic, I don't belive this surpasses our notability guidelines. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources cited are not reliable and there is not enough third-party coverage to meet the General notability guideline. - tucoxn\^talk 06:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed Perhaps there could be reason to keep this article, but I'm not yet seeing it. What I do see is very little actual content spread into many subsections, which is definitely not warranted. The biggest argument I could see for deletion is that the citations are very weak. There are a couple decent ones, but at least two (teknolojioku.com and haberimport.com) are clearly just press releases, as they are identical content. Like many others, I don't believe it passes notability yet. Jory (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space - Despite the article have 2 reliable sources, it is not enough to meet the "receive significant coverage" criteria. However, I believed that if the page creator work hard enough and find more reliable sources for it, the article will be ready some day. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 2 reliable sources fulfill the actual requirement of notability, it is debatable what to keep or not. Delibzr (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (I wasn't canvassed :) ) - I agree completely with Tokyogirl79's analysis of the sources and find that amount of sourcing puts it right on the edge of notability. Additionally, I am inclined to error on the side of keep due to the game's large user base (as reported in Silicon Era, a reliable source). Yes, popularity is not a notability criteria, but when if tough cases we can employ common sense to decide which side to land on, and common sense says a popular game should be notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WPVG rated Siliconera as having situational reliability—it's a niche blog that we only use for English coverage of Japanese games. Of course, this is an interview, so it's somewhat in-between that and a self-published source. The three sources in question are indeed secondary, but can they be used for notability? The two main English sources are interviews unregulated by a fact-checking or editorial mechanism. czar ⨹ 12:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interviews by reliable sources can contribute to notability. While not strictly secondary, they aren't strictly primary either - some level of fact-checking of things said in the interview will occur at quality publications. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flowering plant#Evolutionary history. The phrase gets hits on Google and Google Scholar, so it seems a plausible redirect, and, as the saying goes, redirects are cheap. Deor (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's abominable mystery[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, speculation The Banner talk 19:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even make out what the article is supposed to be about - the BBC show? That's not mentioned in the text - and if it were, it very likely wouldn't be notable. This material seems more suited for another sentence or so at Amborella rather than an article. Elmidae (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flowering plant#Evolutionary history, where this topic (which is a quote from a letter Charles Darwin wrote) is already addressed. Everymorning talk 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Everymorning. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wha, wha? Seriously? This is an article? It seems to me that it's rather the text of another article. I propose this text be merged into the proper article, or just plain deleted. Sahibdeep Nann (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really no cause for this to be a redirect. PianoDan (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this were 1880, people might be looking for this title, but it's 2015, so a redirect is not needed. Delete. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1882 Rauma[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No evidence of individual notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1372 Haremari[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found an old paper entirely about its orbit [1] and a newer one implying that it has an unusual type of orbit (Trojan with Ceres)[2]. I think that may be enough to distinguish it from the others and pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm not sure I understand, but the existence of papers solely on this particular rock would indicate to me it's not your ordinary asteroid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1332 Marconia[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1330 Spiridonia[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1266 Tone[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I found some research on small groups of asteroids that included this one, but nothing that treated it individually. I don't think it's enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1210 Morosovia[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate list of asteroids. This microstub has no content that would not be better presented as columns in a table. Reyk _YO! 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I found this one in some group studies but without enough individual attention to convince me of its notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saritha S. Nair[edit]

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

The person doesn't have the significance to get a biographical Wiki article. VagaboundWind (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom, I could of swore this article was deleted already. Wgolf (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Also reeks of a POV Fork attack page against this person. Cowlibob (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators the person has enough notability. For example take a look at Santosh Madhavan. --Alfasst (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was This version was G5 speedied. Am closing discussion as moot. Topic already exists at Des Pardes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Des Pardes (Film)[edit]

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

Article about a film, lacking any evidence of notability or significance. I was not able to find any reliable sources via a Google search. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. I would like to mention that the film part is kind of pointless after it as the page for Des Pardes is for a film already so it should of had the year then film! But that's another story. Wgolf (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here Des Pardes (I thought this was a Spanish film when I first saw the Pardes part) Wgolf (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - all of the participants in this discussion called for a redirect, so this action made sense. There should be no prejudice in recreating the article if better sourcing can be provided. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo (rapper)[edit]

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

I can't find this meets WP:MUSICBIO at any time. His solo career is not as notable as when he was with the group Facção Central. CarlosWagners (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – redirect to band. Would also need to delete A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver via WP:A9, as well as that book that was redirected to the person.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A9 doesn't apply to books (neither does A7). Thanks for fixing my redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band if this is so. --Inother (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is an unsourced WP:BLP, and redirect to Facção Central until such time there are ample sources available to substantiate a biography. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closing discussion as moot. Article was G5 speedied. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghunda[edit]

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

Article about a film, lacking any evidence of notability or significance. I was not able to find any reliable sources via a Google search. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. The only ref isn't even for the same film! Wgolf (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article for Diya Aur Toofan (1969 film) already exists, and IT' is sourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was Article was G5 speedied. I am closing this AFD as moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ik Si Maa[edit]

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

Article about a film, lacking any evidence of notability or significance. I was not able to find any available sources via a Google search. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated, does not seem to meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:HEY. Not bothered to be proven wrong. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Food Safety[edit]

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

I'm finding sources which mention CFS (e.g. "CFS tested this or that"), but nothing independent that talks about it specifically. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one I really want to keep but has no big clues on how to secure a definitive keep. I guess one way is framing searches around the more general "Hong Kong food safety" topic, like how I find [3]? 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this less notable than any other agency in Category:Food safety organizations, or any other Hong Kong Government agency? A quick search for South China Morning Post results reveals plenty of coverage, and I'm sure a search of Chinese sources would turn up even more.
- Benitez, Mary Ann (20 August 2005). "Dedicated food safety centre proposed". South China Morning Post.
- Lee, Ella (20 September 2005). "Director baulks at food-safety centre". South China Morning Post.
- Benitez, Mary Ann (18 January 2006). "Proposal for food safety centre sent back to the drawing board". South China Morning Post.
- Benitez, Mary Ann (19 January 2006). "Health chiefs in rallying call for food safety centre". South China Morning Post.
- Lam, Agnes (25 July 2006). "Food safety centre 'can do more'". South China Morning Post.

It is hard to parse the thousands of results that come up from dates following the setting-up of the CFS for results specifically ABOUT the CFS -- simply because the agency is mentioned so often in the media. Citobun (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirms Keep with Citobun's selection of sources, and moving into the article with URLs. I really should add dedicated SCMP searches for subjects like this. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other arguments to delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aboti Brahmins[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY, I added one source, but it is a primary source and not an rs. Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep There are sources out there that should be reliable but I can only see snippets at the moment and am trying to track them down. Eg: [4], [5], maybe [6]. It doesn't seem likely that it will get beyond a stub and they acknowledge themselves that they are a very small community. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my comment above to a "keep". I've just added one RS and there are others out there, eg:this from Oxford Univ Press and perhaps this and even this and this. Given access to the sources, it seems obvious now that some sort of hotch-potch stub could be written and that specific aspects of the life of the community are discussed. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks to Sitush's excellent work. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cathal O'Connor[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... JMHamo (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina–Marshall football rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRIVALRY as none of these sources establish said "rivalry"--or even use that term. They played each other yearly from 2005-2013 because they were in the same conference, with no other significant events occurring. Everything here is WP:ROUTINE. Tavix | Talk 23:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources dealing with this 8-year series as a true and notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - As anyone who has participated in AfDs for college football rivalry articles will tell you, I am no easy "keep" !vote for CFB rivalries. I believe that such articles must clearly satisfy the general notability guidelines to qualify for inclusion as stand-alone Wikipedia articles. No, this East Carolina–Marshall rivalry series is not Alabama–Auburn, Florida–Georgia, Michigan–Ohio State, Oklahoma–Texas or UCLA–USC, but it is a legitimate college rivalry that evokes real emotion for the alumni and fans of these two programs. Here's a sample of the the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources:

"Marshall football: East Carolina game more than a rivalry," Charleston Daily Mail (11/25/2013);
"Rivalry matchup to decide C-USA's East Division," The Herald-Dispatch (11/26/2013);
"Taliaferro tears up father's alma mater," The Herald-Dispatch (12/1/2013);
"ECU, Marshall to renew football series," Wilimington Star-News (4/3/2014);
"ECU, Marshall renew football rivalry," The Viriginian-Pilot (4/3/2014);
"ECU, Marshall, bound by 1970 tragedy, to play final game as league rivals," The Fayetteville Observer (11/28/2013).

Mind you, this is what I found with a simple Google search in the space of 20 minutes; I have not even bothered yet to run searches in Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, or Google News Archive. Sure, the coverage is local and regional (in three states: North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia), but this is a rivalry between Mid-Majors, and the coverage does have depth and detail discussing the history and significance of the series as a rivalry. These are not passing mentions or trivial uses of the word "rivalry." The coverage is of sufficient depth and breadth of this series as a rivalry to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG, and there is more out there to be found by searching. The only reason I'm calling this a "weak keep" is because of the relatively low number of games in the series to date (15). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, though these appear to be local media outlets in the Carolinas-Virginias where the two schools are located. Did you find any coverage of this series as a notable rivalry in national (or regional) media outlets? Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (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) 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have backed out the previous close and relisted this, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs). The sources call this a "rivalry", so there are no WP:SYNTHESIS problems. The sources are from three states in the United States: North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Dirtlawyer called these "local and regional sources"; Cbl62 (talk · contribs) called them "local sources". I agree with Dirtlawyer. Charleston Daily Mail is a Pulitzer Prize–winning paper that serves Charleston, West Virginia, the capital and largest city of the state.
The Virginian-Pilot is Virginia's largest daily, having a daily circulation of 156,968.
Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: The Virginian-Pilot is also located outside the immediate market of East Carolina and Marshall -- over 130 and 460 miles away, respectively. These are not all hometown newspapers for the two universities. Moreover, the coverage is significant and discusses the history of the rivalry and its significance to the two schools in some depth. I do agree with Cbl62 to the extent that national and regional coverage should be accorded greater weight in determining the notability of CFB rivalries, but weak national coverage (e.g., one and two-sentence mentions of a "rivalry") is not weightier than significant coverage in regional media. What we really need is a more detailed specific notability standard for sports rivalries for a greater measure consistency in these rivalry AfDs. More importantly, we also need to better define the meaning of "significant" coverage for all AfDs -- the present standard is surprisingly malleable depending on the subject area, the editors involved, and the closing administrator applying it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that The Virginian-Pilot is a non-local source, which helps bolster the case for notability. While national and regional coverage are better than local coverage, I think we should rely on Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline rather than a more detailed specific notability standard for sports rivalries.
S Marshall (talk · contribs) provided a convincing argument for doing that:
Our notability rule is very old and very simple. If it has significant (more than a couple of paragraphs) coverage in reliable sources (note plural) then it's notable. If it doesn't then it isn't. This rule is simple and simplistic and it leads to simple and simplistic outcomes, and I understand why some editors want something more subtle and nuanced ---- but there are really good reasons why it has to be simple. You see, there wouldn't be much point going through the effort of researching and writing an article if people could come along and randomly delete it, would there? So we have to have simple, clear rules that are consistently enforced. That's what enables people to write content without going through a committee process first.
This is why it's so important to stick rigidly to the WP:GNG even when it gives outcomes that might seem anomalous, such as in this case. It will certainly take careful thought and good editorial judgment to keep the article on the right side of WP:FRINGE. But it's a much more serious mistake to delete an article on a notable topic, or to try to re-define notability so it means something other than significant coverage in reliable sources.
—S Marshall at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll)
And:
In recent years it's somehow become acceptable to look at non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and claim that the sources somehow don't "count" towards notability. Editors have started to use "notable" to mean "a worthy subject about which we have decided to permit you to write an article", and we need to kill that off. Let's be clear here: notability isn't an encyclopaedic concept. You can bet that the editors of Britannica aren't sitting around obsessing about notability! It's purely a product of Wikipedian culture and it exists only because of our open editing environment. The meaning of "notability" is simple and simplistic and it's quite clear from the GNG: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source. That's it. The reason why it's so simplistic is to provide us with an objective test which was meant to cut through these endless, circular notability debates. This lady passes it, and with all due respect for the ingenious arguments offered by other debate participants, the alternative view that the sources somehow don't "count" is quite untenable.
...
I don't think my position is an "argument". It's a fairly uncontroversial statement of what notability meant when it was devised. In origin, notability's not an encyclopaedic concept, it's a tool for detecting and eliminating marketing spam. I don't believe the editors of any paper encyclopaedia including Britannica ever think about notability (but then they wouldn't have articles on Australian boxers' daughters very often either, of course). I think the idea that notability requires being notable for something is tautological; but I suspect you mean notable for an achievement of some kind, don't you? If so, that's a very new school idea that only surfaced in the last three years or so.
—S Marshall at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Gartner
Cunard (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep meets WP:N. Sources are a bit more local than ideal, but it meets our sourcing requirements. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am persuaded by Cunard's arguments above that the coverage is not local in nature and instead consists of coverage in major metropolitan dailies. As he notes, these are major news outlets with substantial circulation and not just local or small-town newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The teams play one another a lot because they're in the same league/conference. Suggestions that this rises to being a "rivalry" are pure synthesis. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of WP:SYNTHESIS when the sources posted by Dirtlawyer1 at 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC) say this rises to being a "rivalry". Cunard (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:GNG to me. I do like the quoted material from S Marshall, I've been trying to formulate those words for several years now. Very clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian-Swiss Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

This passed through AfC last year before being speedied just now. I had a quick look around for sources but I can't see anything obvious other than its own sources saying it exists, and a number of brief mentions in news reports. It might be that it appears in foreign sources and I'm missing something obvious, but I think a discussion here is probably useful for the mo. Paging Coin945 who accepted this at AfC. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. lacking significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is to the organization's own page. Fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for "Българо-швейцарска търговска камара" doesn't turn up much more than the English name. No evidence of notability supplied, and no real evidence of notability found in my searches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Rotten[edit]

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

Non notable pornstar failing pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discard per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails PORNBIO + GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO without award wins. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. Searches yield reprinted press releases and coverage about Rachel Rotten's ex-boyfriend. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incidental coverage in sources discussing more well-know partner, but notability is not inherited. Fails Pornbio with only multiple award nominations, no wins. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k and Tarc, notability is not inherited. Cavarrone 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Now the copyvio material has been removed. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsundur massacre[edit]

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

Though it is a referenced, notable event, this is a near perfect copyvio of ISBN 0 85003 612 7 (http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2692.pdf) . I looked through the history, and no major changes have been made since its creation. The object being copied explicitly states that it is not to be copied and displayed on web pages. Either this article will need to be completely rewritten, or deleted. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a quick link to show infringing content Jcmcc (Talk) 11:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Content in the article that was in copyright infringement has been removed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - also could be improved. Educationtemple (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced and can be improved and copyright infringement has been removed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryn Weaver[edit]

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

The article still fails WP:MUSICBIO after the article was previously nominated for deletion. IPadPerson (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still fails WP:MUSICBIO, and probably should've been put up for G4 speedy deletion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Changed vote[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage for this person at Billboard [7], Time [8], MTV [9], The Guardian [10], Spin [11], The Fader [12], and Stereogum [13]. Existing coverage is plentiful. Gongshow talk 17:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Gongshow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Nyttend. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chak Seelong[edit]

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

This article is a blatant hoax from a blatant hoaxer. But apparently not blatant enough to be speedied. Evidence that the article is a hoax:

"ညဆီးစ်ကြီးၕ" given as the burmese name of the dish translates to "urine"
"ကြီးသုပ်‌" which is meant to literally translate to "sweet chicken" literally translates to "salad"
The two burmese sources the article used were removed by burmese speaker User:Phyo WP for being completely unrelated.[14]
All google results for "Chak Seelong" are wikipedia related.
Jet Tha Jaw on the other hand does some to be a real Burmese dish name (the reason the article failed a speedy). But there are sparse google results and none that establish notability, or contain any of the information included in this article.

For these reasons, please can we nuke this article ASAP. Bosstopher (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree, appears to be a hoax. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Chak Seelong and ညဆီးစ်ကြီးၕ are meaningless in Burmese. I've removed two Burmese sources because they are not about the article. IMO, it is not likely a Burmese dish. The article in Burmese Wikipedia was deleted in June 2014. PhyoWP *click 22:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. My deletion rationale was See discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Chak Seelong; user's created numerous documented hoaxes. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Monroe[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and Gng. Non notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winner and notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The award win is scene-related and does not count for WP:PORNBIO. Just stating she's notable without significant coverage from reliable sources does not make her notable. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above user frequently enters invalid keep rationales in porn-related discussions, de-prods porn bios without comment or attempt to address the issue, and so on. Such votes are usually discarded or weighted lightly by closing admins. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Semi-reliable source coverage consists of an interview and reprinted press releases in the trade press. Fails GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately fails PORNBIO. –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. --Inother (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the notability guidelines or the sng PORNBIO, which was recently update to specifically exclude group/scene/ensemble award wins. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k and fails WP:PORNBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyra Banxxx[edit]

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

Non notable, fails Gng and PORNBIO. Being interviewed is primary not secondary sourcing. Joke name riding on the coat-tails of a genuinely notable person should not a Wikipedia entry make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should be invalidated per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfortunately fails PORNBIO. –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources, does not meet PORNBIO. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's very accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bond[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and Gng. Appearing on Jerry springer and a bit part do not make you notable. blps should have better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entry will be invalidated per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Bit-part mainstream appearances don't satisfy PORNBIO. Lacks non-trivial independent RS coverage to satisfy GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately fails PORNBIO. –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor appearances in actual films, doe snot meet pornbio either. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial[edit]

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

Not a proper dab entry in the lot on this page. Can't think of anyplace to redirect this to. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to miscegenation. That article lists "interracial" as a synonymous term that is preferred by scholars. That's good enough for me, and I think that people should end up somewhere when they search for "interracial". It's not a uncommon word, and I think miscegenation links to all the appropriate topics. If there's something prominent that it doesn't link to, then we can use a hatnote or "see also" link. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This solution seems potentially extremely offensive, deletion with no redirect would be preferable. Artw (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a reasonable and useful navigational page. Artw (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is basically a useful page and don't really get why it's been nominated but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Keepers should read WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Rajilal[edit]

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

This guy doesn't seem to be notable as the article claims. There's no evidence I can find for the claim about being connected to the Queen Elizabeth I movies Elizabeth (film) and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age, and the Hindi-language film he's supposedly famous for Salaam-e-Ishq: A Tribute to Love shows someone else as producer. This looks like a possible hoax or self-promotion article. No evidence whatsoever of his notability from a Google search, and IMDB lists a couple unknown shorts, but no connection with any notable production. I found the photo of him on Commons, which shows he himself started this article. Rosario Berganza 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Facebook and twitter could not be references for a notable figure. Educationtemple (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Surprise this wasn't caught sooner about the COI, anyway per nom I'm voting that. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no significant coverage in independent sources. COI creation. The fact his twitter and facebook are linked as well as the last line of "Currently Rajesh Rajilal is recruiting and training student across the globe" makes it pretty obvious it's promotional puff piece. Cowlibob (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Larry Sanger. JohnCD (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobitt[edit]

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to ever be able to stand on its own as a coherent article. A stub likely to remain a stub for years to come. Obviously, it might take off, but possible future notability doesn't justify an article now, per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Merge into Larry Sanger. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only just mentioned a few days ago over on RationalWiki that there "seems to be very little information about infobitt on the net" and "Google search results show only a few articles from late last year". The site is already almost five months old and it's going nowhere. I don't see a future for this site, and therefore I don't see a future for this article. 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Only reference is an article about what the site could become. Merge into Sanger's article. Glen 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larry Sanger - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larry Sanger. It's already covered there and there isn't enough for a standalone article. Shouldn't be at AfD as this is the wrong place to propose a merge. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Dhaka#Bureaus and research centers. Merge what needs merging Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of bureaus and research centers at Dhaka University[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTDIR. none of the entries are notable. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the rest/Delete - From what I can see most if not all is listed at University of Dhaka#Bureaus and research centers anyway so guess it can be merged then deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 07:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Do same for all spin-offs of Dhaka Univ. nafSadh did say 15:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep: Notability of lists are handled a bit differently but I think this could be merged into the main article. I hope this list could be kept and expanded later with more statistics and individual information, but I'm not sure about that. Other prominent universities actually have separate articles for each centre! I also absolutely disagree with merging all spin-offs of Dhaka University. Many other universities have separate articles, and this other list of DU is enough to be a featured list. 103.7.250.251 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Hill Fire Department (South Carolina)[edit]

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

Fire departments aren't notable unless they're verifiably special; this one isn't. Doesn't pass GNG, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete granted that it is not special in its own way, there are about 100-200 or so fire departments with less content here department USA. If there is nothing special about the majority of these I am not sure why there on the Wikipedia. The ones I have looked at do not pass WP:GNG or any of the Notability sub-requirements such as WP:SPIP or WP:NOTESAL.LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--it still doesn't meet the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then the other Fire Department articles should be deleted in accordance to the GNG also. Im not entirely sure as to why the fire department articles are kept as they do not seem to pass any notability guideline, if yourself or another experienced user would like to answer that would be great.LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LethalFlower, read the essay I linked. Other articles on the same topic that don't meet the GNG should be deleted as well, but I can hardly nominate all of them at the same time. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly read it. I believe that there is a way to do a Group Nomination? There are countless lists of police departments, List of law enforcement agencies, List of United States state and local law enforcement agencies and hospitals, [15]. I understand that this is not a valid argument for the keep. I am simply saying that it might be best to delete a large number of these articles that do not meet the GNG, rather than submit numerous single nominations? LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not best. I have a bit more experience here, and I'm telling you, that's not a good way to go. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article suggests no notability whatsoever. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Atwood[edit]

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

Non notable animator who falls under too soon. Wgolf (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree: I just see a lot of social media stuff, but nothing reliable, and that's a very promotional article. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with nominator does not pass WP:GNG. Its arguable that he might pass WP:ENT because he has writen, produced, and acted in eight movies. However he does not pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST and there is no reliable sources about him other than a very short IMDB article. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is WP:TOOSOON maybe be notable in the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG . –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1792 Reni[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1794 Finsen[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1795 Woltjer[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1936 Lugano[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1375 Alfreda[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 April 2015‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1528 Conrada[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am seeing some references for this object on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's an old report about its orbital elements [16], inclusion in a more recent orbital study of a half-dozen asteroids [17], and a lot of papers about other things that happen to include the old report in a list of reports. Without any indication of what might be special or interesting about it and its orbit, I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Cole (cyclist)[edit]

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

There is some local coverage, but nothing to suggest meeting WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG. Tagged for WP:NOTABILITY by Yunshui more than 3 years ago. Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of actually winning anything major, or competing at the top level. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no available sources so WP:GNG is not met and found nothing that shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have just searched the British Newspaper Archive and found little coverage of the subject as a cyclist. He appears to have opened a bike shop in the 1950s and most of the results are adverts for that. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Virtues of Persia People[edit]

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

This article is not notable and uses primarily primary sources to push a POV. It has one non-primary source which is unreliable. Mbcap (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hadith obviously has a POV, but the article does not. Is it being claimed that the article misrepresents the available sources on the hadith? DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I agree that the hadith has a POV but my issue is that this article does not have established notability. Since the hadith is a primary source, we cannot have an article on it if it is not covered in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. I was unable to find any reliable book or academic articles on the hadith. Therefore my question is how do we know that the hadith is notable enough to warrant its own article? Mbcap (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it like all hadith is discussed in extensive secondary scholarship on hadith, some of which seems to be cited. There's undoubtedly more, for the analysis of the transmission of hadith was a key aspect of traditional islamic scholarship and jurisprudence DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Actually there is no citation to a reliable secondary source on the article. Could you possibly provide a source? Mbcap (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of secondary resources in the article is very obvious. ●Mehran ^Debate● 06:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a religious essay (violates WP:NOTESSAY) written in obscure theocratic style. The one source that might provide backing seems to be a theological journal from contemporary Iran, a theocratic republic based on medieval ideas, ergo not compatible with empirical context of Wikipedia WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It's not a reliable source. This article could be titled "Mohammed talks about the good qualities of the Persian people." Tapered (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah_Im_Derech_Eretz. merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School[edit]

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

No notability - in fact, apparently nonexistent Ravpapa (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written by User:Rabroy in 2011, a user with a clear conflict of interest. At the time, I questioned whether this institution really existed - it had no students and offered no classes, had no accreditation, and was not affiliated with any other Jewish institution. However, Rabroy convinced us (myself and the few other editors involved) that there was enough documentation to justify an article. However, the Wikipedia article was just about the last reference to this Yeshiva. It still has no students and offers no courses (as far as I can determine - perhaps someone will correct me), and has not been mentioned in the press, Jewish or other, since.

So it seems an open and shut case to me. Anyone think differently? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia WP:Notability guidelines. Suttungr (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I want to make clear that I had never heard of this seminary until about 20 minutes ago. However, notability is not temporary, Wikipedia is appropriately filled with pages on seminaries and schools of all types that existed only briefly. I see no evidence that this one has ceased to exist. But it certainly caused a stir of coverage when founded, and at least thru 2013. Another fact is that much of the coverage (in blogs, opinion columns, news articles, also visible and in edit record of page) was due to controversies within the Jewish world over the definitions of "orthodoxy" Not unusual. You can find similar in Christianity , Islam and Buddhism. Ignoring the strum und drang, sources suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the feeling here is that the article should be kept, it should certainly mention the fact that the Yeshiva has never offered any courses, has never had students, is unaffiliated with any institution (Jewish or otherwise), and offers no form of certification. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Modern Orthodox Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah Im Derech Eretz per Ravpapa & E.M.Gregory below. Ravpapa seems to have a valid case. Check out the "external links" on the article's page: (1) This institution's website "www.cdnyeshiva.org" is now non-existent i.e "server not found" and (2) for over three years its official blog "canadianyeshiva.wordpress.com" has not had a post since January 23, 2012. Something is very wrong here! An idea that came and went maybe, a defunct institution, a fictitious "yeshiva" that is nothing of the sort. Suggest (and this is being very kind) that since this so-called "yeshiva" is, or was, on the University of Toronto's campus and offers courses in conjunction with it, ~~that this article about an evidently defunct program be Merged and Redirected to University of Toronto#Governance and colleges where~~ it can still "hang on to life" but as it stands now is dead in the water or just a dead letter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
?So, it's an institution that was founded, attracted a bit of attention, perhaps enough to qualify as an article, then folded? There are others. This museum idea officially folded The Boston Museum. Others, [[18]] seem to fade away. Certainly we can edit this seminary article to show that it no longer exists, but do we have a reliable source? How do we handle cases where the fate of the project is not clear? Where there is not confirmation that a plan or briefly extant institution has been abandoned? This may be an example Armenian Genocide Museum of America, and that Museum of Motherhood is probably abandoned too. There are others Category:Proposed museums, and undoubtedly in other categories, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our point, EM, is not that this is an institution that existed and has become defunct. It is an institution that never existed. It never had any students, it never offered any courses, and it never had any accreditation. It was only hype, and it is hype that has ceased to be.

I just wanted to make that point clear. I have no objection to not deleting it, if there is consensus for that. But we shouldn't keep it in the belief that it was once a seminary, because it never was. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And mine was that it is in a category of WP pages about plans that got enough attention to pass WP:GNG, such as The Boston Museum, although they never existed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking how we source this? Can we find a RS to establish the extent to which it did exist (as a plan, a funding campaign, or whatever?) And a source saying that the plan to create it was abandoned? Or do we need a tag for planned institutions that appear to no longer have backers intending to open them?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept your point about plans that got enough attention. And I also understand your question about sourcing - a knotty problem, indeed. If there were students and a program, it would be pretty easy to find a source. But find a source that says there were none? I am, essentially, surmising that there are no students, based on the fact that there were none in 2012 (documented in the article), and the whole project seems to have been abandoned since then. But I certainly don't know that for a fact, and have no idea how we would go about finding a source for this (of course, we could write a letter to founder Roy Tanenbaum, but that is against the rules). Dilemma. Maybe the best thing to do is just leave it alone. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravpapa: You were right first time around, this article is evidently just "junk information" at this point. But it did get some press over three years ago, that in turn got it onto Wikipedia, where it now hangs by a bare thread. ~~Please consider my suggestion that it be "downgraded" by means of a Merge and Redirect to University of Toronto#Governance and colleges~~ Merge and Redirect to Modern Orthodox Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah Im Derech Eretz per Ravpapa & E.M.Gregory below, with a few sentences describing what it is/was supposed to be about. That way it is still noted but not notable enough for its own article, unless someone can show why it deserves it's independent space on Wikipedia. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all. EM, what say you? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm good with that merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep and update if there are sources to update with; otherwise merge a proposed institution that never was actually implemented can be notable if there was sufficient discussion. This is true of any topic, but only if there are sufficient reliable references to show side discussion. The article asserts that the institution gave classes, but does not asset that it actually accepted students into a rabbinical program--that would not qualify as a degree-granting institution for presumptive notability, but the question here is GNG.) The current article is not acceptable if if not do what it promised, because it is misleading, but that is a question of updating. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah_Im_Derech_Eretz. Merging with the University of Toronto seems pretty far-fetched, since, aside from a one-sentence statement of intention, the (non)school never had anything to do with the university. On the other hand, it was a serious attempt to develop a new form of orthodoxy, so that is probably where the reference best belongs. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge endorsing User:Ravpapa]'s suggestion to merge into Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah_Im_Derech_Eretz E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BtoB (band). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insane (BtoB song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Also, all Wikipedia-worthy material in the article is already found in the article about the group itself and/or the article about this song's album. I was going to merge it, but I can't see anything to merge. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shinyang-i Asdklf; (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How does it fail WP:NSONG? It seems to pass criteria 1: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.". The song was listed in Gaon Music Chart and Korea K-Pop Hot 100. Those charts are listed in Wikipedia:Record_charts#Recommended_charts. (If anyone replies, please echo me) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - is ping the same as echo? Hope I did it right. :) Anyway, charting is not the criteria for song notability. Read the line just above the one you quoted and it says "The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria", and even if it is notable, there still has to be significant discussion about the song in its article, something that Wikipedia repeatedly says is not possible for most songs. There has to be something to actually say about it and its significance in the universe. Even notable songs should nearly always be merged to a larger work, such as an artist, album, or discography article. WP:SONGS is quite clear on this, as are other parts of WP:NSONG and other music-related guidelines. This article is about the group's debut (already in the group article and album article), the "promotions" (which are pretty identical for every kpop song and already in the album article), the composition (already in the album article), and a couple of charts. In kpop, an album/EP and its single are pretty much one and the same; I've done tons of merges of kpop songs back to their albums or EPs, and in the dozens I've done, only like once or twice has there been more than a couple of words or a mention of a chart position that I haven't wound up editing out for redundancy post-merge. WP:SONGS really hits the nail on the head, at least when it comes to most kpop song articles. :) If you look at the sources, they are nearly all primary - "Daum Music" profile of the song to get info on composition or whatnot, links to youtube videos showing the song being performed (nearly all kpop singles are performed on TV; it doesn't establish notability in any way), and charts. There was little discussion about the song anywhere in the media. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me back; I've struck my vote as I find your explanation compelling.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BtoB (band): Fulfills WP:NSONG#1 (which indicates that it might be notable), but since there is very little coverage in reliable sources, it is overall, not notable. Esquivalience ^t 03:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shinyang-i's comments. Songs must do more than chart to merit an article. Random86 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The relevant information is in the articles on the band and their discography. Not useful as a redirect with this title. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Burroughs[edit]

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

Not inherited issue here with only a few roles. Wgolf (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article is rather too short. Suggest Redirect to a possible page on dwarf British actors? and merge the existing information into such a page. Notthebestusername (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say redirect to Warwick Davis-but that's her brother in law not husband, that is defiantly a non inherited issue there (given that people know Mr. Davis a lot more then her father even) Wgolf (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major roles, no coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Larson[edit]

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

Seems like a fairly successful musician, but he is hardly Notable. Some of the refs go to blogs or to sites associated with him. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has worked with notable artists but I'm unable to find independent coverage to establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:N at this time. Gongshow talk 07:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhurjee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish which part of WP:NOTABILITY this might meet. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indications of notability, basically no content at all. Cavarrone 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Ramgarhia Munda, Sitush, Green Cardamom, Dharmadhyaksha. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm responding to Boleyn's ping, so make of that what you wish but I stand by my preference and rationale for deletion that was presented in the previous discussion. I've not spotted anything since that would make me change my mind. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Anderson[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep News searching does turn up sources [19] This 2014 story makes him sound real. [20] So, he's a presence on the music scene in Tallahassee, and he teaches jazz at Florida State [21]. May just need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Donald Badalamenti II[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three weeks is plenty, and the last two relists have not attracted any further input. Michig (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iar Elterrus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded by Aerospeed, but previously went to AfD. I withdrew nomination at first AfD because Vald was planning to work on it and establish notability and I wanted to give that time, especially as this has articles in other languages. However, this hasn't happened and seven years tagged after RJFJR tagged it for notability, it is still unestablished. Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PRODed the article due to issues of notability and sources. I wasn't sure it would go through AFD, after how swiftly the PROD was dismissed, but we'll see. Aerospeed (Talk) 10:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aerospeed, the prod was dismissed because an article which has been to AfD can't be prodded, it needs to go back to AfD. Its not a comment on its notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well if someone could translate some of the Russia wiki to here that be great-something that it seems that has been waiting for a while also....Wgolf (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep The books sited in the Russian WP and the reported ales are sufficient for notability. Translation would help, but most of it is just a list of the books. It does include several published reviews, DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is relisted until it achieves a reasonable number of responses / a consensus? Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé (Belgian singer)[edit]

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

Stub article for three years with no clear or established notability, all references are now dead links Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the onus is on the nominator to make some effort to search in Flemish sources. Yes sources suffer for link rot, that would be the case on just about every article in Wikipedia, which is why we try to hardwire them, not just delete articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not normally one to jump up and shout "delete" on Eurovision related articles. However, as this singer did not get to represent Belgium at either Junior Eurovision 2008 or Eurovision 2011, then there is nowhere else to really merge it into. And no offence to In ictu oculi, but the onus is not on the nominator at all. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so really the entire Wikipedia community, including yourself, is at onus to improve the articles, as long as all the general notability guidelines are met. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (article creator) the article needs improvements. But that is no reason for deletion. Clearly notable per Eurovision performances and media attention. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you improved it? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: Have you heard of life beyond the Wikipedia world? Perhaps that why the improvements have taken so long to be done. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 08:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse:, gosh, I'll be the first to admit that real life takes priority over WP, but in three years you'd think if the Notability was there someone would have taken it beyond stub status. I like the Eurovision contest as much as anyone, but is this person Notable just because of that? I don't know, so I'm asking. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Those sources need to be replaced with archived versions, Also found these [22][23][24][25][26][27] (I can't read ~~Belgian~~ French/German/Dutch so I'm not sure if these are even related .....). –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed as I don't think this is helping either of us. –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such language as "Belgian". LibStar (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you replied just to tell me that ? .... Your reply's so fucking helpful! ...... Whatever the fucking language is I clearly don't speak it. –Davey2010^Talk 03:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please be civil. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a WP:DICK - You could've said "Dave, Belgian isn't a language but "so and so" is" as opposed to your above message which wasn't helpful in the slightest. –Davey2010^Talk 06:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out a clear fact that Belgian is not a language. how is using the f word civil? LibStar (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we're having such a hard time finding any English language sources to cite about this subject, doesn't that make it hard to defend its inclusion in the English language Wiki? Does this person have articles in the French, Deutsch, or Nederlands Wikis?--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What French, Deutcsch or other Wikipedias includes is not relevant to English Wikipedia. Therefor not a reason for deletion or otherwise.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's quite a salient point. If the Wikis for her native language (whichever it is) do not find her notable enough to include, then why is it on the English WP when we can't find any English language sources to support it? Why didn't you address this when you created the article? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete junior Eurovision isn't good enough for notability and most of the coverage confirms her participation. she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Scalhotrod makes the good point of no article for her in the languages of Belgium. English coverage is sorely lacking which makes the case for an English language article weak. LibStar (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to have actual notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Davey2010. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Someone needs to add the new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Remove vote by indef blocked User[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:BASIC: enough coverage by reliable sources to merit an article. Esquivalience ^t 00:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What sources? We can't find any in English and there's no consensus if the non-English ones are enough to establish Notability. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly, no consensus. So no delete, and more time to find additional sources. This article subject has notability. And those !voting Delete has given no rationale beyond "IDONTLIKEIT". --BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links and none in English - my rationale
singer did not get to represent Belgium at either Junior Eurovision 2008 or Eurovision 2011 - Wesley Mouse's rationale
she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO - LibStar's rationale
only Joseph2302 was non-specific in their reasoning.

How is this "IDONTLIKEIT"? By the way, as the article creator, you have yet to make a single edit to the article since the AfD started. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1726 Hoffmeister[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirecting to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NASTCRIT, without prejudice against redirection. Tigraan (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching finds multiple reliable sources describing this asteroid specifically. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list them, then? Tigraan (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – The largest member of the small Hoffmeister family, per Migliorini et al (1996). Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The asteroid is the subject of specific research papers. Andrew D. (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the main object in its family. As well as the 1996 paper already listed by Praemonitus there is more research specifically about this family in [28]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. I think the argument that the research has to be specifically about this rock is persuasive and forms a goods boundary on deciding what keeps an article and what gets redirected. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1796 Riga[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirecting to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, unless something happened in Riga in 1796 that makes a better redirect target (in that case, delete). Tigraan (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching finds several reliable sources describing this asteroid, e.g. this. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(disclaimer: only read the abstract) That is certainly not detailed coverage - this article deals with 24 asteroids, and the experiment that was run certainly could have been run just as well with 24 other asteroids. That is pretty much the equivalent of journalists taking someone in the street to ask their feeling about the latest stunt in politics - since any random passerby could be selected, the one that did get selected gets no notability from that. Do you have a better source? Tigraan (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is discussed in WP:NASTCRIT under #3 ("Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage").Tigraan (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Another source: Warner (2004), which includes a two paragraph discussion. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I only see it in group studies, not individual and in-depth research describing properties that would distinguish it from the other asteroids. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bassilyo[edit]

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

So confusing. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Confusing indeed, but it seems fairly clear there is nothing that would count towards WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, let alone WP:ANYBIO. GregorB (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Northamerica1000 and point well taken... :-) GregorB (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5].

^ "Bassilyo's Klasik". Manila Standard.
^ "From prison to the peak of success". Philippine Daily Inquirer.
^ "Bassilyo's single 'Lord Patawad' is based on his life". Philippine Star.
^ "The musical journey of Bassilyo". Philippine Star.
^ "Bassilyo; On how to write a hit song". Gold Star Daily.

– Some of these sources were found by simply selecting the "News" link in the find sources template atop this discussion. Note that the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Can't help to wonder if people even bother to check for sources before nominating/!voting nowadays. See also: WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very poor article but the sources found demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I'm convinced by the above comments and the great work done on the article. My error. Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ülo Voitka, always preferable to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voitka[edit]

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

DAB page that has one person with this last name (the other page was deleted) Wgolf (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My lvoitka is to either rename Ülo Voitka Ülo and Ailar Voitka and redirect there, since their notability (or lack thereof) is apparently intertwined,[29] or delete both Ülo Voitka and this dab(less) page. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not a disambiguation page, but an anthroponomy page, see MOS:DABNAME. However, it contains no information on the meaning or derivation of the name, and only lists one entry for which notability is demonstrated. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ülo Voitka. I have my doubts whether that article is worth keeping but that's a separate matter. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_production_battery_electric_vehicles#Discontinued_cars. merge any sourced information that can be done in a non-promotional manner Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThoRR[edit]

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

Non-notable product, some promotional activity and press releases in 2007/2008. Creation by SPA in 2007. No independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, written like a promotional website, non notable toy. AlbinoFerret 19:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or, at the worst, merge into List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles#Discontinued_cars). The article's contents are unencyclopaedic at present, but RS specifically about the subject exists:[30],[31],[32], etc. Pax 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - those additional references are mostly just previews: they paraphrase the manufacturer's data in their own words and contain little or no independent new information. Minus the technical specs the article has only 2 sentences of encyclopedic information, which could be put into the main list of discontinued cars. A merge seems like a good alternative - it's very unlikely that this information will ever get substantially expanded. GermanJoe (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest structures in South Africa[edit]

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

WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTHESIS. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorting numbers in descending order is not original research. WP:SYN requires some new conclusion be drawn like saying that there are too many, or too few tall buildings. What was done here is just called "research". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every list of the tallest building in a country or city is compiled from a number of sources, which is not the same thing as original research.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Nothing wrong really with this list. Wgolf (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as typical Wikipedia list. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus here, but some sort of merge either from or into this article seems appropriate but no consensus here on exactly what action to be taken. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-ay sang Negros[edit]

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

Local pagent with only local references DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, merge, don't delete. As the article notes, the pageant is a part of the popular Panaad sa Negros Festival. Google and other searches turn up numerous mentions of the pageant in national media: a few examples are [33][34][35], and there appear to be lots more. If we conclude that the pageant doesn't warrant a lengthy article listing all the winners, the pageant should be described in the article about the festival. Note also that we have a second page, Lin-ay sang Negros Awards, Contestants and Judges, which might also be added to this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and instead merge the following articles to this parent article: Lin-ay sang Negros 2007, Lin-ay sang Negros 2010, Lin-ay sang Negros 2011, Lin-ay sang negros 2012, Lin-ay sang Negros 2014 and Lin-ay sang Negros Awards, Contestants and Judges.-RioHondo (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per RioHondo. WordSeventeen (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HomeTown (band)[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable band. Okay, they had nr. 1 hits in the Irish charts. Their first single went straight to 1 in the Irish Top 20, then to 5 and then it was gone. Their second single went also straight to 1 and then to 28.. That does not give evidence of a large fanbase. Most of the sources I have found were no reliable sources and this article is also just a collection of names and trivia The Banner talk 02:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added rationale: persistent promotion. (Added after the comments of Murry1975 and 32.216.147.44 on 12 April 2015) The Banner talk 18:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:NBAND. Two number ones so by 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart it does pass. Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom's delete rationale: two number one songs on Irish charts. [36] turns up more coverage. 32.216.147.44 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of recent coverage in Irish national media (some paywalled, some referenced in article). Meets WP:NBAND and WP:GNG, doesn't seem to contain undue promotional content (albeit after editing), and other factors raised in nomination are irrelevant (the size of their fanbase, or the fact that unreliable sources exist). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad Search[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rather dated article, I can't find any evidence that this search engine still exists to this day. (I don't even remember reading about this) No references either-has been just laying around for 9 and half years! Wgolf (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable, independent sources, just blogs and marketing sites. Defunct now, and was it doesn't seem like it was talked about outside of the SEO field in the first place. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in an article about a defunct website, not notable. Citation request from 2013 is telling. AlbinoFerret 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Source examples include: _{^[1], ^[2]}. Another option is to merge to List of search engines. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

^ Sherman, Chris (September 21, 2005). "Myriad Search: Meta Search Your Way". Search Engine Watch. Retrieved 27 March 2015.
^ Baker, Loren (September 18, 2005). Myriad Search Meta Search Engine – Spotlight #8. Search Engine Journal.

Northamerica1000-that is actually a good idea-the merge option. I was trying to find info earlier but only could find a couple blogs and wiki mirror pages. Wgolf (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that references have been added. A merge is not a good idea, since List of search engines only includes sites notable enough to have an article. If you look at its talk page archives, you'll see that they're full of declined requests to add information about search engines that don't have articles. - Eureka Lott 15:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this site meets the notability criteria and should be notable enough for an article. LethalFlower (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Tyler (Nurse)[edit]

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

Receiving an award does not make you notable. I can't find any news articles about this person. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: A doctor and an athlete in one! Still not good enough, we have plenty of articles about both on here already. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 05:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Whoops, thought this was a WP:APRILFOOLS joke. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 13:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no RS. BakerStMD 00:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject of the article meet WP:ANYBIO.
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Subject of the article is a receiver of such award, Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM), a National Award. I think sources in Autralian languge exist but don't really have enough time to dig into that.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the source for the OAM. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the added material regarding her having been awarded the OAM. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there a consensus somewhere that being awarded OAM is automatically notable, in the way some of the higher Orders of the British Empire (but not the lower ones) have been? If so, can someone point me to that? Happy to change by !vote if this has been well considered elsewhere. BakerStMD 16:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, significant debate has been had (here) about the notability of OBE awards, and if they do, in fact, automatically make someone notable under ANYBIO #1. BakerStMD 16:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I see that the OAM is actually the most junior and least prestigeous of the Australian meritorious awards. I wonder, then, if it truly qualifies as a "significant award or honor" under ANYBIO #1. Regarding ANYBIO #2, I see little in the way of RS to establish her "widely recognized contribution ...[to the] historical record". BakerStMD 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The keywords here is the Australian meritorious awards and since the award is in that category and is a notable award, other things (junior or senior) are irrelevant. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 18:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justincase (album)[edit]

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

~~Unotable album that has been long discussed as a merge it seems since 2012 (gee really that long?) Wgolf (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. No, it hasn't been discussed as a merge because someone just slapped a mergeto tag on it and didn't bother to start a merge discussion. You say it isn't notable (I presume that's what you mean by 'unotable') but what have you done to check whether any notability exists? --Michig (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did you for instance do a Google search and find this article from Billboard, this review from CMJ New Music Report, and this Allmusic review? Whether or not you found these, or looked even, why did you not consider merging it rather than bringing it to AfD to get it deleted given that a merge was (half-)proposed and hasn't been opposed? --Michig (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-it says on the top it has been discussed as a merge since 2012, so I figured I mention something. Wgolf (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The band clears notability so their albums should clear notability as well, but the length of both articles is small enough that merging them together is easily accomplished. I don't see a need for a delete but a proper merger discussion and proposal should happen since I think that would be the best solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Justincase. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the review sources brought up by Michig. Both the album article and band article may be small, but that doesn't mean they can't be expanded. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources above demonstrate that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Billboard, CMJ, and Allmusic pieces contain enough material to suggest potential for a sourced standalone article. I'm not opposed to a merge, either. Gongshow talk 08:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing identified above as well as the following: [37] [38] Everymorning talk 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-I do find it odd it says merge to on top so I was not sure what to say. Anyway withdrawing. Wgolf (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OTRS ticket does not include any substantial information that would warrant keeping this article. Nakon 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Greanias[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and neither has anyone else in the 7 years that this has been tagged for notability. Pinging those who have looked at its notability: TonyTheTiger, Sting au. Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tough one, because the article claims that all three of his "Atlantis" novels were New York Times bestsellers. The same claim is made all over the internet, but I could not find any independent or reliable sources saying so. The books were published by a legitimate publisher - the paperback division of Simon and Schuster - as well as Kindle editions. All three books have articles here (two of them completely unsourced). But I could not find a single mainstream review of any of the three books (setting aside the usual things like Goodreads and Amazon, which add nothing to notability). Unless someone with better searching skills can find the necessary independent reliable sources, I think this article and all three articles about his books should be deleted as failing WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been a long time since I've seen a real live Unsourced BLP, as this one is. The Google footprint appears to be big enough to indicate that sourcing is out there. Unfortunately, there are waves and waves and waves of promotional pages related to individual books. A terrible article, but the official photo has an OTRS tag attached, so we can probably presume the information here is accurate, albeit unsourced. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the article currently does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Initiative[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. A simple search shows only 84 hits, mostly trivial. And it's not as if it's gained any traction in its chosen market - it's supposed to be a global fundraising organisation but after 3 years of operation its "prize fund" peaked at $5,000 ~~and it looks like someone just spent that - there's currently only $42.89 in the bank~~. I'm not saying it's a scam but it certainly fails WP:GNG, which is more than enough. Probably WP:ARTSPAM too. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are many organizations called "Mars Initiative" which makes proper searching a bit difficult. Of the sources in the article, only the Digital Journal one works toward notability. I dio find one other good source - a Crowd Fund Insider article. Is that enough for notability? Not sure - I am on the fence. Pinging @Andrewman327: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Across all social media (Google+, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, & YouTube), Mars Initiative has 172,486 followers. Here is their Facebook page. Isn't that enough for notability? Oh, and there must have been a mistake on the URL above because it looks like the Mars Prize Fund still has over $5,000. Pinging @Andrewman327: so he can accept this AfC for input.

Sorry, but that's not strictly correct. The twitter account, for example, has only 560 followers; Facebook has 1,789 likes, a few for each post; LinkedIn has only 62 followers. The exception is Google+ with a crazy number, but that's the "circle", not dedicated followers - circles are notoriously easy to grow and virtually meaningless as an index of notability. Moreover this social media activity seems to be centred around retweets and posts about sexy Martian goings-on - pictures, videos, announcements and the like - rather than arising directly from any activity by the organisation. Donations are virtually zero ($5,000 in 3 years).

I note that the prize fund has been restored to its former sad balance of $5,000 or so and I've struck out my earlier comment. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget the social media counts. Forget the bank balance. The guideline here is WP:ORG, and this organization fails it. I could find no independent sourcing at all, except for the Digital Journal interview at the article and the Crowd Fund Insider interview mentioned by Thaddeus. It turns out that there are five nonprofit organizations[39] all trying to do the same thing - send somebody to Mars. It appears that this group is neither unique nor particularly impactful. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This Wikipedia page should not be deleted because Mars Initiative is a valuable U.S. non-profit organization in online STEM education, promoting science literacy and public interest in Mars exploration internationally. My NGO has worked in cooperation with Mars Initiative since its inception in 2011. For example, Mars Initiative has generated over 6 million views of their STEM content to date via their Google+ page and over 169,000 followers! On Facebook, they have 1790 likes, 560 followers on Twitter and over 400 members in their LinkedIn Group. These are impressive social media outreach statistics in comparison with many non-profits in the space education and advocacy sector run by all-volunteers. From a grassroots global audience perspective, Mars Initiative is a unique and highly notable organization that is well appreciated by the people it serves in real numbers, punching well above its weight despite limited financial resources. Human Mars missions may be a decade or two away, but thanks to these dedicated and visionary volunteers, the long-term dream is kept alive for future generations. "This is a real organization with real objectives." Please take this into serious consideration now and in the future. Thank You -Dwayne Lawrence (a Mars Initiative volunteer), Founder & Executive Director - Friends of NASA, Montreal, Canada www.FriendsofNASA.org

— Dwaynel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

560 Twitter followers is not "impressive social media outreach". The Google+ figure sounds impressive until you realise that they are simply reposting lots of interesting Mars stuff and that's bound to get lots of likes. But thay not have been unable to convert this into fund-raising, which shows that people are just clicking "follow" and then going away. Nobody is talking about them on the web. As MelanieN points out above, they unquestionably fail WP:ORG. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really do not know why this is even an issue as the work of this organization and what it stands for is very important for space travel. It seems as though Andyjsmith might have something against the organization for him to be so against it. I ask why? Here are a few links: SpaceVidCast, FernandoRosales, MarsTravel.org, UrgencyNetwork. It is clear that this organization is real. It is clear that this organization is unique. So what if they are slow to grow their dontions. The fact that they are an official nonprofit organization with all current filings and they are trying to succeed should be worthy enough to keep a tiny Wiki page about them... Again, what does Andy have against the organization? Here are come more official links:

Mars Prize Fund, Texas Comptroller's Office, IRS Website.

I don't know what that list of links is supposed to prove, but FWIW here's a breakdown:

SpaceVidCast - self published, irrelevant under WP:RS

FernandoRosales - a graphic designer, so what?

MarsTravel.org - self published, irrelevant under WP:RS

UrgencyNetwork - fund raising site, proves nothing

Texas Comptroller's Office - proves they exist

IRS Website - ditto

Nobody has said they don't exist, simply that they are not notable. WP's minimum criterion for notability is WP:GNG, which they obviously and totally fail. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Mars Initiative is to create grassroots support for a manned mission to Mars. That support will eventually result in more donations toward a prize fund for the first entity that lands humans on Mars. Unfortunately most causes are not going to be financially supported by the public over night, which is why we attempt to build a groundswell of social media followers. We do so by posting interesting articles or photos of Mars so that those interested in Mars will gravitate toward our pages and share the articles with others. Overtime as our follower base increases we will begin to pitch different ideas more and more, including that of donating to the Mars Prize Fund. Andy states "The Google+ figure sounds impressive until you realise that they are simply reposting lots of interesting Mars stuff and that's bound to get lots of likes," but the marketing strategy makes practical sense because with literally zero funds it is impossible to establish a following unless you start to provide something people want. We do that by being a central source that people can check for the latest photos and articles about Mars from around the web. So is our entire 'circle' going to contribute to the Mars Prize Fund? Absolutely not, but as it expands so to will our reach and our ability to reach out and inspire others to contribute their time or resources toward such a cause. If you don't think the marketing strategy is sound then I encourage you to explain to me a better way to establish a following with zero funds and volunteers (which is what we all are). What makes Mars Initiative "unique" is that it is the only organization that is developing a "Google Lunar X Prize" type fund for the first humans that land on Mars. Further, it is attempting to crowdfund said prize. As I have stated above, most grassroots campaigns require gaining rapport and a following from your target audience before you can fully mobilize with your call to action. Could Mars Initiative be doing a better job at getting the word out there? As the Media Relations/Marketing Director, yes, we absolutely could, but what you have to remember is that we are volunteering for this organization and all of us have jobs and families that limit our ability to enhance the organization. Is Mars Initiative a legitimate Non-Profit, yes. Has it gained a substantial following on social media, yes, with particular emphasis on Google+ because a large amount of our audience favors that social media platform. Please consider the above when making the decision to delete Mars Initiative's Wikipedia page. Thank you. --David J Geaney, Media Relations/Marketing Director, Mars Initiative

I'm afraid you answered your own question: "Could Mars Initiative be doing a better job at getting the word out there?... yes". Until you have got the message out there you're unlikely to pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The guideline also states that "No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it". Sorry, but thems the rules. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to get past WP:ORG PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11, and it was quite speedy. (non-admin closure) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speridian Technologies[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 01:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as imho it is promotional. –Davey2010^Talk 07:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just one quick look at this article and you can tell it is promoting the company. DELETE. Also, it is not a well known company and we do not have a lot of sources. Sahibdeep Nann (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: many passing mentions, but the only coverage I could find from reliable sources is [40]. There is also coverage from a website called "bizjournals.com", but they are not deep enough and the reliability is questionable (why is there so much coverage from that website; doesn't seem independent of the subject). If found notable, then stubify because the article is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Esquivalience ^t 00:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Speedily speedy delete the speedy Speridian Technologies advertisement per G11. And be speedy with it. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rublood. Been up 2 weeks with only one !vote and IMHO outcome's obvious. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 07:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Vampire[edit]

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

The album fails WP:NALBUM Karlhard (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drishyam(2015)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM KunalForYou ^Contribs ^Talk 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Upon looking up Drishyam (2015 film) I got Papanasam (film). Just wanted to point this out really quick. Wgolf (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Drishyam (Hindi film) or similar - Drishyam as a film (originally produced in the language Malayalam) is already notable. This version in question is a remake in a more widespread language, Hindi. As Wgolf points out there is another version, Papanasam (film), which is in Tamil, and there's also Drushyam in Telugu. I suppose there's a reasonable question to be asked: does notability transfer from one work to another? I think it does in this case since the other two versions are being made on the success of Drishyam. They are inextricably linked. I do wish, however, there were a way to merge all three articles into the main Drishyam article, but that's a different discussion entirely. Anyhow, there are ample sources [41][42][43] and principal photography appears to have begun.[44] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, remakes fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. They might be able to give notability to the original film, but they can't inherit the main film's notability. I don't think I've ever seen an article kept on the basis that it was a remake of something. It'd be interesting if this could be kept on that basis, but I think that it's ultimately going to have to be based on this specific remake's coverage in RS. Since filming has started that's likely going to be enough to keep the article, but I don't think that notability is inherited by something being a remake. I think that the reason for this is that it kind of opens the door for films that are "inspired by" or "taken from" earlier films and that makes it a bit too inclusive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be so bad for newer films where the original work is under copyright and the remake is endorsed by the original copyright holders, but this would be problematic in cases where the original film is in the public domain and someone makes a remake of the film. In other words, if a high school student created a remake of a public domain film then by this concept that student film would be notable, which would be took inclusive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, Tokyo and I'll keep these in mind for the future. I guess what seems unique about this, is that they are multiple remakes within a year or so of the original. But your point is well received. I think there is sufficient RS coverage that makes this remake qualify as notable under GNG. The one thing that makes me a little hesitant to say that the film satisfies WP:NOTFILM is this one line in WP:NFF: Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. The sources I've been able to find say (paraphrased) "principal photography will begin in two weeks", but I'm having trouble finding a source that says, (wishfully paraphrased) "Yeppers, filming has commenced, here's a photo of Ajay Devgan stuffing his face at the craft services table." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've amended my !vote. I'm still good on keeping, but I think we should observe MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion that we rename the article to Drishyam (Hindi film) or some similar phrasing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't contain even a single source. 182.69.59.5 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — 182.69.59.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not accurate. They're just erroneously presented in the External links section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts-

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

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

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

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

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

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

And WP:INDAFD: Drishyam (Hindi film) Nishikant Kamat, Drishyam Ajay Devgn, Drishyam Tabu, Drishyam Shriya Saran, Drishyam Rajat Kapoor, Drishyam Panorama Studios, Drishyam Drishyam remake

Keep per meeting WP:NF through WP:NRVE for this Hindi remake of the 2013 Malayalam film. Currently used sources need reformatting, but they are there. To differentiate and make searches easier, I suggest a move to Drishyam (Hindi film) to separate now and forever from the earlier Drishyam (Malayalam film). There are plenty more sources available with properly set search parameters.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Kunalforyou & Tokyogirl79 & Wgolf: If you look at the article, you'll see improvements to confirm filming has commenced. Since WP:BEFORE shows the Hindi film version as having extensive coverage AND since the project IS confirmed as filming, Notability per WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Opinions? Keeps now? Withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I never did vote earlier as I was just pointing out the page issue (I was going to do a redirect from 2015 film so the afd wouldn't get confused but couldn't do it) anyway yeah keep. Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets notability with coverage and there is evidence that filming has started. Cowlibob (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Cowlibob —Vensatry _(ping) 08:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 12)#Finalists. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Finch, Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AFD ended with no consensus after a deletion attempt, it looks as WP:BIO and does not giving significance after the show. Suggest to redirect to show article. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 12)#Finalists. Despite the WP:MUSICBIO #9 criterion, there is no content in this contestant's article (bio/performance/results) that is not already present within the Season 12 article. Further, I am unable to find significant coverage for his post-'Idol' activity. Gongshow talk 01:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gongshow. --Inother (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. We have tended to keep the winners of reality shows, and some of of the top 5 or 6 of the bigger shows such as Idol. But he placed 10th. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gongshow.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Bassilyo's Klasik". Manila Standard.

[2] "From prison to the peak of success". Philippine Daily Inquirer.

[3] "Bassilyo's single 'Lord Patawad' is based on his life". Philippine Star.

[4] "The musical journey of Bassilyo". Philippine Star.

[5] "Bassilyo; On how to write a hit song". Gold Star Daily.

[6] Sherman, Chris (September 21, 2005). "Myriad Search: Meta Search Your Way". Search Engine Watch. Retrieved 27 March 2015.

[7] Baker, Loren (September 18, 2005). Myriad Search Meta Search Engine – Spotlight #8. Search Engine Journal.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]