Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 April	15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kourtney Compton[edit]

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

Sourced to passing mention (list of high school graduates, high school debate team list, etc.), etc. Google search on this name finds exactly one press release. Meets none of the special WP:NMODEL requirements, SI and Maxim photo specials I don't think meet this bar. Brianhe (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMODEL. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I managed to find the same press release that Brianhe found, but nothing else to pass WP:BIO. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: Was this correctly transcluded? Shouldn't this have been relisted/closed by now? Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did the necessary; it is one of the entries at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 14. Brianhe (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: What do you think went wrong then? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea sorry. If I messed something up, I'll accept the egg on my face, but I don't think this happened. — Brianhe (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MicroTAS[edit]

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

no evidence of the notability of either of the two subjects listed DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, since it is a dab page that is not disambiguating anything, and has a reference despite not being an article. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xezbeth. Messy dab page which isn't disambiguating anything. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:31, 21 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. Sandstein 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direto do Campo de Extermínio[edit]

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

Fails most if not all criteria of WP:NALBUMS TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Notability if nothing else -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: It's a mere defining sentence referenced by a non-working link and accompanied by a short infobox. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:53, 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 redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Marcha Fúnebre Prossegue[edit]

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

Little to no reliable secondary source coverage, and fails most, if not all criteria on WP:NALBUMS. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band (which I changed quite a few of those articles into a redirect). Wgolf (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 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 delete. Nakon 00:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Legal Stop[edit]

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

Non-notable startup company, no significant coverage. Only sources are their own website and a press release. GermanJoe (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 2 years for citation needed on it's only real notable claim -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not cited for two years is not an argument for deletion. If the tag had been there for two hundred years, it would still be necessary to actually look for sources. James500 (talk) 07:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of C-family programming languages[edit]

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

Sheer WP:OR list of tenuous connections. The inclusion criterion here seems to be simply that of List of programming languages by type#Curly-bracket languages, which is just the use of { } as an trivial piece of syntax. This list has thus grown to include almost any prominent language that post-dates C. This is no more than "grabbing the glory" of anything successful after it and claiming the credit as being shared with C. See also the inbound links added to it today.

This article should go. The notion of "braces make all the difference" is too trivial, and it anyway overlaps with the existing list under "curly bracket languages". Besides which, I'd place the credit for languages using that type of control structure as belonging with Algol, not C, even if the lexical symbol used wasn't yet a curly bracket.

This list is fundamentally unimportant. No-one since the 1980s has cared about the presence of syntactical curly brackets as a defining factor: it's simply assumed to be available, just as supporting ASCII or having a notion of stream-based I/O is too. There are far more relevant ways to recognise programming language families, yet this article rides roughshod over them. This article lumps class-based OO languages like C++, interface based OO like Java, dynamically-typed OO like Python and prototype-based OO like JavaScript all into one. Those are far more significant distinctions than this chimera of "C family" based on no more than curly brackets.

There might be scope for a real article on a "C family". That would need defined inclusion characteristics, backed by RS sources, and sourcing to include particular languages as being such; none of which this article has. It would need narrower criteria than merely the curly brackets. As a result I doubt that it would have many more entries than the clear C / C++ members. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add references. The criteria should be that a reliable source has described the language as part of the C family. For example, Java[1]. Presumably references can easily be found for C++, Objective C, C#, and some of the more esoteric ones. Finding a reference to support inclusion of Perl might be more difficult. Pburka (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That three-way interview is an interesting source, however what it is it saying? It's a comparison between Java and C/C++, yet it's full of statements like, "Java is a very different design from the other two languages and appears to have a very different philosophy.", "... many of the differences between C/C++ and Java...", "one of the differences between Java and C is that Java has real arrays...". Is this article describing Java's heritage from C, or is it (as I read far more of it) distancing itself from C? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also Category:C programming language family which has very similar content. Sizeofint (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two lists here. "Languages that are obviously derived from C" and "Languages claimed to be part of the 'C family'".

The first is trivial (C++ is obviously part of any C family, as is C₀) to the point of making notability tenuous. Even then it's harder to argue for Objective-C and C# as being "More C family than merely the curly brackets". However that is not what this article is.

This article is taking "C successors" and scatter-gunning that across any language with any sort of prominence today that has used a curly bracket and an ALGOL-style control block structure. This is unsupported by sources, and IMHO unsupportable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just another list article with an infinitely-expandable scope ("Languages implemented in C", "Languages with C in the name", "Languages developed by some of the same people who developed C", "Languages that have been used for the same purposes as C"...) Looking for possible references, http://www.gotw.ca/publications/c_family_interview.htm limits C family to C, C++ and Java; https://books.google.com/books?id=tFng_c2BkaIC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13 adds ObjC and excludes Java. These are the only two RS I was able to find, the rest are forum links or incidental mentions. Interesting reading: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/188455/why-do-programming-languages-especially-c-use-curly-braces-and-not-square-ones
Keep -- Perhaps the understanding of the languages is different and the OP might view this as trivial. I went to look for the other list in the category using, CTRL+F and saw only 1 page with the word list on it. I'd be open to changing my opinion, if someone could point me to this second list which is duplicated? -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the link to the category I posted, there is not another duplicated list. I was pointing out that the list includes many of the languages in the category. Depending on the outcome here the category need to be cleaned up or deleted. Sizeofint (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - its well known that C is the basis of a lot of languages, but not all. E.g. Lua isnt one of them. I think this list could be sourced if somebody (maybe the nominator) took time to do it. Christian75 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lua isn't part of the "C family". So why does this list include PHP as if that is? Why is P4 categorised as part of it? There's no more sourcing for including these (and others) as "C family" than there is for Lua. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment https://books.google.com/books?id=btlM21ivisMC gives us C# and also Java depending on how you read it. GLSL is supported here www.opengl.org/documentation/glsl/. OpenCL C here www.khronos.org/registry/cl/specs/opencl-2.0-openclc.pdf. I would support keeping this if references can be found for more than a handful of languages. I agree with Andy Dingley that the scope of this list is somewhat vague. If we are talking about languages influenced by C then basically every language since the 1980s will be here. Perhaps it should be limited to languages that are explicitly derived from the a C specification Sizeofint (talk) 03:42, 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 Pushpagiri, Andhra Pradesh. Would've been A10 if it wasn't suitable for a redirect, but it is Wily D 08:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpagiri, Andhra Pradesh, India[edit]

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

this article was named an exact copy Newrunner769 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 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 delete. Nakon 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Williams (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Promo is what drives this article that falls short on WP:GNG a notability search doesn't come up with Significant secondaries. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Worked at a couple of big financial companies and co-founded his own this year. Yawn. Fails GNG completely. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per OP -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:18, 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 Keep. While at the time of nomination there was a lack of notability that seems to have changed in the last week. It may well be nothing more than an attempt to gain publicity. In that case it seems to have worked well enough to meet the notability standards of Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free republic of liberland[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)

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

Unrecognized state that's extremely unlikely to be taken seriously since it is part of a broader set of border disputes between Serbia and Croatia. As far as I can tell, the founder of this state is not even from this area. Pichpich (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does not clearly meet any of Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. Per Wikipedia's policy that notability is not temporary, any discussion about whether or not this micronation will still be relevant at some future date is itself irrelevant, as it is currently receiving plenty of verifiable notability. It may be argued that the article meets the "what Wikipedia is not" policy of "Wikipedia is not a directory," but the number of other articles about minor micronations (some extremely minor) would suggest that articles on this subject are already acceptable. Lastly, any discussion about whether or not the claim is recognized by another state is also irrelevant. The proposed state is currently (and correctly) classified as a micronation, which generally go unrecognized by other states anyway. If and when Liberland meets the criteria for statehood according to the Montevideo Convention, it should be reclassified as a microstate, again keeping in mind that "official" recognition is not a requirement for statehood. - Kopachris (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize I wasn't signed in on work computer before editing and signing comment. Re-signed my comment. Original signature: 208.98.149.218 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this is a snowball in hell, the attempt is historically significant, enough so that it's being reported here in Luxembourg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad7777 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important article on an important place. Where else will people get their information if this piece is deleted? Only Wikipedia is trustworthy. All other news sources are biased on subjects like this. This article is an important and unique resource which needs to be KEPT. KyZan (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

Delete I think it should be deleted because Croatia neither Serbia haven't accepted it as official state at least for now. News and medias aren't verifiable and trustful sources in this case.

Keep Since it seems to garner a certain publicity and due to the nature of it's impact on the potential border conflict it looks like an valuable addition to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.166.163 (talk • contribs) — 213.114.166.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep:
- It does not meet any of the Reasons_for_deletion!
- If Croatia and Serbia officially accept it or not is irrelevant. Many, many articles talk about small movements and societies that are not officially recognized by their neighbours or sovereign state.
- The so-called nation has had extensive media coverage, and is rather notable (for example, 30k people have so far applied to move there).
- This is part of the history of the mentioned territory, and will most likely continue (either by being recognized, or absorbed by Croatia).

HuGo_87 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed formatting of Hugo 87's addition, to ensure line wrap --Thnidu (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

According to the official site (http://liberland.org/en/main/) the founder has been in the area and has hoisted the flag (http://liberland.org/addons/image/liberland2.jpg). I would keep it in case if more sources will be added. Hackis (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.115.194 (talk • contribs) — 89.29.115.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nowhere does it say that this picture was taken in the disputed territory. Pichpich (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's documentation from the BBC (dated after Pichpich's comment):

the Czech TN news website notes: "It's not entirely clear to what extent the activists are being serious, but they have turned up at the location of their 'state', where they have raised the flag."

The linked-to website is in Czech, which I don't read, but I think the BBC is trustworthy enough! --Thnidu (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, why is this IP making up usernames? 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no official resources from Serbia's and Croatia's government. News pages are not valid source of information as they tend to publish false information in exchange for publicity. This was published by one or two, and then copied and translated to other news pages. Nikolao135 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolao135 (talk • contribs) — Nikolao135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep it, more sources will probably be added. Already several mentions in cz, sk, hr news pages. Dilbert (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another fantasy country. If and when it gets coverage, like Sealand, then it can have an article. Until then, WP:CRYSTAL. We don't create an article every time a person fantasizes that he's created a sovereign state. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

In addition, see WP:PERSISTENCE. A flash in the plan that gets a lot of coverage right after it happens and then disappears isn't really notable. This is in the article about the notability of events; the article is about a micronation, not an event, but I think it still applies if a burst of news is triggered by the event of this person claiming to have created a sovereign nation, after which no one ever writes about the supposed nation itself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is quite likely to have significance since it's in a terra nullius created by a border conflict. Any act that's done towards this non-recognized nation is likely to have an impact on the legitimacy of either side's claims (see Croatia–Serbia border dispute), so it definitely passes when examined for long-term notability. Another editor mentioned that the founder had visited the land physically, so it doesn't seem like a random Internet joke someone made during an evening or so...

As for the previous editor's comment, I searched for media coverage and found quite a lot, here's a quick selection from different countries:

Czech Republic: http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/367000-clen-svobodnych-vyhlasil-na-uzemi-byvale-jugoslavie-vlastni-stat.html
Slovakia: http://www.sme.sk/c/7751515/cech-si-medzi-srbskom-a-chorvatskom-zalozil-vlastny-stat.html
Serbia: http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Drustvo/550905/Ceh-proglasio-nezavisnu-drzavu-Liberland-izmedju-Srbije-i-Hrvatske
Croatia: http://www.dnevno.hr/vijesti/regija/jeste-li-culi-za-liberland-ceh-osnovao-drzavu-izmedu-hrvatske-srbije-8526/
Bosnia: http://www.avaz.ba/clanak/173340/nove-komsije-na-balkanu-ceh-proglasio-drzavu-izmedu-srbije-i-hrvatske-i-dao-joj-ime-liberland
Macedonia: http://vesti.mk/read/news/5145437/1950172/cheh-proglasil-nezavisna-drzhava-liberland-megju-srbija-i-hrvatska
Bulgaria: http://news7.bg/%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%B8-%D1%81%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D1%8A%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-_l.n_i.143685_c.31.html#.VS5XO5PXtoM
Poland: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/ciekawostki/liberland-nowe-panstwo-na-balkanach/kjl6ln
Hungary: http://www.magyarszo.com/hu/2676/kozelet_politika/125597/%C3%9Aj-%C3%A1llam-Szerbia-%C3%A9s-Horv%C3%A1torsz%C3%A1g-k%C3%B6z%C3%B6tt.htm

Therefore, I can not really see any motivation behind deleting it. - Anonimski (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re "quite likely to have significance": see WP:CRYSTAL. We don't admit articles based on prognostications of notability. As for all the sources you provided, though: Yes, I found much the same myself this morning. A different picture from what I was able to find 18 hours ago. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that principle, although it seems like the topic already has reached enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. I think it can be good to let it have its own article since it intersects with a high-notability topic (border conflicts) and the fact that many similar micronation projects are covered in that way here. Anonimski (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - I saw that the AfD also includes the page Free republic of liberland. That one is a fork and I'm making it into a redirect - although I would support removing it later due to bad spelling. - Anonimski (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has a plenty of documentation references, the story is yet appeared in a lot of newspapers and it seems likely true. After a few days perhaps it will be proven that it can belonging also to the large List of micronations. Aakmaros (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, it is real and full of information.Hopefully there'll be more references..it shouldnt be deleted for now..Jocic Marko (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proclamation of the Free Republic of Liberland have been getting a lot of media coverage, and the question of its status might be taken in consideration at the negotiations on the Croatia–Serbia border dispute. Republic is proclaimed on portion of the land unclaimed by any side. --Ravnicar (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW I've already voted Keep and explained it, but I'd like to add that this AfD can be closed without doubts - the micronation project has now received attention from many more sources as well as the state media of Serbia and Republika Srpska. RTS: http://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/sr/story/511/Zanimljivosti/1889369/%C4%8Ceh+proglasio+dr%C5%BEavu+izme%C4%91u+Srbije+i+Hrvatske.html RTRS: http://www.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest.php?id=145377 - Anonimski (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it It is a micronation as all other micronations. --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Exists de facto. And very famous. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As per all the 'Keeps' above. There seems to be a disease infecting Wikipedia currently. If an article is not perfect, let's delete it rather than improve it! --Kiltpin (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page, along with other microstate pages, should be deleted. If one insists on keeping this joke, it's best to put it under the page which deals with the particular territorial dispute. Otherwise the page is simply advertisement and pointlessly takes up space on the internet. (Lilicneiu (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

If you want to delete all micronation pages, then it'd probably be better to start a discussion about Wikipedia's policy, rather than doing it on a single AfD. It doesn't seem like a joke, people seem serious about it and it has gotten loads of attention from media. - Anonimski (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not yet noted in the English language press of Anglophone nations, which would be a strike against it, but now seeing this: [2] and [3] and [4] Yakushima (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't be a strike against it, we're not limited by what language sources are written in, only their reliability. And BBC coverage anyway. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As per all the 'Keeps' above. --Hamihaha (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how about wait and see what happens before deleting the article. Liberland is all over the news at this moment, and this page is useful as a background. I think in a week there will be lots of articles to cite. Giulioprisco (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, premature AFD. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, premature AFD. – --Mikispag (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to @Mikispag, Giulioprisco, and Dilbert: As it happens, since this discussion was initiated, a large burst of attention has been given to Liberland, and it can reasonably be said to meet WP:N. In light of that, you've remarked that the deletion request was "premature" and such. I'm wondering, though, whether you meant that the request turns out, retrospectively, to have been premature, or whether you meant that at the time this discussion was initiated, it should have been judged to early to do so. In the latter case, I want to explain that we base assessments of notability on whether topics meet WP:N now, not on predictions of whether they will later. The deletion request was definitely reasonable at the time. As WP:CRYSTAL explains, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Croatia–Serbia border dispute with a brief note on it. (Also, note SPAs &c in discussion.) It's no more notable than the self-proclaimed kingdom in the Hala'ib Triangle, which has fallen out of public focus; re. other commenters, yes, there exists significant press coverage, but it's superficial. I'll give you this; no one will still be actively reporting about it in a years' time in the press. Cloudchased (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major coverage now, including our own BBC. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 245,000 news results. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that that count includes all pages on all news sites used that mention it, whether it's the actual story or in the sidebar; page 4 is the end of useful results. For example, on page 10, this article is linked; Liberland is another story linked in the sidebar. Cloudchased (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies for my error. 4 pages is still a significant number however. Thanks for correcting me, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abundant sourcing and too soon to delete. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above. There is no such thing as a "to soon to delete" based on notability. There is a such a thing as "to soon to create". —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I have just tagged three editors who have few or no edits elsewhere as single purpose accounts. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is well covered by the major media outlets (I learnt about it from the BBC's website). I believe it is notable. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it gets officially recognized we can always add it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1811:b038:5700:11ae:f4f1:ca45:c195 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)— 2a02:1811:b038:5700:11ae:f4f1:ca45:c195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Definitely keep it. Liberland is being developed and the Wiki page will certainly contribute to its development and therefore to the reasons of being kept. The land exists only 4 days and I'm convinced we're gonna see more and more progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) — 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, has been mentioned by RS http://time.com/3825100/man-claims-new-country-europe/ --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has enough relevance as event that made the news. Has to have to chance to prove itself as a sovereign nation. Indech (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this information is newsworthy and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) — 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The "country" is getting significant international coverage and could actually end up not being a joke. Therefore, for the time being at least, the article must exist. Nirinsanity 02:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. For example, {{Micronations}}. --►Cekli 829 08:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep atleast for now. It seems legitimate.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has just been linked to from the scholarly linguistics blog Language Log as part of a discussion of the Czech language, so it's demonstrably of interest in the wider world. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's hasn't been linked from a "scholarly source" at LanguageLog, it's been linked from a comment which could be by literally anyone. Overall, this RfD seems to be confusing a well-run press campaign for a website with evidence that a country actually exists. But I can't even find my Wikipedia account password, so I'll assume you'll just ignore me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.138.93 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this information is newsworthy and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.126 (talk • contribs) — 75.177.141.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep for now. Since it was proclaimed a few days ago, I think it's too soon to determine whether it's relevant or not. I'd probably consider deleting it in about a month from now, but not now. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're pretty active, also with lots of followers on FB, and have been in the news. It's furthermore a fictional state, so recognition is not required (and would be problematic if they decided to go non-fictional since the area has already been claimed for real). Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's evidently plenty of reliable coverage now. --Thnidu (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above. --Legoless (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is ACTUAL news! It's gaining popularity and even if there are complications such as Serbia not accepting it as a country as of now, that can be included in the article. Why censor information just because it doesn't conform to what we think people should see? 92.22.125.139 (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]
Keep per Thnidu. --hmich176 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this gets deleted then why aren't the other micronation pages deleted too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealSingapore (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flag lasted a whole 3 days, it's gone now.[5][6] Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this gets deleted then why aren't the other micronation pages deleted too? Vinie007 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, premature AFD. People around the world need a reliable source of encyclopedic information about this case Aldekein (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently the territory is not claimed by anyone other entities. Overall, the criteria for deletion WP:DP are not met here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.inform (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The matter is far from irrelevant; more than 30,000 applications for citizenship have been submitted, to date. Even if the nation is never recognized officially, it merits an entry as an indicator of the desire of people to "live and let live". http://personalliberty.com/liberland-a-new-libertarian-micro-nation-has-just-claimed-sovereignty/Illuminoughtu (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

If Croatia and Serbia officially accept it or not is irrelevant. The number of countries in the world is increaseing from year to year. I expect this evolution (increasing number of states) is fully will lead to the breakup of the nation states, which will probably happen somewhere in the 22 century. This evalution leads to the system of independent communities, promoted by prof A. Gasser. Het called this "Gemeindefreiheit". See Wikipdeia page on prof. Gasser. This system is also fully in line with the system FOCJ (Functionaly overlapping and competing jurisdictions), which has been proposed by prof Bruno Frey. Both systems "Gemeindefreiheit" and FOCJ's , are signoificant improvements over the system of nation states. Nations states are now considered as "human farms", where people live in tax slavery. Note that in the current nation states, people living in these nation states are obliged to pay about half of their income to the nation state. Since the number of nation states is very low, people cannot escape. Therefore the system of nation states is called "tax slavery". Only by "voting with their feet" people can escape these nation states. Voting with one's feet is the main way how fundamental human rights can be guaranteed. This is clear form the paper :"democracy with a small 'd'" http://www.panarchy.org/anonymous/democracy.1962.html Democracy with a capital 'D', is in reality "dictorship of the majority". Democracy with a capital 'D' has NEGATIVE scale advantages, i.e. the larger the scale, the more people are harmed by a democratic vote. All unlimited democracies are unstable and lead to dictororship at the end. On the contrary the models of "Gemeindefreiheit" and "FOCJ" are stable , and lead to a much more respect for fundamental human rights. The initiative of Liberland is what will happen more and more, and will lead to increase of wealth and happiness of the people. The level reached will be much higher than reached in nation states. The matter is far from irrelevant. People who want to delete this article, are fully unaware this is just the beginning of a very important evolution. The fact that so many people are intrested is an important sign. Please keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piet De Pauw (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is ridiculous. We have articles on unrecognized states as well, in case anyone's forgetting. Also, this is a new country, and Wikipedia had articles on every country on Earth, both recognized and unrecognized. Besides, this is a very interesting topic that I think a lot of people may be interested in. On top of that, there is really no good reason for the deletion of an article of this importance. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— I've seen easily enough media coverage to warrant an article, and hundreds of thousands of people have reportedly signed up on the website. -Newyorkadam (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Keep - given the amount of publicity, this is an obvious keeper. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This country is famous allaround the world, even I know this thing in Hong Kong, also there are more than 10 languages of wikipedia have this article, so it should be keep.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does meet the standards of the WP Article policies while it does not match with WP deletion policies, besides these apart from being a recognized or unrecognized state it is declared itself as a micronation and had a big impact on social media and made it to lots of news in various countries. And also, besides explaining the situation like this and making attributions to the policies of WP, we can just look at the other micronation articles like Freedonia, etc. Liberland seems much more official and formal and the president currently makes official meetings with Austrian and Czech officials, goes and speaks to BBC, etc. So definitely keep. Berkaysnklf (message) 19 April, 2015, 12:48 (UTC)
Keep This is getting coverage in the press, it's as real as the Principality of Sealand so I don't see why it wouldn't get an article.--Battleofalma (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see a reason for deletion.—dqd; 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.183.219 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet any criteria from reasons for deletion. This whole discussion is quite funny - there are hundreds of articles about imaginary things and fabricated "science" and I can't see all of them queued for deletion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.216.215 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion criteria. What I suggest is expanding it.--AirWolf ^talk 21:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no valid deletion criteria presented. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" Yet spoken in french internet media http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2015/04/20/liberland-nouvelle-micro-nation-balkans-recrute-citoyens-258773 Landien (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong delete Despite the media coverage (it's just a hyped story), this is just a pet project from a Czech politician. According international law it's part of Serbia. In other words: media hyped fact free bullsh#t. --Jeroen (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't nullify topic notability by Wikipedia standards. There are millions of Google hits, page views, and many articles in media worldwide that support the notability of this article. What's "extra strong" by the way? - Anonimski (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment International law does not favor one nation over another and besides, Serbia does not want it. Regardless, whether real, fictional, hoax or scam, and irrespective of flavor, it's now part of the human heritage. The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Widely covered by WP:RS (TIME, The Independent, Slate, BBC). Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it's recognized by other countries is insignificant. There are plenty of movements both past and present which weren't "officially" state-recognized yet still had historical significance. Frettsy (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Merely because a micronation or self-declared state hasn't received recognition by foreign powers, may be in violation of local and international law, and may be a publicity stunt does not, in fact, mean the attempt lacks merit enough for a deletion. In fact, under that criteria, all micronations shouldn't deserve articles, as they're in fact all publicity stunts. This is a nearly limitless Encyclopedia, and the consensus appears to favor erring on the side of keeping it for these reasons.Cdtew (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaerly meets our notability requirements, and the nomination contains no valid reasons for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 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 merge to Meghan Trainor discography. Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor[edit]

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

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." No sources are cited - besides album liner notes, AllMusic databases, and iTunes links which merely verify the existence of these songs - that explain why Trainor's body of work, aside from her 2-3 current hit singles, is worthy of encyclopedic coverage. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Meghan Trainor discography. Agree with nom that this article does not seem necessary. Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest KEEP Possible If you look at lists like List of songs recorded by Nick Jonas. You would see that these are proper sources, capable of sourcing themselves. Also, I strongly recommend you stay away from articles I edit, or you are going to be in a big deal of trouble. This article covers songs from albums, that don't have their own pages, but are covered in Trainor's discography. Making it all the way important to provide them to the reader in some form. Please refrain from deleting constructive edits. MaRAno ^FAN 06:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." Please keep discussion focused on the article in question. The albums apparently lack notability for Wikipedia articles so what makes the songs notable? Our standards for inclusion are based on notability, not existence. (And the threats and incivility can go elsewhere, thank you.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and Natg 19. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. IPadPerson (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Meghan Trainor discography. I don't see a reason to have both pages, especially since a discography is a list "of releases of a certain musical act". The track lists should be included in the discography article. Pathore (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while sourcing does need work, and the lead could give a better overview, she has enough songs for a standalone list. If Trainor only had one or two albums, though, I'd redirect it to her main article until more material came out. One thing I should note is how "List of songs recorded by X" pages are separate from discographies as they don't solely focus on singles, albums, or their commercial performance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of these Trainor songs doesn't make them notable; as noted, our inclusion standards are based on notability. Discography as seen in the majority of our wiki articles covers albums, singles, and chart performance – no one is suggesting Trainor's discography for deletion, for instance, because her releases and their chart trajectories are well-documented by sources such as Billboard. But her entire catalog of songs is not widely written about in third party sources, as seen from the lack of sources currently in the article.

I really don't think we need "songs recorded by..." lists for most artists, with occasional and obvious exceptions. For instance, List of songs recorded by Ashley Tisdale is not only deemed worthy of inclusion, but a featured list? What the actual fuck? But I digress. Pathore's suggestion to merge the track lists of the non-notable albums into Trainor's discography article makes the most sense. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once she releases a second album, I think more notability would be established. Saying that, it does pass notability now. I'd even put forward myself for editing it to improve it. — ₳aron 17:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it does pass notability now. May I ask how? What reliable publications have discussed Trainor's complete body of work in detail? What notability guideline does this pass? –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Calvin, and I, means is that this article is every ounce deserving to exist as others. Besides, Trainor has some of the most songs. Just because you like The Beatles and decide to undermine Ashley Tisdale and Meghan Trainor doesn't at all make their list-of-songs' articles less deservant of existence. For all it's worth, Trainor may actually be more notable than all of them. Also, above, you say that the Nick Jonas songs article hadn't been discovered yet, but you didn't go to take it to deletion even after I pointed it out. Such hypocrisy. CD-notes are perhaps the best sources to cite in these types of rticles and the existence of the songs is all that needs to be proved, which is well-established by iTunes or AllMusic or even CD-notes. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 04:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, it's not about "liking" or "not liking" someone; the amount of songs a person/group records plays a more significant factor in whether such lists are warranted. With regards to Nick Jonas, this conversation is not about his list, only this one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After having a thorough look at lists of this type, I would swear that Meghan has enough songs. Anyways, this is leading to a no consensus conclusion. No reason for me to keep arguing now. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 05:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree that she's got enough, though it would help to include collaborations and production processes (i.e. recording and songwriting) in lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't determine consensus or lack thereof; the closing admin does. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator: there is no need for a list of this kind--it could be written up for basically any artist and in most cases would add nothing at all. In this case, we're talking about an artist with one album; even with two or three, what's the point? The main article has plenty of room (certainly once the cruft is removed) for these songs to be mentioned, if they're notable. That this is part of the Trainor fancruft series is pretty obvious, and it needs to be deleted not only because there appears to be no real relevant sourcing on Trainor as an established recorder of songs (there is an easy rationale found for List of songs recorded by Elvis Presley, not for this artist), but also because we're really opening up the floodgates here, K-pop style. It's not a matter of having "enough" songs, it's a matter of being an important enough artist that their recording of that song is something special: think Sinead O'Connor and "Nothing Compares 2U", think Nina Simone, think Miles Davis, for all of which arguments can be made. These arguments can't be made here.
I had no idea how bad it was with these articles; I just put up List of songs recorded by AFI for deletion. What have we turned into? Drmies (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comment. Is there some sort of relevant guideline listing criteria for an artist to have such a list of songs for voters to refer to? It also seems relevant to note that Meghan Trainor apparently has quite the fan base of tween girls, who probably see the utility of such a list differently than the nominator or delete voters do. Trianor also has an interesting recording history, having been spotted for her talent due to her multiple prior self-published albums, released before her mega hits, with prior songs now gaining attention with her fanbase of devoted tween "Megatronz". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None that I'm aware of. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With only three songs having articles, it seems like it would fail WP:NLIST. I do believe we ought to create some sort of NSONGLIST type guideline on this type of article, because it looks like without it, its acceptable to create one for just about any musical artists, much like the discography articles. (I'd be okay with a "merge/redirect" too, but realistically, with such a mainstream/popular subject, I imagine everything appropriate for a merge would already be at the discography article.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, not NLIST, which is not applicable. It is a list of recordings by the artist, not a list of recordings of a specific artist released by a record label i.e. discography, It serves a totally different function. Whether there should be a "minimum size" for these lists may need to be debated and included in WP:NSONG, but until then, the reasons for delete noted above are not applicable. I shall copy myself into the two other similar nominations. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Richhoncho - How exactly does it pass LISTN though? Serving a separate purpose isnt a valid reason by itself. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, WP:LISTN reads, inter alia, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" - which is in direct opposition to "With only three songs having articles, it seems like it would fail WP:NLIST." Trainor is a singer of songs so a list of her songs also passes WP:LISTN --Richhoncho (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With that sort of reasoning, every single musical artist with an article of could have their own song list article. There's got to be more to it than that, or we'd have a ton more of these sorts of articles. (They're extremely easy to make and sourcing the mere existence of songs is super-easy too.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we need some sort of specific guideline for an artist to qualify for such a list, such as at least 2 albums notable enough for an article and at least 4 songs notable enough for an article or whatever, but it doesn't appear there is anything in current policy that says this should be deleted. Given this is only article that gives significant attention to her independent albums, which are stressed in the other articles, this list seems valuable.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree a specific guideline should be created, but I also don't think this proposed concept of inherited notability stated here is the current status quo either... Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho - Since a hypothetical song recorded but never released would be unlikely to meet the reliable sources requirement to be mentioned on Wikipedia, how is a list of songs any different than a discography? Also note that I consider a discography to be all releases by an artist, not all releases by an artist on any particular label. This is also the only meaning that makes sense, since Wikipedia only maintains one discography page per artist. Pathore (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pathore. There can be very reliable independent sources for unreleased songs. There are "Lists of unreleased songs by XXX" lists. As for the difference, I don't think I can spell it out any clearer - a discography is a list of releases made by a record company whereas a "list of songs" is exactly that - not dependent on a record company. It could include TV broadcasts, live performance. The function of a list and a discography are different. Unless you are saying ALL "Lists of songs recorded" are to be deleted I don't see any evidence why the present 4 nominated should be an exception. FWIW, I am not familiar with the works of any of the 4 nominated so I can't be accused of POV here. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richhoncho. Also, this list seems to be the only Trainor article to list the songs from Trainor's earlier independent albums, and considering consensus has been to reference these earlier albums/recordings on Trainor's other articles, this list seems to serve a unique purpose.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BoboMeowCat - I maintain that those independent albums should be included in Meghan Trainor discography. Pathore (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per Natg 19 and Pathore to Meghan Trainor discography. The combination or merging of the two articles seems to be the best option, WordSeventeen (talk) 11:39, 25 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. Nakon 00:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next Week's News (TV Show)[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced page for a show that began and was then, it would seem, immediately cancelled. The closest thing to a reliable source independent of the subject I could find was this trivial piece in a tabloid which contains a total of five sentences about this topic (sample of its quality: “It's a shame but that's how it goes sometimes.”) before talking about someone meeting their neighbour in China, among other things. Greykit (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable in an encyclapedic sense. exported to WikiaTV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 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. Nakon 00:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maeve Higgins' Fancy Vittles[edit]

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

Unsourced stub with no evident significant reliable coverage that is independent of the subject. Greykit (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG does not have significant coverage from secondaries. per WP:OUTLET I have exported information to Wikia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:09, 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. Sandstein 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revasi[edit]

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

The startup has very limited, if any, coverage in WP:RSes. Most of the sources used in the article are "Top 50 startup" lists or "rewards" lists all from the same websites "Techinasia" and "Echelon" and Echelon isn't a news source, it's a tech marketplace advertising their own startups. It definitely doesn't meet WP:notability for Web and Internet entities. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is probably on the wrong wiki, the first reference isn't even in english. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are entirely promotional; the "awards"are completely trivial. But, IamM1rv, I remind you that references do not have to be in English--for subjects that are primarily connected with other countries, that's to be expected. The English WP is written in English, but covers the world. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Still a upcoming startup founded in 2013 and not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:36, 21 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. WP:NOTDIC. Reliable sources do not show this as an actual term. Nakon 00:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kkkop[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIC Transcendence (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't delete~~, it's clearly a derogatory term that is in use. There are references to its usage. Why is this even a debate? UnifiedLeftOnTwitter (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources in this article that actually use the term are from blogs that are no reliable sources. Transcendence (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IamM1rv (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

don't Delete Article has been expanded and became more encyclopedic, please review changes and expansions. Hopefully nobody is basing their decision on whether or not they like the term or its context.UnifiedLeftOnTwitter (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article title is a neologism, if you look at the Catagory "Category:Criticism of police brutality" we see this is the problem when we have a catagory with no main article. Instead of having "Criticism of Police brutality" why not just write an article Police Brutality. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete just a dictionary definition.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kkkop is not an argument only on police brutality as the numerous references point out, it is a criticism whether real or imagined of the similarities between police and the kkk. I hope that personal politics aren't getting in the way of objectivity.UnifiedLeftOnTwitter (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is verifiable sources then write a section in Police about comparisons to the KKK. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic that someone with the username UnifiedLeftOnTwitter is concerned about keeping politics out. Transcendence (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

− Btw, I'm no expert entry writer, so I ask that you allow this article time to be expanded by people who are more knowledgeable in Wikipedia and don't rush to judgement. There are numerous references to this phrase and a historic context in which the idea of kkkop differs and reveals a point of view held by many people that exists outside of a criticism of police brutality. I hope that you will read at least a few of the references and give other, more knowledgeable people time to improve this poorly written entry.UnifiedLeftOnTwitter (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deleted you can ask for it to be userfied. This just means it is moved out of main space to your space to work on. Links from other articles are removed so readers can't normally find it, but you can keep working on it and you can ask other editors to review it or for help.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 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. Nakon 00:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Lambour[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. References don't prove any notability, but some merely link to photo galleries. And the awards are no more notable than winning a Commons photo challenge. Conflict of interest issues as well, so this is really a self-promotional article. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per everything nom. said. I've tagged the article for notability and CoI. ― Padenton|✉ 17:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misses the mark for notability, search pulls up artists work but not secondaries about the artist. WikiBios yes Wikipedia no. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per others above. Also, no indication of notability anywhere in the article prose. And the referenced sources themselves seem non-notable (except for the Républicain Lorrain which is a minor newspaper).--A bit iffy (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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 delete. The "Delete" comments have far more policy-based rationales here. FiddleFaddle and DGG's analyses are pertinent. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Kashyap[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "The references do not demonstrate, nor does the article assert, notability. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS." Indeed, the references are almost all PR pieces or regurgitated PR pieces. Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "All referred citations are authorized and notable. Ashish Kashyap is a CEO of Ibibo group a company funded by Nasper. I think we need to re-look before to vote for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhyud (talk • contribs) 11:57, 15 April 2015‎" copied from the talk page of this discussion and pasted here by me as a keep Fiddle Faddle 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have analysed the referencing in this version, the current version at the time of my analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashish_Kashyap&oldid=656460623 is an interview with the gentleman. His words are a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY for valid deployment. My view is that this is a fail
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ashish-kashyaps-steady-hand-steered-a-rocky-redbus/articleshow/38962224.cms is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/personally-tech-with-ibibo-group-ceo-ashish-kashyap-655649 is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/competition-is-excellent-and-more-than-welcome-ashish-kashyap-114033100022_1.html is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2015/03/economic-times-most-promising-brands-2015-unveiled/ PR quote form the gentleman. Fail
http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/i-hate-being-patient-ashish-kashyap-ceo-ibibo-group/43716/ is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
http://yourstory.com/2012/06/ashish-kashyap-ibibo/ Is Your Story even approach WP:RS? interview with the gentleman. . Fail
http://www.exchange4media.com/IMPACT-Digital-Power-100.pdf Passing mention, does say he was 57th equal in Digital Power 100. Is that a notable listing? Fail
http://yourstory.com/2015/01/goibibo-partner-google-flight-search-india/ Your Story again, and I doubt WP:RS. Does not mention the gentleman anyway. Fail
http://www.entrepreneurindia.com/news/Food-startup-Bite-Club-raises-500K-from-Powai-Lake-Ventures-6125/ Passing mention. Fail
http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2015/03/11/online-food-ordering-startup-bite-club-raises-500k-from-powai-lake-ventures-alok-mittal-others/ Passing mention. Fail

There is truly nothing notable in any of these references. There is not even a borderline reference here. Fiddle Faddle 11:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing substantial in the references to indicate notability (and YourStory is just glorified interviews). Primefac (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company of trivial significance, with the refs amounting only to PR. This sort of inconsequential referencing to interviews that are just the subject saying whatever they like is not really independent sourcing. We have too many articles of this sort already, and it's time to stop it. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article should be rewritten for style but he's definitely notable. Head of Google India itself meets notability requirement. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth it to a little digging with something like this. All of the sources claiming him as 'Country Head' of Google India are primary, or derived from him indirectly. It's an invented title, and not the one he had; so far as I can tell, he was Directing Manager of Adsales for Google's Indian-side operation. A mid-level position on the corporate structure, and not one he kept. I'm honestly not sure if this isn't even a bit inflated, as I couldn't find anything about him from Google themselves.

Delete per the breakdown of sources provided by nom. Non-notable company. APerson (talk!) 01:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator, and per available sources. Even the most reliable ones I found are simply passing mentions. Notability can't be established in this case. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - All interviews have been taken by notable media agencies/news papers. These agencies don't take interviews of any one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhyud (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 April 2015‎

Comment This editor's opinion has already been transferred from the talk page to this page. Their additional opinion is welcome, but I have struck the !vote itself, which may only be counted the once. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a house of cards constructed from flimsy interviews etc, most of which appear to be PR exercises designed to puff the guy up. The Indian media is particularly susceptible to sycophantic exercises of that nature. There is no need for us to reflect such traits. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While his company may or may not be notable, that does not determine the notability of the individual (so I didn't check). Kashyab is often quoted by the media as an expert and there are several sources available specifically about the man: "Ashish+Kashyap". While an interview is not strictly speaking a secondary source, if it is published by a reputable source it can still convey notability. High quality news agencies (i.e. "reliable sources") do fact check interviews to a certain degree, so they are not strictly primary either. Problems with tone can be addressed through editing. Pinging @Oo7565: who accepted this via AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is pretty much only one "high quality" Indian media source, and that is The Hindu. Everything else, include The Times of India, is in hero-worship mode when it comes to PR-savvy people, and the entire society is fairly notoriously corrupt at the levels where power and influence are wielded. We'd be better served by non-Indian media. I think we have had this discussion before: too many people involved with ARS cannot spot the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one when it comes to India-related subjects. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for your attack on my competence. I am well aware of what is and is not a reliable source, thanks. Just because you disagree with my conclusion doesn't mean I am not competent enough to draw my own conclusions. (And for the record, I am not actually involved with ARS.) ... If your standard is "only foreign media + The Hindu count", then basically no one from India is going to be notable because that would mean a foreign source would be required in every case (since one source does not establish notability). Most otherwise notable people (from all countries) are not covered outside their home nation. Way to encourage systematic bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 25 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 Deleted (G7) by Ymblanter - Creator accidentally posted here instead of "Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback". NAC –Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor/Feedback[edit]

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

Looks like a person's personal experience. Rberchie (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though I clicked on a link somewhere that was intended for Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback, where the "Wikipedia:" part was missing. I've re-posted this to the correct location. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Already nominated for Speedy deletion by creator.― Padenton|✉ 17:21, 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 00:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Yasecko[edit]

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

Seems to be most notable for "Growing up with Rockets" documentary collection of home movies. This was not well received in the cited review. Seems to be a teacher of above average ambition. List of works are not notable and seem to be self-published/"produced." WP:NN Student7 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she was bombed in the New York Times. That and other sources means she passes WP:GNG. The article is a mess, but not that bad. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are reliable and pass WP:GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:18, 20 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. Nakon 00:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special Needs Judo Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: no indication of significance. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as I can't find anything on it and article lists no sources either, Non notable judo club. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not happy this was speedied and contested the speedy tag. The article makes claims for notability in organizing international events and certainly is more than just a judo club. The main contributors have been notified with the hope that they can address the issues. I see the case for delete but using find sources above demonstrates that something is there - I would like this AfD to run its course.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant coverage of this organization, just some mentions of some events it was sponsoring.Mdtemp (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources Identified [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Special+Needs+Judo+Foundation%22&tbm=nws[ CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the Wikipedia for news in the Netherlands, everybody can contribute to that website. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My internet search turned up no significant independent coverage of this organization and the article doesn't have a single reference for any of its claims. The bottom line is that I see no significant claims of notability or independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC
Delete Fails WP:GNG and there is no independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 21 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 redirect to Oak Grove#Louisiana. seems like clear consensus to me (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove, Louisiana[edit]

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

There is already Oak Grove - we don't need another disambig. It is not clear we need more than one LA Oak Grove article at all. Unfriend15 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove, West Carroll Parish, Louisiana was moved from Oak Grove, Louisiana without discussion. I propose to move it back. There was an article created Oak Grove, Lincoln Parish, Louisiana which might require a disambig, if it is need (I am dubious). I added it to the Oak Grove article and added a note to it suggesting it needs to show notability... but that is a minor issue... it may be a fine article but it doesn't require a double-layer-disambiguation, I should think.Unfriend15 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also added it to the OGWCP article as an SA... there is no other uses tag, and I wonder if it needs one.Unfriend15 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oak Grove#Louisiana. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information is already included in Oak Grove disambiguation. Longevitydude (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Boleyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 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, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 13:24, 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 Draftify. Moved to Draft:DBMaster. Nakon 00:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DBMaster[edit]

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

Possible Not Notable. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely non-notable. All sources are primary: either press releases or advertorials written by the company's own president. No indications that this is not just another run-of-the-mill IT consultancy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the page is an hour old, at least give the creator the opportunity to improve it. Putting it up for nomination three minutes after creation (especially when there were obvious ref errors) is a bit BITEy. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per primefac TheMesquito^buzz 14:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a small company, the article contains no useful references to demonstrate notability, and there isn't a claim of notability. This probably should have been nominated for speedy deletion. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 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. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cochise College[edit]

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

Was reverting a bit of residue vandalism here, and realize that this isn't much notable to begin with. News search only turns out results from a Cochise News (primary source) and a Sierra Vista Herald (local paper), not giving significant reliable sources to establish notability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This is an accredited [7], degree-awarding [8][9] public community college. Lots of news sources. [10] Among other things, has an aviation program with its own, college-built airport. [11] Passes WP:GNG and as an "independently accredited degree-awarding institution", a clear keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search turns up a long history of news coverage from local paper and Google News has archives of a lot of stories treating the subject. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a regionally accredited college. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Thanks Arxiloxos for the wealth of sources, and pointers to HighBeam Research which I did not know of. Also appears schools and education is never my best aspects and I probably should be stay away from such AfDs. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:20, 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 delete. Nakon 00:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mehul Patel[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO. Poorly sourced, with notability template and BLP sourcing template repeatedly removed by new and anonymous editors. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions, blog entries, and pay-per-listing entries. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that first AFD (result: delete) was about a different person, a games developer. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A typical issue with most of the Indian articles, where a subject is known and notable but doesn't have that media coverage, certainly loads of unsourced info needs to be chopped off but deleting straightaway, I suggest not. I can do the editing and part on the article though! Mani ratnam12 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)— ‎Mani ratnam12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ Agree with Mani ratnam12, just because there is not a lot of coverage, but there are still some sources indicating good notability, that means that the subject would pass GNG. Noteswork (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noteswork can you please clarify which WP:RS are available (in any language) showing significant, in-depth coverage of the man per WP:BIO? Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[12]. Noteswork (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First AFD was about a game developer, other Mehul Patel is a president of Asian-American Hotel Owners Association. Delete would be fine. Noteswork (talk) 10:16, 21 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. Nakon 00:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USRobotics Sportster magic string[edit]

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

Once upon a time you could upgrade a particular modem by entering a string into it. Created by an SPA who removed a PROD in 2006, so here we are. Richfife (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This survived for almost nine years? Even if there were sources available, this would be too trivial and specific to exist as an independent article. This could possibly be a bullet point in some article on firmware hacks, but that's about the best case scenario that I can see. Like the original prod said back in 2006, this is too much of a how-to guide. The bizarre thing is that it couldn't possible be of any use to anyone, and the only reason it exists seems to be nostalgia (not exactly the most uncommon thing in these BBS-era articles). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NinjaRobotPirate not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 21 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 CSD A7. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitafly[edit]

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

Startup company founded during a competition. No proper claim of notability in the article. Slashme (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, WP:CSD#A7.― Padenton|✉ 17:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:42, 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. seems to be clear consensus that he is not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Singh (RJ Preetam Pyare)[edit]

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

Notability is neither asserted nor verified. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigg Boss 8. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but at the moment, his notability is based only on being on the show and the typical Z-list celebrity gigs offered to such contestants afterwards. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Youtube, Tunein.com and Haathichiti.com sources fail WP:BLPSPS in my opionion, but I'm not sure about the "I Just Love Movies" cite. Even if that's OK, it and the Big Boss 8 cite do not seem to be enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article. In addition, I indirectly came across this AfD from this Teahouse question. The editor, Toshwets, who posted that question also just has started working on Draft:Pritam Singh (Actor, RJ). From the Teahouse question, it appears that Toshwets is a close childhood friend of Pyare and wants to ensure that Pyare's Wikipedia article does not hampers the [Pyare's] image and career in the long run. It also seems as if the actor (Pyare) the page is written about wishes to create a new page and block this page. All of that seems not only contrary to WP:NOT, but also an apparent COI. Deleting this article might be the proper thing to do, but that might give the impression that a new one (more favorable to Pyare perhaps) can simply be created in its place. Not sure if that falls under the purview of this AfD, but I felt it should be mentioned. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: FYI: the editor submitted the draft at AfC yesterday but was rejected. I'm not sure whether the user understands the AFC process. He inquired on my talk page, seeming rather upset about the rejection, and I suggested that he work on this article instead of creating a concurrent draft. wia (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The subject doesn't stand up on its own for an article, if there is a plausible search term, it should redirect to the above noted article. --Jayron 32 14:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another page on same person Pritam Singh (Actor, RJ) has been created. I have nominated that for CSD WP:A10. 220 of ^Borg 05:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected that page to the first page. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page will do nicely. If not keep, Userfy/Draftify. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is currently supported by Facebook, Google Plus, IMDb, and similar unsuitable sources, including circular links back to Wikipedia. Would you mind explaining your recommendation to keep? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are at least 3 suitable sources. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of proper notability right now. Let him become more famous. --C E (talk) 13:22, 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 delete and redirect to Radio Sport National. Nakon 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACTTAB Radio[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radio Sport National, where the station originates their programming from with no local deviation. Nate • (chatter) 15:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage from secondary sources. per WP:OUTLET exported to WikiRadio WikiaBryce Carmony (talk) 19:03, 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) 06:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moll's Mobil[edit]

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

Non-notable local franchiser(?) of gas stations. Appears to currently be solely a family story. Jason McHuff (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Non-Notable - a local franchise in business only 5 years, a long time ago. Delete It. Plazak (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 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, Nakon 05:00, 7 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) 05:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and no relevant redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 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. Nakon 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Presley[edit]

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

Article subject falls into WP:INHERITED category; little to no media attention and secondary sources. The woman was Elvis Presley's cousin, Priscilla Presley's "shopping buddy", and Elvis' one-time secretary who answered his fan mail for a short period of time. That's pretty much it. That said, there's nothing that makes this woman notable enough by Wikipedia standards that she merits a BLP article. Fails WP:GNG, article's existence is a waste of Wikipedia space. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are some significant coverage in the media and secondary sources about this Presley. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources are in the article right now. There were also Ladies Home Journal and TV Guide articles about her. She was interviewed for a documentary. More sources can be found under "Patsy Presley Geranen". Bearian (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, the first two links you provided show nothing. The third only shows she was interviewed about Elvis in a documentary. That's hardly something that meets general notability guidelines. The last link goes to imdb (not a reliable source) and only shows the same as the third link. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two more sources including one from CNN and another from a news website in the UK. Those two along with the Ladies Home Journal, TV Guide mentioned by Bearian above are more than sufficient to show coverage across numerous WP:RS to meet WP:GNG and cross the threshold of notability. (adding signature here with timestamp of my vote found in history section - 01:48, March 31, 2015‎ WordSeventeen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,031 bytes) (+311)‎ ) WordSeventeen (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source helps this individual meet notability guidelines. The UK piece is a copy of what's already online that incorrectly refers to Presley as a "collaborator" in a documentary about Elvis Presley. Patsy Presley is quoted in the documentary - one time - and talked about not being able to be present for the taping of his special from Hawaii. That's it. The CNN transcript source only denotes what she said in the documentary. In the same CNN Larry King transcript, Priscilla Presley mentions Presley's name. Patsy Presley was not a "Collaborator" on the documentary, she has a momentary appearance. The addition of neither of these sources helps Patsy Presley meet WP:GNG. I maintain that the individual is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines and the article should be deleted. At the most, the article should be redirected to the Elvis Presley article or maybe the Memphis Mafia article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We simply do not agree. What proof and source do you have that makes you think, "The UK piece is a copy of what's already online that incorrectly refers to Presley as a "collaborator" in a documentary about Elvis Presley" Collaboration does not mean the person was "in" the documentary a certain number of minutes. It means she helped with it, or assisted with the making of the documentary. "col·lab·o·ra·tion 1. the action of working with someone to produce or create something." from here [13] I maintain that the article subject is notable per Wikipedia guidelines and the article should be definitely be kept. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WordSeventeen: I'm well aware of what collaboration means. Look up the documentary -- not commentary or hype about the documentary -- but the documentary itself. Look in the credits. Do you see anything, anywhere that lists Patsy Presley as one of the writers, producers, directors -- anything in the way of production? People who "collaborate" in the way of media (be it movies, television, music) are involved in the production and/or writing. Patsy Presley isn't listed as someone doing any of those things for the documentary/TV movie "Elvis by the Presleys". So, if you want to maintain she was a "collaborator", you really need to have proof of that other than someone saying she was a collaborator. That's the Wikipedia way, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So your 'proof' that she was not a collaborator is the credits where you did not see her name, but in a WP:RS CNN reference [14] and The Express UK news site [15] both say she is. I think Wikipedia after all goes by WP:RS not what you personally did not see at the end of the documentary. What is that termed as "negative original research? I will just leave my keep vote as is. With 17 and counting references in the article just now, the article subject meets WP:GNG and notability standards. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The proof that she was a collaborator would be that her name appears in the credits showing she was a collaborator. Your "proof" is that Priscilla Presley incorrectly credits Patsy Presley with being a collaborator. But, oh, wait -- yeah, I'm sure you're right. Because when a celebrity says something and it's "sourced" that makes it true! How stupid of me! (yes, that was sarcasm)

I'm afraid that if you're going to maintain Patsy Presley was an actual collaborator (someone who contributed to writing the script, producing the documentary, directed, worked in casting, was a cinematographer, was a producer, or even a grip, etc.) you will need to come up with some real proof (other than a celebrity using a term she obviously doesn't know the meaning of) that gives this non-notable individual such a title and position. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mentioning along with other highly notable entity is questionable notability. Although her individual career remains on going and she is notable for that, has received the amount of coverage that is required for establishing the WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In both the version that existed when this article was nominated for deletion: [16] and the current version as I am writing: [17], this is a total YAWN. Have all the sources you can fight over: this reads like something on Ancestry.com. Even if the sources per se are valid links and readable, this person is not notable. Per nominator's WP:INHERITED. This would always be a very weak article. (Like, so what?) Oh, and: Jerry Schilling describes Presley as "A quiet, centered girl who proved that the Presley good looks translated very well to the female form: isn't this sexist and not the least bit related to notability? Lame. Fylbecatulous talk 12:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not inherited. This person has not done a single noteworthy thing in her life, and is only discussed in sources because of who she answered fan mail for and for who she was "shopping buddies" with. This is precisely what WP:NOTINHERITED is intended to protect the project from. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tarc, User:Fylbecatulous and common sense, yes she was mentioned in some books/articles about Elvis, but still there is no credible claim of notability whatsoever outside being a cousin/secretary/friend of him. Furthermore, most of the coverage looks very trivial to me. Cavarrone 12:28, 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, Nakon 03:11, 7 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) 05:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Winkelvi's thorough destroying of the sources up there. Tigraan (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. If you take away the famous cousin, this person becomes a non-notable secretary. Winkelvi sums it up perfectly (although per WP:NOTPAPER, I wouldn't have used the "waste of space" argument). Tavix Talk 02:27, 24 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. Nakon 00:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Cancer Coalition[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a worthy organisation, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and i couldn't find a good merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Truly worthy organization but fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:43, 21 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) 06:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Magrathea[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why is this set down for deletion>: it is a true and frank piece about a man trying to overthrow a government with a keyboard. Who decided this was to be deleted? was it the same people protecting the editing of Tony Abbotts page? The paid editors who are operating against Wikis rules?

The man Tony Magrathea is legitimate, is a writer, is well known in political circles. why delete the article/ who decided it was to be deleted and what relationship do they have to the liberal party of Australia and tony Abbott?Are they some of hte people being paid $4.3 million to control social media including wiki for tony Abbott? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.122.71 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcobelina (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) up to 600,000 people tweet,retweet and retweet again my hobby of overthrowing the government. The petition with 27,000 signatures on it was created because of my research, ^[1] this has many links to the stories discussing what I am doing, the matter has been in the news in Russia, UK, Ireland,USA, Australia ^[2] and that was only up until September 2014, many more newspaper stories have happened since then about Tony Magrathea and his questArcobelina (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Magrathea^[3] has more links to other stories about Tony Magrathea Arcobelina (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your rules " A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." ^[4]

^ https://www.change.org/p/tony-abbott-show-us-your-papers-renouncing-your-british-citizenship-before-you-were-elected
^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/an-email-to-attorney-general.html
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Magrathea
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29

Some of the external references are here:- please let me know if you need more

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/a-gem-or-a-dual-tony-abbotts-lying-ingate,7086
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B42C_wWg31otWnE4Z0dtVEZpYzA/view
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/accountability-and-reporting/freedom-information/foi-disclosure-logs/foi-disclosure-log
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1206/neither_confirm_nor_deny_in_relation_to_personal_data_and_regulation_foi_eir.pdf
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/not-a-birther,6866
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/14-11-2014/128838-tony_abbott_australia-0/
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/09/02/17/35/tony-abbott-may-have-been-ineligible-to-stand-for-election
http://www.skynews.com.au/video/program_hinch/2015/02/01/editorial---the-week-that-was-february-1.html
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/whos-a-foreigner-and-whos-a-boat-person-20150307-13wva9.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927631/Is-Tony-Abbott-BRITISH-citizen-Labor-MP-writes-letter-Prime-Minister-demanding-proves-s-not-dual-citizen.html
http://theaimn.com/time-come-clean-tony/
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-strange-and-suspicious-case-of-tony-abbotts-citizenship,6859
https://www.change.org/p/tony-abbott-show-us-your-papers-renouncing-your-british-citizenship-before-you-were-elected
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/pms-office-denies-claims-tony-abbott-british-citiz/2374139/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-strange-and-suspicious-case-of-tony-abbotts-citizenship,6859
http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.fr/2014/03/the-real-reason-anthony-john-tony.html
http://imatthewsblog.com/
http://tonymagrathea.blog.com/2014/06/21/tony-abbott/
http://www.newpolitics.com.au/what-is-tony-abbott-hiding
http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tiad-of-fudging-on-the-citizenship-issue,6882
http://theaimn.com/time-come-clean-tony/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/not-a-birther,6866

And the Guardian sent a knock knock joke writer to make light of the story, they refuse to publish my response to it. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/show-us-your-citizenship-why-the-tony-abbott-birthers-want-to-believe

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/wyeth-the-birther-barrier-is-holding-parliament-back/5744556
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-mp-tim-watts-defends-tony-abbott-against-online-birthers-20140917-10hy1m.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/show-us-your-citizenship-why-the-tony-abbott-birthers-want-to-believe
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-mp-tim-watts-defends-tony-abbott-against-online-birthers-20140917-10hy1m.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/wyeth-the-birther-barrier-is-holding-parliament-back/5744556
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tony-abbotts-dual-citizenship-stop-asking-questions--hes-the-pm,7382
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/wyeth-the-birther-barrier-is-holding-parliament-back/5744556 Arcobelina (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So many people have signed their name to a process Tony Magrathea is basically running, they need the wiki entry as some central point to keep up to date and to watch what is happening. 27,000 signed the petition ^[1] and many watch the blog which has so much more information than the short wiki entry ^[2]Arcobelina (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/wyeth-the-birther-barrier-is-holding-parliament-back/5744556
^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/

If wiki allows this page to stay how do I protect it from attack by Abbotistas?The paid help who protect social media and wikipedia for tony Abbott? He has publicly said he will spend $4.3 million dollars this year to control social media. can the page be a locked or semi locked page to protect from edit?Arcobelina (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to remove this article is why Wiki is discredited in Universities and not allowed as serious documentation. And yet there are thousands of pages of undocumented opinion and creative writing on plots etc of Movies, TV shows. And why many serious people no longer bother to login to edit any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.187.140 (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know what? Some of the sources provided by Arcobelina was not half bad, especially the Daily Mail one. However I am also seeing a hint of WP:BLP1E, not warranting an article for him. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TNT and WP:COATRACK. This is an article about this person's quixotic campaign, not him, and there's no evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quixotic campaign about the law? There are no windmills in this, it is purely fact. A freedom of information document from the Prime Minsters own department, constitutional law? Hardly quixotic. Are you one of the paid social media censors employed by Abbott?Arcobelina (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are rubbish or merely referencing various regulations, opinions on citizenship and the like. The subject is not notable. Having some sort of vendetta against the Prime Minister is par for the course here, regardless of what party is in power. I'm personally against his treatment of onions. --Pete (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

daily Mail is rubbish? Pravda? channel 9 in Austral, largest free to air TV network? Sydney Morning Herald,? Do you read much skyring? have you read the links? did you bother or is it you membership of the Abbott party coming through? Citizenship requirements are part of the Australian constitution,again if you had read you might have noticed? It isnt a regulation it is a law. Imaging an American saying the 1st amendment is rubbish? Arcobelina (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've indented this statement so it doesn't link on to the back of Skyring's statement. Other than that I've made no changes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were all rubbish, did I? Magrathea's involvement in the news stories looks very tangential. The Daily Mail article is about a Labor MP - Magrathea is merely "a blogger" who emailed the MP. Magrathea doesn't even get a mention in the SMH cite. Or Skynews. The Pravda cite is just a comment from Magrathea. As was made clear during the Heather Hill case and its aftermath - and yes, I sat in on the High Court case, so I'm familiar with the citizenship requirements - if a person does not want to disclose exactly when they renounced any foreign citizenship there is nobody going to compel them. Abbott says he is not a British citizen and that's the end to it.

Magrathea is just stirring the pot. There is nothing notable about him apart from his tub-thumping. He appears to be using Wikipedia to wheel his barrow a little further. --Pete (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with a BLP here. I have removed all unsourced material, that supported by blogs or other unreliable sources, primary sources and material supported by sources dealing solely with the Prime Minister or citizenship requirements and the like which do not specifically mention Magrathea. There was also a good deal of editorialising, synthesis and personal opinion. What is left is material which can be adequately sourced. If anybody wishes to reinsert material, please check Wikipedia's sourcing requirements first, especially for biographies of living people. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources contain significant coverage of Mr Magrathea himself. Completely fails our basic criteria of "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say the article must not be blanked but Skyring and Wordseventeen have deleted 97% of it. is this the way wiki operates now? Arcobelina (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with policy. I urge you to read up on Biographies of living people and sourcing policy. You may also wish to read WP:AUTO.

May I also direct you to WP:FA, which contains information about the best articles on Wikipedia. These are articles which exemplify the standard we aim for. These articles do not feature inadequate sources, speculation, bias and original research. My edits were intended to improve the article in accordance with policy, but I couldn't find much material to push it up to the highest possible standard. Maybe this is as good as it gets.

If you really want to keep this article, find some sources where the subject is widely talked about. Dedicated newspaper articles, bodies of award-winning work, citations for gallantry - the sort of things that divide notable people from the rest of humanity.

It seems to me that the thrust of the article, as written, was less about the subject and more about Tony Abbott. My feeling is that you may well be right, and Abbott was originally elected while still retaining British citizenship. As were many other politicians at that time, because it had never occurred to anybody to regard the UK as "a foreign power". However, with Sue vs Hill, this all changed and there was a scramble (so I'm told) by politicians to renounce various inconvenient citizenships. Abbott has almost certainly renounced whatever British citizenship he might have had, and if it turns out that he hadn't when he was first elected, what are you going to do? Can't declare that a term already served didn't happen. You'd have to take it all the way to the High Court and they'd likely shrug their shoulders and say there's no practical remedy. There is nobody can force him to reveal if or when he renounced his citizenship. It's not a crime, the police couldn't care, and it's all just a stunt. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for stunts. I might also point out that Tony Abbott supported Terry Sharples in Sue vs Hill and would have been very much aware of the significance and dangers of hlding dual citizenship. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 6 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 02:48, 7 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) 04:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unclear to me how two consecutive closers could possibly think there was no consensus to delete, given the above, but I suppose the wheels of bureaucracy grind slow. This article is an autobiography created by a single-purpose account. Magrathea is a conspiracy blogger who has used his blog and Twitter account to insult Wikipedia editors ("Abbottista wankers" being my favourite in the series) and accuse them of paid editing (off-wiki harassment being, of course, grounds for a block). Off-topic: I would suggest further all the above, taken with his edit-warring and consistent confrontational behaviour, would be grounds for an indef block, but I can't be bothered chasing that further just yet. This is obviously a deletion discussion, not an admin noticeboard, so my rationale for deletion is that Magrathea has had no significant coverage in reliable sources, only very brief mentions. A (non-autobiographical) article could be written if he or his campaign gain more coverage. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage that exists is WP:1E. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert, block, ignore. This is nowhere close to the notability of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. On a side note, I agree with IgnorantArmies about the relisting. Tigraan (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic example of BLP1E. –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Yoran[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. He doesn't have a Russian language article, although there is a German language article. Successful, but not notable. Tagged for notability for seven years. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: The Haunted Angel, Brewcrewer, Kvng. Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only album he ever released was a set of Bach Cello suites. It seems to have been on a minor label (not Deutsche Grammophon, Sony, EMI, Decca or the like, or even Naxos). The Wikipedia article mentions a book by the name of "Russian Cellists: Alexander Ivashkin, Sergey Antonov, Leonid Gorokhov, Misha Quint, Victor Yoran" in its bibliography. I tried to track down this book, but according to Google Books, it is just a copy of Wikipedia material: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Russian_Cellists.html?id=zdeOSQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y. I do not doubt that he was a cellist of some repute - he played at the Carnegie Recital Hall: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TzRCUGkvrmgC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=%22victor+yoran%22+cellist&source=bl&ots=jsZXb6GKOn&sig=ALb-eTsrRgUUz33RifTmArDGjOc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gSIdVZeVJePYmAXrq4G4BA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=%22victor%20yoran%22%20cellist&f=false. However, overall, I do not think that he meets the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" that are listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). For example, he has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" or "released two or more albums on a major record label". Syek88 (talk) 11:11, 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, Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Neutral on this-he has a German article and seems somewhat notable but on the other hand.... Wgolf (talk) 18:37, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails all criteria of WP:MUSICBIO as far as I can tell. Tigraan (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:58, 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. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter days[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: I can't find any coverage of this film in reliable sources, only coverage I can find about this film is in self-published sources. Esquivalience ^t 02:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Jordanian title:(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)

Delete This may well be an award-winning film,[18] but being produced at (or by) the Red Sea Institute of Cinematic Arts, it is (likely) a student short film. Lacking reliable sources, we have a failure of WP:NF. Best wishes to filmmaker Amjad Rasheed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC) - and an Addendum: Reliable non-self-published sources ARE available,[19] but not enough to show WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 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 02:23, 7 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) 04:36, 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 keep. per SK1 (Nom withdrawn) - I never usually close this way but had Dialectric & Boleyn been awake I'm sure they'd of changed there !vote so going out on a limb & speedy keeping it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CutePDF[edit]

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

Unclear notability of what is described as "adware" on list of PDF software and its talk page. Be..anyone (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Ref provided is a how-to article, and only a single independent ref is insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no further singnificant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:06, 6 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 02:21, 7 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) 04:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything to establish its notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as surprisingly does pass GNG, Not sure how I never found naff all but there we go . –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Developing Portfolios in Education". pp. 160-.
^ Schildermans, Jozef (30 March 2011). "Deel 2: CutePDF Professional". Computable.
^ "Technology: 'CutePDF Writer' is easiest for saving file". Winston-Salem Journal.
^ "Complete PDF Forms on the Cheap with CutePDF Form Filler". PC World. 13 January 2009.
^ Shultz, Greg (9 October 2003). "TechRepublic Tutorial: Create your own PDF files for free with CutePDF Printer". Tech Republic.
^ Scott, Amy. "How to Use CutePDF With a Scanner". Azcentral.com.

Copied in essence wholesale as references. I'd really like some references for the malware issue better than lots of the usual "software exists" sites like PC World (2 of 3 kept). –Be..anyone (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are a few articles: [20] from PC World about CutePDF Writer; [21] from PC World about CutePDF Professional; [22] from PC World about CutePDF Form Filler; [23] from The Washington Post about CutePDF Writer; [24] from CNET about CutePDF Writer; [25] from Chip.de about CutePDF Writer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chip ignored, it triggered some "German" tracking category and won't offer new insights above the PC World reviews, Washington Post FAQ added, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - fwiw in the world of patenting, cutepdf is pretty well known b/c it always generates pdfs that the USPTO's e-filing website (which is very picky) will accept, per:
- instructions from USPTO
- a patent blog
- patent law blog Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not touching patent stuff unless I must, please add it to the article if you think it's good. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination , one sentence with eight references is an acceptable stub. Non-admin close as withdrawn isn't possible at the moment, because two contributors supported the deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dialectric & Boleyn to make them aware of the sources provided. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 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) 06:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midreshet Yeud[edit]

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

This program does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. It is possible that sources may exist in another language, so I am bringing this to the AfD noticeboard rather than proposing deletion for higher visibility. Please leave me a message on my talk page should appropriate sourcing be located. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be more out there in Hebrew, but I'm not seeing significant, in-depth, reliable, third-party coverage .... Neutrality^talk 16:06, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:18, 7 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) 04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG that we can see (and can be re-created at a later date if someone can verify its notability). Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd of preferred to Keep in the hope it could be expanded, Problem is I can't find naff all myself so not entirely sure anyone else can either, Plus I'm not all that convinced it'll ever be expanded beyond what it is now, So unfortunately with that in my mind and the fact it fails GNG I'll have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 14:57, 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Sludge[edit]

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

Somehow this article came back after being voted delete per csd-has been tagged for notability for 7 years now and still has nothing that makes it stand out. Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This website doesn't seem to be famous in its own right, and only brushes up against fame (such as the unreferenced mention on VH1 claim). Also, the article is a mix of present and past tense, but it seems to be defunct, so in its short life it didn't do anything particularly noteworthy. I was going to say merge it with the article about the founder, but he was already merged with another article, so this seems like a topic on the far periphery of topics that already barely clear notability.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 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 02:17, 7 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) 04:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bardin and Herostratus who both tagged this for notability. Pinging Merope, UtherSRG, Danny Lilithborne, koavf, My Alt Account, Mailer diablo, who participated in 1st AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. I tagged it for notability in 2007 when it was two sentences long and had no refs. It's certainly been expanded quite a bit since then, and some refs have been added. None of the refs are very good in the sense of being notable publications. There's not a mention in Rolling Stone or Spin (do they still have that) let alone the New York Times or whatever. Still... it's a lot more than just a stub. Somebody's put some work, love, and care into it.... the refs, while not notable, are not negligable, and some are sufficiently reliable to probably be true, I guess. I guess I'd say that notability is surely not established per WP:GNG, but on the other hand the Wikipedia is not paper and I don't see this as a particularly bad article... I'm not gonna vote. I'm just pointing out these things. The person closing can interpret my comment as she wishes. Herostratus (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website.--malconfort (talk) 23:47, 20 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. Nakon 00:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Rayyan[edit]

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

Contested prod-singer who falls under too soon (and I think this article was deleted before-or I might be thinking of a similar name.) Wgolf (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable sources, including links to the artist on audio site listing here singing. Nothing of real note. AlbinoFerret 20:24, 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 02:14, 7 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) 04:33, 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 delete and redirect to Michael Connelly#Terry McCaleb. Nakon 22:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry McCaleb[edit]

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

Fictional character long tagged for notability Wgolf (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged in 2009, only reference is to IMDB, time for this one to go. AlbinoFerret 18:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find at least one critical analysis of the character (as portrayed in film), but it's arguably not the most reliable source: a work submitted for an English B.S. (not graduate degree): Arifin, Khoirudin Listiawan. Personality In Terry Mccaleb, The Major Character Of Blood Work Movie: A Psychoanalitic Approach. Diss. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 2014. (pdf). If a peer-reviewed or otherwise published version of the dissertation can be found, that would help satisfy WP:GNG, but we'd still need multiple sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:57, 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 02:06, 7 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) 04:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Connelly#Terry McCaleb. Not independently notable, but valid search term. Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranee Campen[edit]

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

Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I just put a prod on this earlier and looks like it was recreated! Anyway-non notable actress Wgolf (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable according to the WP:GNG. In-depth interviews have featured in Lisa Weekly[26] and GM[27], both Thai print magazines, as well as Post Today[28], a daily newspaper. Not to mention tons of coverage in celebrity gossip columns in both print and online news publications.[29] --Paul_012 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. She is the leading actress in several TV dramas that is broadcast in 8:15pm-10:45pm primetime slot in TV channel that has number-one rating in Bangkok and number-two rating in upcountry. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:48, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 7 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) 04:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those listed above (bar the last cite) are images on forums so can't really be used, Other than this [30](She uses the name Bella btw) I've found nothing, Her thai name seems to bring up only mentions from what I can gather so she actually fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.... –Davey2010^Talk 15:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing what is being cited here. Those images are scans of print magazines, and it is those print magazines which are being referred to as reliable sources that establish notability, not the forum posts. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's my point A)They're on a forum and B} They're images (As far as I'm aware images aren't reliable sources). –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but I'm not sure how to explain better. Those images aren't being cited. The physical offline copies of the magazines (which you can find at a library) are. The links are merely to show that they (the magazine articles) exist, since most editors won't probably have direct access to those magazines. See Wikipedia:Offline sources for more on the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Paul 012 seems to have reason on his side. Anyway, I am now neutral on whether this lady is Notable or not. I will let somebody who reads Thai make a decision. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep - Well I still say they're images but meh it's all technical and I'm sleepy so meh Keep per sources provided ;). –Davey2010^Talk 20:19, 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 no consensus. Nakon 00:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chang dance[edit]

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

Term I am trying to find notability for (go figure when I try to find Change Dance all I seem to get is "chang dances") Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles have been added as references, plus loads of Youtube links (which aren't reliable sources). Doesn't seem enough to show good notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well when I tried to look up Chang dance as you probably can guess all I could find was stuff like someone with the name Chang dancing. Wgolf (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or, Merge with Culture of Rajasthan - This is a folk dance that is tied to an annual festival. Found multiple refs for the dance, but I fear the article needs a full rewrite if retained of its own accord mostly because it duplicates the summary section under the "time" and "area" sections. Here is what I found, for anyone that wants to get started:

Sharma, B. K.; Kulshreshtha, Seema; Rahmani, Asad R. (14 September 2013). Faunal Heritage of Rajasthan, India: General Background and Ecology of Vertebrates. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 30. ISBN 978-1-4614-0800-0. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
Pandey, Tripti (1 January 1999). Where Silence Sings: Sounds and Rhythms of Rajasthan. HarperCollins Publishers, India. p. 58. ISBN 978-81-7223-308-2.
Mathur, U. B. (2002). Treasure-trove of Rajasthan. Folklorists. p. 167. ISBN 978-81-85129-01-3.
Iqbal, Mohammed (2 March 2010). "Pink city plays host to colourful elephants on Holi". The Hindu. Retrieved 2 April 2015. ...bands were invited to lend the distinctive Holi music with drums and Chang... ← scribbleink ^talk 07:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: Incorporated some of my references and rewrote some parts, although half of it remains unclear/redundant. ← scribbleink ^talk 08:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable . There are multiple references available. I have improved the page little bit. Needs further improvement not deletion.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:23, 6 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 7 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) 04:31, 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. Sandstein 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards world[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources for this game, and article is little more than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Could be the case that references are in Russian, but I couldn't find any. Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 30 March 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) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:transwiki|ru}} ends up in Category:Proposed deletion as of unknown date 2015. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thibbs, have anything in Russian sources for this? czar ⨹ 02:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I don't have much in the way of Russian coverage past 2000... -Thibbs (talk) 03:33, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 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) 04:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 05:02, 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 merge to Raoul Heertje. Nakon 00:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedytrain[edit]

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

Comedy club that has been long tagged for notability, now maybe the fact that it was the first one there might be notable but, not sure if it warrants a article. Wgolf (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:42, 7 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) 04:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Raoul Heertje, the founder. I couldn't establish from the Dutch language Wikipedia article, this one or Google that Comedytrain is worth an article, but seems worth a section. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 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 no consensus. Nakon 22:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Blame a Girl for Trying[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, no evidence that this EP or the single ever charted The Banner talk 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - The EP was made by a notable person, so at a minimum, it should be redirected to Sabrina Carpenter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As notability is not inherited: the status of the singer in not of influence on the song. (And by the way, the article about Sabrina Carpenter is started by one Sabrina Carpenter.) The Banner talk 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - First of all, anyone can use any available user name. Second, assuming that Sabrina Carpenter is not notable, this discussion needs to take place at an AFD for her. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see that wrong, Jax, the notability of the singer is not of any influence on the notability of the song. That are to separate discussions. The Banner talk 04:42, 14 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) 04:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If found non-notable, alternative to deletion is to redirect to singer. Did this definitely not chart anywhere? Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I do not disagree that the notability of the song and the notability of the artist are two separate discussions. However, per WP:NSONG, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song". Per WP:NALBUM, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". Merging implies a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:10, 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Walendziak[edit]

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

Article this is a MAJOR coi, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Hell (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Follow Through (Band) Wgolf (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf I think you are getting carried away. This is a very factual article. Sourced by like 100 articles. This seems personal for some reason? 76.119.12.233 (talk)

Most of the sources don't seem reliable. Everymorning talk 23:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline? Story magazine? Famous Monsters of Filmland? Revelation Records? Paige Screenwriting Award? All of these articles are online or in print and have their own wikipeida pages. He has movie coming out. I'm having trouble seeing the ill intent here. 76.119.12.233 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has some presence in the horror film genre, fails WP:FILMMAKER. Geogene (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the band pages. It had nothing to do with this original article. I just wanted to put up the bands mentioned. Pulled the info from here. Sorry for the confusion. Dilbert Grapes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indeffed for sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craig mack378 Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has actual 3rd party references to works & write ups linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 7 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) 04:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets all requirements for WP:FILMMAKER. COI was irrelevant to article. Band pages were already deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 (talk • contribs) Continued abuse of multiple accounts to sway concensus per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craig mack378.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This IP was used by Craig mack378 as part of his sockpuppetry campaign. That account was blocked for 1 week, as was the IP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Wow. I just signed on after like a month. I'm not sure what is going on. Sock puppetry? I didn't even create this article! I added the picture. Ill take it down if that makes the crusaders happy? This easily meets all the guidelines for WP:FILMMAKER. I added the picture for completion sake. There is no way that this article should be 'objectively removed'. This whole thing is bizarre to me. This shouldn't even be up for discussion? Let alone RE-LISTED two times. Craig mack378 (talk) Striking !vote - confirmed use of multiple accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to sign on because this AfD page was protected today and this was the only way you could comment here again? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I would have signed in a month ago? I also would have commented the first time it was posted? There is no vast conspiracy here. This is why people don't contribute to wiki. Craig mack378 (talk)

Nobody's made any accusations of conspiracy, only sockpuppetry, which is the opposite of a conspiracy. Meatpuppetry would be a conspiracy, but I don't think "vast" is the right adjective here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I don't know who created the article. I know Dilbert. This has been cleared up in the last COI discussion. But, besides all this... this article is accurate and impartial. I will delete the photo I added if you want. Sorry about that. Craig mack378 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably stop mentioning the photo if I were you. Nobody's said anything about a photo and the photo isn't the central point of discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:03, 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 delete. Nakon 00:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise smart grid[edit]

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

Name is a registered trademark of Groom Energy.
Poor tone, reads like an advertisement
Created by author close to subject: user:Paul.baier appears to be an executive at Groom Energy
Lack of third party sources, only a link to Groom Energy's website and a link to IEEE's site, which doesn't even mention Enterprise smart grid.
Notability looks doubtful. Searching "enterprise smart grid" brings up webpages closely associated with the company. Forbes72 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:22, 6 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) 04:25, 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) 06:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taman Gopeng[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a housing development. I cannot find any significant coverage that would indicate that this is somehow notable. Whpq (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suburbs are notable. Housing estates ordinarily aren't, and I don't see any evidence, like coverage in reliable sources, suggesting this to be a special case. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 6 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 04:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is an unnotable housing estate not locality. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 20 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. Nakon 00:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jagger[edit]

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

Lacks notability. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see reliable coverage about a single event involving gambling so maybe a mention in a casino he was involved with, but as far as the person receiving significant secondary coverage, I don't see it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:22, 7 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 04:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no coverage in properly-sourced material from reputable, professional publishers: just lots of material on gambling websites. The best coverage I found was in a book whose main source was this Wikipedia article.[31] Other books/ebooks referenced their coverage to gambling websites.[32] So be very careful with any potential sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fowling (sport)[edit]

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

Appears to be a minor sport, failing WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While admittedly a "minor sport," this does indeed pass GNG as it has mainstream publications such as The Detroit News and The Detroit Metro-Times covering it. This is not to say that there isn't some BS to be pared from the piece. It does seem to merit a GNG pass, however. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:40, 6 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 04:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely local phenomenon with a scattering of local coverage. Something to pad a newspaper with on a slow news day. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India–Vanuatu relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There isn't really much to these relations except diplomatic recognition and a one off donation for a disaster. No state visits, no agreements , no significant trade. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Actually India-Vanuatu relations are more important than you think! Though trade doesn't make much of an impact to India, Vanuatu depennds quite a bit on India for its exports/imports. Agreements were also made when the Vanuatu dignitaries visited India. Overall, India makes quit a bit of an impact on Vanuatu, so we should keep the article. (Going to make some changes soon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindian1947 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources indicate that trade relations are growing rapidly between the two countries. Sources substantiate the claim and help the article pass WP:GNG.--TM 12:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about 1.5% of Vanuatu's trade is minute, and it is probably about 0.00000001% of India's foreign trade. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this partnership is vital for Vanuatu, especially after India's new pm Modi visited. India-Vanuatu relations are going to new heights this year.(check out the page for more info if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindian1947 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:47, 6 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 04:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So speculation about future relations cannot be done.

I don't think that India's program for cooperation with the Pacific nations should be put into the article on India–Vanuatu relations, unless Vanuatu has been given special mention within this program. This content could perhaps be taken to a new page, India-Oceania relations.

Similarly, the fact that Vanuatu was the only Non-Aligned Movement member in Oceania, with the rest being part of the Western Bloc seems to be a notable fact, but I don't see what it has to do with India.

On the other hand, I think that the foreign aid given from India to Vanuatu recently is notable.

As for trade, this *might* be notable; I haven't made my mind up. Maybe it could be expanded. From this link:

While India's exports to Vanuatu was US$ 2.67 million in 2012-13, its imports stood at US$ 5.37 million. Asian Paints had set up a paints factory in Vanuatu. Tatas have exported some 'Sierra' vehicles. About 100 persons of Indian origin, mostly Fijians, are residing in Vanuatu. India has offered Duty Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme for LCDs to Vanuatu.

Orthogonal1 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the India-Oceania relations might work, though it wouldn't include NZ and Australia.
India was also part of the Non-Aligned Movement. Vanuatu being a member made it have relations with a whole lot more countries. (Soviet Union, India etc.)
Trade is obviously growing between the two countries. But I believe it is a core part of their relations as they are pretty far away.

Hindian1947 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being members of the same movement doesn't necessarily add to notability. For example. Many nations are members of United nations but doesn't mean they have notable bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the Non Aligned Movement! During the cold war. Being the ONLY country in the pacific to join is pretty big. Anyone who joined the NAM was basically a friend of the SU, India and many other countries.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Ruston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD closed as no consensus with one keep and one delete vote - tpo few comments for a consensus. I'm hoping this time we can change that, especially as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Pinging those who have been involved in discussing his notability before: Vrac, Bearian, Slp1. Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

Fritzl art 'not for shock value'. BBC News.
The Neo-Modern Myth. Aesthetica.
Alumnus Artist Makes his Mark on European Art Prize. The Gateway Extra. De Montfort University. pp. 6-7.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 29 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He's covered in a significant and non-trivial manner by multiple reliable secondary sources, as shown by NorthAmerica. WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 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 04:05, 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 Wikinomics. Sandstein 19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ideagoras[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE as a concept. There are companies called this. Possibly worth merging to Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything#Concepts. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; time for resolution. Pinging those involved in commenting on its notability before:Robofish, Malick78, Random Fixer Of Things, Dchall1. Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikinomics. I would say Merge, except that this article has almost no content worth merging - only the first sentence perhaps. This term doesn't seem to have become notable enough to justify a separate article. Robofish (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 6 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 03:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't oppose the suggested redirect. Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitumen-based fuel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has now been tagged for notability for 7 years. Merge discussion attracted two comments, one in support, one opposed. Last year's AfD was not able to reach a consensus, partly because of suggestions around a potential merge. I'm hoping a thorough conversation this time will resolve the issue. Pinging all involved in discussing its notability previously: Stalwart111, Beagel, Harrison2014, Rpclod, Kvng, Human.v2.0; originally tagged for notability by Kingturtle; Bearian and G. C. Hood involved in merge discussion. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge-it looks like it has had the discussion of being a merge for over a year now as it says on the top part of the article. Wgolf (talk) 16:11, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, the merge discussion after a year has 2 support and 1 oppose, I didn't feel, especially as nominator, that I could merge when it wasn't unanimous. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually there were some more supports for merger expressed during the two AfDs (e.g. like Wgolf above) but never added their comments separately to the merger discussion. Beagel (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would certainly think that a merge was a suitable outcome. Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 12 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 03:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Orimulsion (rather than vice-versa as per the merge discussion). Orimulsion is notable to stand as an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Orimulsion is a registered trademark for a particular product from a particular place. We should prefer a more generic title for the general concept. As an example of coverage of an alternative, please see Handbook of Alternative Fuel Technologies which discusses the production of synthetic crude oil from bitumen. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backwoods (cigar brand)[edit]

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

I see no evidence of notability, and no reason to expect any. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cigar brands. This is a major, mass-produced U.S. brand, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Content is verifiable, but apparently not enough coverage exists to qualify a standalone article. Source examples I've found only include a short article and passing mentions: The Hour (short article), The Bulletin, Cigar Aficionado, Cigar Journal, The Milwaukee Journal, Tobacco Journal, book source, High Times. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 29 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 6 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 03:46, 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. Sandstein 19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Boston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Self advertisement. Wcam (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinigng Qworty, Alan Liefting, MelanieN, Guoguo12, Davewild, who participated in last AfD, which ended in 'keep', and Revent who tagged it for notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'll comment later, but I took a quick look at the old AfD and the history. The version that was kept three years ago was this version. It was kept primarily because it included a number of references from the Boston Globe (although they were not cited in text). But none of them are there now. Shortly after that AfD, a user with an obvious COI username deleted everything and replaced it with puffery. After a brief but fierce edit war, they abandoned the puffery and wrote a slightly more factual version, which is basically the version we have now. It's pretty bad. Over the next day or two I will see if I can restore this article to Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I just spent half an hour reconstructing the article and adding references, to see if it meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I have concluded that it does not. It got a ton of publicity, mostly bad, when it first launched - kind of a media equivalent of BLP1E - but I found pretty much no outside coverage in the past nine years. Of course, the list of "notable people we have interviewed" does nothing for the notability of the publications or company. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 7 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 03:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MelanieN. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 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. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Nakon 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Batist[edit]

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

I do not think that this meets the notability guidelines on living people. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Danielle Batist has contributed to some of the biggest UK national and international publications, as well as interviewing the Dalai Lama. I have tagged pages with less notability for deletion and the community has deemed they should remain. I argue that Batist's credits make her much more notable than many other journalist pages that appear on Wikipedia, and thus this page should be retained. --Journotracker (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC) journotracker[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC (only passing mentions and quotes in sources), and the subject has not created or contributed significantly to a significant work that is featured in a independent book or feature-length film, or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. nor does the subject meet any other WP:JOURNALIST criteria. Esquivalience ^t 22:40, 6 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 03:46, 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. Nakon 00:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Romania[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent coverage. Article lacks content that shows the notability. The Banner talk 06:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More source links. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just looking at "News" I find an extra 2, 6, 1, 1, 4, 31 and 0 hits... The Banner talk 14:26, 29 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 6 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 03:45, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Crane[edit]

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

Non-notable film actress. She seemed to play a small role in a popular BBC television series. Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a view on notability but the nominator say she has a small role in a popular BBC televison series where the article show a bit more than one show including 33 episodes of Eldorado (TV series) which was a prime time soap in its day. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 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) 04:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Now I may not be a expert on BBC stuff, but she does have some sort of notability it appears and does have somewhat of a impressive TV listing. Wgolf (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Wgolf. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately I can't find anything on her at all, Granted she has starred in a lot of programmes but we don't judge on "How many shows she's been in", We judge on notability which for this person there isn't any...... –Davey2010^Talk 01:45, 7 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 03:42, 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 per policy based rational. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia University, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

This is a college campus, and any substantial information about the campus belongs on the main page for Arcadia University KKohn00 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Arcadia University. Not notable in its own right. Boleyn (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable by itself, but has reference to source into article Arcadia University Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:24, 7 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 03:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:GEOLAND, qualifies for an article as a populated, legally-recognized place. Confirmed on American FactFinder (U.S. Census). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This is a standard article for a populated place; it's not the same thing (and does not contain the same information) as the university article. Removal would just create an unnecessary gap in our gazetteer coverage. -Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for completeness. Also passes my standards. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 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 delete and redirect to Fadl Shaker. Nakon 00:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Aalam[edit]

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

Album with no notability mentioned or refs (and funny how it says living people on the bottom, pretty sure that this is not a living person) Wgolf (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ALS and per WP:ONEEVENT Longevitydude (talk) 23:46, 6 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 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If non-notable, the alternative to deletion is to redirect to Fadl Shaker, the singer. Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 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. Sandstein 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Parties for Change in Rwanda[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a one year old coalition. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 17:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:04, 6 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 03:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was debating whether to comment since I'm not an expert of politics but I think I can see the organization hasn't established much ground in that short amount of time. Multiple searches only found one link and it's the jambonews link. I would suggest moving the article somewhere else but I don't see a target. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 20 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese mobile phone culture[edit]

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

Insignificance and emptiness Shultc (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopaedic topic. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was hard to decide. It is clearly a notable topic which secondary sources have covered in depth. WP:I don't like it, the article that is because it is a collection of vague statements. But probably that can't be helped.Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Potentially notable [33], but this state is largely unsourced and might consist of original research or synthesis. PS structurally the article resembles more of ZHWP's zh:日本手機文化. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC) PS 01:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean Up The topic has been covered in secondary reliable sources. ^[1] Unfortunately the article has too much unsourced info. That needs to be cleaned up and sourced. The information that is not sourced must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2009/09/02/reference/cell-phone-culture-here-unlike-any-other/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and copy edit. Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is almost nothing allocate to Japan in the article. I am from Latvia, and almost everything from this page can be said about cell phones in Latvia. Need more singularity, or page can be renamed into something like "Mobile phone culture in Japan, Baltic and many other countries" --Shultc (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Shultc: The sources I provided all concern Japan specifically. This discussion is about the notability of this particular topic, rather than other countries. More sources would be needed to qualify an article with the expanded title you suggest above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 21 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! 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specter of Newby Church[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this ghost and it appears to be a hoax Frmorrison (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've rewritten the thing and added sources and the image itself. This is one of the most famous 'ghost' pictures ever taken. If somebody could find a way to delicately end the last paragraph with 'there is no such thing as a ghost' whilst remaining pleasant, it would be appreciated. It's just hard to find mainstream sources for these things, even when overwhelmingly culturally relevant. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would edit it myself but I'm too scared to look! Thincat (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Frmorrison, which part appears to be a hoax? The photo itself or the existence of the photo at all? That the photo itself might be a hoax is irrelevant if the hoax itself is notable. If you are suggesting no such photo exists and that this article is a WP:HOAX, that's different. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the picture is a hoax, but if people have written about (previously there were no references or pictures) the article may be notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right, understood. Yeah, I'm probably with Panyd in terms of notability - weak keep. But I totally get why it was nominated. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:10, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - Updating, I can see this has been floating around since 2009...if someone can get their hands on the magazine referenced in here to view, then I would be convinced it's a real article on wiki, not a hoax made by people scamming the wiki. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)IamM1rv (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless the fabric of the universe has been ripped I think we can all safely assume this isn't actually a ghost. A quick Google will tell you this particular story and photograph go together and are 'for realsies' though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless the fabric of the universe has been ripped I think we can all safely assume this isn't actually a ghost.

... Irrelevant to the article or lacking neutrality @Panyd: -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But not, I feel, irrelevant to the original suggestion that the article may be a hoax. As there was initially some confusion over what criteria we use to judge something a 'hoax' - a light response seemed fine. I think you'll find my coverage (and original re-write of this article), quite up to par neutrality wise. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:35, 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 redirect to Pacific Magazines. Sandstein 19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K-Zone[edit]

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

No sources, no claim of notability ViperSnake151 Talk 21:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete search didn't turn up any reliable secondaries so per WP:GNG I say delete.Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:52, 7 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 03:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an Australian having grown up with this magazine, I'm kind of disappointed to see this come up for deletion, but without third party coverage, I guess it has to. Anyway, I'd like to propose that TotalGirl get included with this deletion request as well. It is created by the same company, and both magazines appear to be similarly non-notable. Orthogonal1 (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget this and TotalGirl to Pacific Magazines which are their parent company. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pacific Magazines. A fairly well-known magazine, but I can't find much in the way of decent coverage.Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:03, 21 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. Nakon 04:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krank Amplification[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, Google search does not yield any good reliable sources about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 6 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 03:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete - A Google News search found a few results but nothing solid. Further searches found nothing else and I'm not going to even continue. Use by obscure artists is not notable, not much to improve. SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 20 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. Nakon 04:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Abaji Bhise[edit]

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

Patent holder and inventor, who likely does not meet the criteria for notability. Needs reliable sources to that end, if they can be found. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while a prolific inventor, I cannot find any reliable references to indicate that he was noticed for these ideas. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a pointy nomination in response to the deletion of the recreated article Sachin Lokapure. The SOCK that created that article used this as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS example and said they would start nominating articles for deletion.
The subject of this article invented the Bhisotype Single Typecaster - See Bhisotype: The Method and Economy of the New Single Type Caster and Composer. This passes WP:ANYBIO as the contribution was notable in the evolution of printing.
For some background on the article subject see [40]Note: This is from National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources. See About NISCAIR it is RS and already cited.. Another source is Dhumatkar, Abhidha The Indian Edison in Economic and Political Weekly Oct 16, 2010 Searching the web I have seen reference to a Scientific American article but I do not have access to the archives. There is likely more information in Indian sources for those who know the language. Jbh (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the closing admin, the sock that Jbhunley is referring to is Abhijit mane (talk · contribs) and the deleted talk page at Talk:Sachin Lokapure. I'm not sure I would classify this as a pointy nomination though as Quinto Simmaco is not a sock of Ramsham12345 (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable figure Educationtemple (talk) 19:51, 13 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 03:18, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Jihad[edit]

its all about the failure of a campus love and now it is in the hands story makers with their own titile version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshibum (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the article doesn't satisfy notability guidelines as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Having a few newsreports(even if they are from reliable sources) do not warrant a separate article.

The core of the article contain synthesised information - the sources mostly talk about a court case and allegations by some organizations about "Love Jihad", but there is no other reference about the existence of such an organization or its "activity" as it is put in the article. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 09:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced, but needs a cleanup UltraMagnus^speak 12:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not have a problem with the sources - but within the sources, the term "Love Jihad" has only vague references. As it is a non-existing organization, it is unlikely to get cleaned up or improved and we should think whether we need an article for every reference in every newssources Zencv^{Lets discuss} 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - well, that is because it is a concept, not an organisation. --UltraMagnus^speak 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Can you go through the sources and present the concept in a way that is suitable for an article? You are welcome to give it a try Zencv^{Lets discuss} 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel Zencv Gaming to kick out the article (s)he don't interested. Currently article is well sourced and every source has the phrase "LOVE JIHAD" top to bottom--Purger.kl (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) — Purger.kl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Whatever you feel, as this comment is the only edit you made in WP altogether, read good faith. An article's merit is not based on the number of phrases occuring in the article Zencv^{Lets discuss} 08:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You previously said "the term "Love Jihad" has only vague references", now saying it is not important--Purger.kl (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Where did I write about importance? I only wrote that those vague references are conveniently synthesised to present "Love Jihad" as an activity. Anyway, what was your point when you wrote every source has the phrase "LOVE JIHAD" top to bottom??? I can start any article where I can fill it with phrases top to bottom from the same sources. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I click on the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and see plenty of notable coverage of this. [41] I read through, and I see other notable mention in reliable sources as well. This is a real phenomenon. Dream Focus 14:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no such phenomenon. TOI is a RS, but it only mentions some allegations by some Catholic and Hindu orgs. which was then ordered by a court to investigate. The question is whether we have to cherrypick such a phrase from the source and create an article for a non existing activity for which there is NO proof and for which there exist no other sources Zencv^{Lets discuss} 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link I provided reads at the top

“

KOCHI: The Kerala HC on Wednesday directed the state government to provide information within three weeks on plans and projects of Love Jihad',

an organisation which allegedly converts young girls to Islam in the state.'

”

Its an organization, seen as noteworthy enough to get media attention, and that of a state government. Dream Focus 00:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newspaper sensation of the week. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a new concept and started to get attention in September 1,2 this term love jihad is used even in the PTI (Press Trust of India).All major news papers in India covered this news. I also feel Zencv Gaming to kick out the article he don't interested.:Lee2008 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read fourth point under WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article

”

— WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, fourth point

what do you think about this news (announcements, sports or tabloid) if you are taking about neutrality you can edit with sufficient evidence. Lee2008 (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Having this news in another article(eg: NDF, which had been accused of doing this "activity") in a context is OK, but I dont think these news merit an article of its own Zencv^{Lets discuss} 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However new a phenomenon it may be ("Newspaper sensation of the week.") it's certainly well-documented as a planned, organized effort. The fact that "The core of the article contain synthesised information." is irrelevant so long as we are not the synthesizers. -MBHiii (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is funny - I thought it is our job also to make sure that synthesised article don't make it unfairly. The starting sentence goes like "Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad is an activity under which young Muslim boys reportedly target college girls for conversion to Islam by feigning love." which is not supported by any source. We may have to change it to "alleged" activity as the sources just talk about an allegation. But then the article will have fair share of weasel words. Still comes the question, where to find sources which would support the existence of such an activity or organization. The only thing which can be written in the article about "Love Jihad" would be allegations and appeal by the court to investigate Zencv^{Lets discuss} 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how carefully you read the ref. cit. for that first sentence. About the only thing I'd support changing is "young Muslim boys" to "young Muslim men". -MBHiii (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have read the sources - there are 2 grave problems. 1) This whole thing is just an allegation(allegation is well cited, I dont dispute that) by some organizations and the decision by a court to investigate the allegation. 2) It is just overhyped and sensationalized - the incidents allegedly happened in some isolated parts of India - the way it is cited in the article given an impression that this is sort of a global activity(like Al Qaeda). In my opinion, it is impossible to put these things in a neutral way Zencv^{Lets discuss} 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-cited and growing phenomena that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. With respects to Zencv... and while not meaning to wax... Yes, Wikipedia might properly look askance at overhyped and sensationalized subjects or subjects whose existance is alleged. But real or not, once WP:GNG is met with coverage in reliable sources, the inclusion standards have been met. Dispite any editor's personal feelings about the subject itself, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with you with respect to verifiability, not truth, which is clear to me. The problem I find is that unlike Flying saucer, the respectable sources here are ambivalent at best whether there exists an organization called "Love Jihad", or in general what exactly is "Love Jihad". There are some polemic articles from questionable references which are cited in the article(Frontpage being one of them) which present as if it is truth. Flying saucer may be a myth popularized through television, but within that context, one can easily explain what Flying saucer is in a way that suits an article in any respectable encyclopedia. It is rather difficult in this case is the reason why we have sentences like So far, little is known about the group behind the "love jihad", but it is alleged to be linked to a fundamentalist Muslim group called the Popular Front of India and its student wing Campus Front - which they deny Zencv^{Lets discuss} 21:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems a metter for cleanup then, and not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So then perhaps we difer a bit on our interpretations of significant coverage that meets WP:GNG ? Few government bodies ever admit to problems until after the popular press has forced acknowledgement... so their waffling is of no surprise. That an ongoing problem is being investigated and given significant coverage in such reliable sources as Press Trust of India (1), Times of India, Express Buzz (1), Times of India (2), Times of India (3), Times of India (4), Christian Today, Zee News, The Hindu, Union of Catholic Asian News, Times of India (5), Express Buzz (2) (among dozens more exploring the subject), has convinced me that the WP:GNG has been met. And unlike Flying saucers or the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, this subject appears to have far greater substance and less smoke and mirrors or wishful thinking. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the allegations are hysterical, the existence (well sourced and notable) means this page should exist. Zencv's gaming and revert warring over this term is getting tiresome.Pectore^talk 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't reverted anything here - instead have been an active participant in the discussion. Not only that you failed to assume good faith, it looks like you barely read the article, its edit history and this discussion Zencv^{Lets discuss} 19:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 04:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerous[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand alone article. Furthermore, he has not received a single mention in reliable newspaper publications. All of the sources in the article are not reliable. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No useful sources were cited in the article. The Business Day publication still doesn't say a thing about the subject. Stanleytux (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete':- Obviously non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 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 redirect to Scotch Plains, New Jersey. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Marks[edit]

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

never elected to significant political office besides mayor of a town (pop. 22,000) � No other basis for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local politician. --Inother (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scotch Plains, New Jersey; fails WP:NPOL. Although there is no consensus for this, ideally I would like to see a list of mayors integrated within the history sections of articles for cities and towns. - Location (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scotch Plains, New Jersey; I have my doubts as to whether this is a plausible search term, but I guess there's no harm in a redirect. I also think Location's idea is a good one. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:56, 23 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 germanwings_Flight_9525. snow. We have a clear consensus not to have an article on libitiz and a redirect to the actual article is customary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Lubitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

per:

WP:BLP1E - " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three [listed] conditions is met" All 3 conditions are met. "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." 2 weeks later, coverage in WP:RS has mostly ended. BLP policy applies here because of WP:BDP. "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime"
WP:CRIME - "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The existing article is Germanwings Flight 9525.

Also see arguments here: Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525#Merge_from_Andreas_Lubitz. All important information has been merged. I am not opposed to making this a redirect following consensus. Andreas Lubitz's only notability is for the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash which has had its own article since before this one. 2 AfDs have been done already on this article. The first was withdrawn by nominator (with a clear intent to later re-nominate) 5 hours after nomination without allowing for a consensus to form, and the second was procedural closed because it was too recent from the end of the first one. It has now been 2 1/2 weeks, I ask that we allow the discussion to take its course. ― Padenton|✉ 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn due to closing of Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525#Merge_from_Andreas_Lubitz. I believe that all editors who voted against the decision presented their arguments there as well, and I linked this AfD in that discussion clearly shortly after creating this, so it is fair to assume the arguments here were also considered. ― Padenton|✉ 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the 3rd and 4th nomination, delete on 5th, then restore there is sufficient information for a fork off the main article. New details are emerging about his life each week after his death. Extending the rights of living people to dead people for up to two years is an incredibly silly concept. Maybe we can use the rules for dead people for up to two years before a person dies, if we know they have a terminal illness. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): If you disagree with a wikipedia policy, the customary place to dispute it is WP:VPP. AfD arguments should be based on wikipedia policy. ― Padenton|✉ 03:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key factor in your argument is contentious or questionable material about the dead. Nothing in the article is "contentious or questionable material" to award a two year extension of the rights of living people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy recent rulings as explained above. --Inother (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Add the following to the list of rationales:

WP:CONTENTFORK - "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided."

Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The case for deletion is well made. The only material in this article which is not related to the main article is non-encyclopedic fluff. Mattojgb (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ONEEVENT Specifically says if the person has a significant role in a significant event they should have their own sub-article, i understand the moral issue for some but this is not based on policy, bad people are written about too. This guy through his heinous actions has changed airline/aviation policy alone, as this is only the second suicide-by-pilot commonly cited by such with over 100 fatalities, which i may add the other pilot has such an article. The parapsychology of his depressive state is going to be cited and as such is worthy of an encyclopedia entry for that reason alone. Why not wait for the merge discussion to end? Also deletion is not the right place for this discussion, the discussion is if it should be merged not outright deleted. They are already talking about his parapsychology here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-spector-md/pilots-patients-and-publi_b_7030988.html, which as written two days ago is ongoing coverage which you claim has "mostly ended". GuzzyG (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: You skipped over the rest of the 'significant role ....' paragraph. It goes on to say "The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Later in the WP:CRIME section, it also says " Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Heavy coverage has already dropped off 2 weeks after the incident. ― Padenton|✉ 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3036565/Lufthansa-face-corporate-manslaughter-charges-Germanwings-disaster-psychiatrists-allowed-suicidal-pilot-return-cockpit.html http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/germanwings-disaster-europe-force-germany-change-privacy-laws-after-suicide-crash-1496004 What evidence is it going to magically stop as soon as legal action is very likely to be taken? How would it improve the encyclopedia if a reader wants to read about his parapsychology and gets redirected to an article about the crash and not his bio where that information would be in the right place, the bio might be badly written but that is not a reason to delete, that kind of information is not in the flight article anyway. Rare extreme cases like this people will linger in people's minds and thus is a viable encyclopedic entry for the psychology and criminology communities, like i must repeat this has only happened one other time and will likely not happen again due to new laws pushed through because of this incident. He fits WP:PERP number 2 perfectly anyway "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" which considering it is only the 2nd confirmed suicide-by-pilot with over 100 casualties, yes it is, also this "...devotes significant attention to the individual's role" which considering his psychopathology is brought up he fits that too! GuzzyG (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: That people want to read about his parapsychology is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. This is not a rare or extreme case in any way, shape, or form, and there is no evidence supporting an article for the sake of the psychology and criminology communities. When there are academic papers published in journals, then you can claim it is important for the psychology and criminology communities. All of your claims fail WP:TOOSOON. "this has only happened one other time" is unsourced. "will likely not happen again due to new laws pushed through because of this incident." is WP:CRYSTALBALL, and dubious. Also, there are no laws pushed through, only policies (and only in a handful of countries). The motivation for the crime or execution of the crime is not unusual or noteworthy. The motivation was suicide, which is even more common than homicide in most developed countries. The execution of the crime is not unusual in any way. He's a pilot. He committed suicide. He took people with him. Nothing unusual or noteworthy in that. Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:MEMORIAL). There is no significant attention to the individual's role. Significant attention requires historical significance of the event. Standard breaking news coverage of an incident directly following it is not significant attention. You can tell as the news reports have mostly stopped a week after the incident. ― Padenton|✉ 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: "He's a pilot. He committed suicide. He took people with him. Nothing unusual or noteworthy in that." Source me three suicide attacks with over 100 casualties on a commercial flight (Not including 9/11), good luck. GuzzyG (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: Explain to me how the body count makes it 'unusual.' ― Padenton|✉ 19:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)w[reply]

Because the rest are with small single pilot deaths, the best thing to say would be three commercial flights. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG which trumps everything above. A person of a major event. world press etc etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If GNG trumped the above, the above wouldn't be Wikipedia policy.... GNG also requires that the subject is not excluded by WP:What Wikipedia is not (stated in the lead), which it is, here: WP:NOTWHOSWHO. It also says in WWIN that biographical articles are required to meet the notability requirements in WP:Notability (people) and it says that right here: WP:NOTMEMORIAL. So GNG actually doesn't trump any of the above. ― Padenton|✉ 19:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, " means he passes whos who, with his psychopathology coverage, memorial is passed unless you consider stuff like us holding a memorial for Hitler and other criminals, that guideline was meant for editors dead friends and family. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: I knew we'd reach Hitler eventually. WP:GODWIN always comes through in the end. On another note, do you want to rethink your claim that it's unusual for someone diagnosed with depression to commit suicide? ― Padenton|✉ 14:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You brought him up when you erroneously suggested our articles on people are memorials like we are findagrave.com, i have asked you to cite 3 people committing suicide by bringing down a commercial plane not including 9/11 and i see that you have failed, this is not another Suicide of Amanda Todd this is a muder-suicide with 150 fatalities, it is thus, very rare by definition. The man might be heinous but he is a notable heinous man, he has got worldwide coverage on 6 continent and his actions have long lasting policy changes, i rest my case, but id love for you to cite more then 3 non-911 confirmed commercial plane suicides since they are so common to you. GuzzyG (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 3rd nomination. I endorse Padenton's suggestion.--Infinite0694 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes third nomination within a small amount of time. In which the first two ended in a definite Keep. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue (as said above). 1st was withdrawn by nominator 5 hours after nomination, 2nd was a procedural close. Neither ended in 'a definite keep'.― Padenton|✉ 14:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, there's no need to counter every person who missed an earlier point. A decent closer can figure it out, unless we've added so much clutter that that becomes impossible. Just a comment from the cheap seats, carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an appropriate fork of Germanwings Flight 9525. Above and beyond his role in the crash, there has been a significant amount of independent reliable and verifiable coverage in sources about him and his role in the crash. This will clearly be a continuing topic of coverage as the investigation continues and in the the media in the years ahead. Come back next year and see if the independent claim of notability has vanished. Alansohn (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been an ongoing discussion at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525#Merge from Andreas Lubitz for over two weeks with 69 bulleted responses (merge/don't merge/comment...not including threaded discussions and the notice of this deletion discussion...my count might be off by 1 or 2, but not many). I think the closing admin should consider all the comments in that discussion when evaluating this AfD. However, deletion is entirely and clearly inappropriate for this article, the only solution should be a discussion about whether or not to merge this article into the Germanwings Flight 9525 article. I think the appropriate course of action is to request a closure of the merge discussion, not to have discussions in multiple places, and believe this AfD should be closed to let the outcome of the merge proposal be final (the editor who nominated this AfD participated in the merge discussion and was aware of it). I have requested the merge discussion's closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. AHeneen (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I request immediate closure of this AfD per Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525#Merge from Andreas Lubitz discussion of merging which has been going on for quite some time it seems. Period. This AfD should not have been started, especially not since we have had two previous AfD discussions on the matter within a short time period.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to discussion on article talk page per above. This nomination, intentionally or not, is a process fork. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP, have never felt more strongly When a significant incident occurs, and someone is a significant part of that incident, a separate article is generally appropriate. 2nd point, and I know this will cause an editor to trot out the "Otherstuffexists" guideline, which at this point has become a red herring, but in other cases, the reason we have a Timothy McVeigh page is because it explores his psyche and motivations behind the Oklahoma City Bombing. This is the same reason we have an article about the Columbine shooters, the Boston Marathon bombers, etc. Now, should it turn out that the saturation level reporting, and consensus among investigators, is all wrong, and Lubitz did NOT deliberately murder 149 people, then hey I would actually support a speedy delete of this article. But evidence of his culpability is compelling, and the issue needs to be studied, in depth, in its own article. While I always assume good faith, the separate and ongoing merge discussion is an absolute stale mate and likely to fail due to a lack of consensus, and this AfD seems a last ditch effort by those most passionate to see this article go away to get their way. It's very misguided, and should be acknowledged as such. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:BIO1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Well, the event IS highly significant as it has led to many airlines adopting a "rule of two" procedure for flight decks. And the role of Lubitz IS a large one because he caused it! WWGB (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article meets the requirements of WP:BIO1E for a separate article. The article is needed for the degree of psychological information that has come to light and more that will as the investigation is completed, that is not appropriate for the crash article. Also let's please complete this debate and close it properly so that we can stop the endless AfD and merger debates and get on with writing the articles instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 178.19.229.36 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unneeded duplicate/content fork of Germanwings Flight 9525. This person is only notable in relation to the event and there is nothing on the bio article that cannot be adequately covered on the event article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough for WP:BIO1E, based on the impact of his actions and influence on airline industry -A1candidate 22:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, In the presence of keep votes citing policy based rational, we cannot merge until the outcome of this discussion. Speedy merge is no longer appropriate, the closer of the RfC was expected to allow discussion to take place here, I believe Guy may have missed that this was in AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finish Merge to Germanwings Flight 9525, then delete per nom. This article has nothing that cannot be merged into the Germanwings Flight 9525 article without any loss of information. I voted against deletion last time, because it looked like there were likely to be significant developments in this article, but this hasn't happened. -- The Anome (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Valoem:We can ask him. JzG did you see and take into account the arguments in this AfD that was linked in the merge discussion here? ― Padenton|✉ 16:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not reason for deletion, the close was incorrect, WP:BIO1E is actually the reason this passes, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. There has always been large confusion regarding ONEEVENT, people often misinterpret this guideline as a means to delete people involved in notable events when in actuality it is a reason to retain. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking him here to vote one way or another and this comment was not intended as in favor or against deletion. I pinged him so that he could comment himself on what you are alleging. If you feel you must challenge his closing, the proper steps to do so are here: Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. ― Padenton|✉ 17:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took account of both sides of the argument. As I said, it is a narrow thing. A merge is not a deletion. Time can change things - maybe one day there will be a published biography, for example, as there is for people like Lee Harvey Oswald. For now, the arguments relating to basic human decency and proper sensitivity to difficult issues of mental illness, seem to me to outweigh those based on the volume of (rather prurient) media coverage. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A merge is not a deletion, and if sufficient information arrives to generate sufficient content to make a stand-alone article, it can be split out again. But at the moment, there not really much to tell about Lubitz; a troubled and selfish man, a fit of pique, a suicide. A subsection in the main article about the crash is sufficient. -- The Anome (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing better than appeals to emotion concerning "basic human decency and proper sensitivity" when you want to override WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per per nom. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIME. Lubitz is notable for one thing only, and there is no justification for a separate biography. I am unconvinced that extending WP:BLP1E via WP:BDP is itself a valid reason to delete an article, but in this case it is unnecessary, since WP:CRIME covers the issue anyway. I would add that few of the keep !votes above appear to actually give an explanation for why encyclopaedic coverage of a single event needs to be split into two articles. How does it benefit our readership to split coverage in this manner? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 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. Nakon 04:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given, Required, Analysis, Solution, and Paraphrase[edit]

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

No indication anybody's noticed this acronym/procedure. Zero references and a paltry one mention here. Even its creator is identified only as Kaufman. Borderline speedy A7. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passing mention: [42]. Blog: [43]. I won't deny the possibility that it is really taught in schools, but that there is no sources to firmly support is cause for deletion. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mention in one published book and some scattered online course materials does not add up to notability nor sourceability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, across several Google searches reconfigured for alternative spellings of the name (and a few major database searches). (?) czar ⨹ 22:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Detele This is definitely one of those passing fad neologisms, it isn't covered in sources, etc. etc. Should be deleted. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. Just somebody's own opinion? Not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 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 delete and redirect to Dark_Angel_(TV_series)#The_12_original_escapees. Nakon 04:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ann Cabasa[edit]

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

Tv actress who basically all of her roles were just for a few episodes as minor characters. The only show that looks like she had anything notable in was Dark Angel (TV series) (which might be the best to redirect her to there) Wgolf (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possible redirect to Dark_Angel_(TV_series)#The_12_original_escapees where she is listed. Multiple searches found (only TV listings) some results but nothing good. Obviously, this appears to be another case of a retired actress with a few TV roles and maybe no future plans of continuing acting. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 20 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. Nakon 04:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Boudrari[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 6 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Young businessman CEO of a probably non-notable company and multiple searches including only gave me that same agenceecofin source. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 20 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. Nakon 04:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fit TV[edit]

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

Short lived tv channel with no info to be found other then what is listed already. (as a note this is different then FitTV as said in the hat note) Wgolf (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete - Multiple searches found nothing and I would've suggested moving to AB Groupe but Fit TV is not listed there. Nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 20 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) 06:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Singh Burdak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can find nothing but mirrors etc for this person. The one cited source is that of a caste-affiliated pressure group who like to "big things up". Not every freedom fighter is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term, even though they may have been a local hero. Sitush (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-looking over the history it seem to have a long history of a copyright violation until 2010. Then after that nothing really exciting it seems. Wgolf (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I performed one Google Books but to no avail and there's not much else to help search. Maybe he was notable locally or there's a language barrier but, if he's notable, it's better to translate and remake it and I'm not sure what to make of the one reference listed. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the one source that is there, a samaj is an organisation. In this case, it can be loosely translated as the Jat Caste Society. They are pressure groups who often produce pseudo-histories to justify or improve their status in the wider caste system. That is why we deprecate them as sources. Sanskritisation was a significant factor in the rise of various samaj from the 1880s through to Indian independence, but the posturing continues today. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 20 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. and rename. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School for the Gifted[edit]

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

School I can't find any info for. Upon Googling it-I seem to get more stuff for X-Men! (I pretty much expected that) Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as can't find anything for this Non notable school - Not too keen on the name either.–Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiends findings, Although unrelated I also support moving to School for the Gifted (Gwagwalada). –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF this site is legit, and not something devised by a Nigerian prince trying to get his funds out of the country. But change the name to School for the Gifted (Gwagwalada). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sites indicate it's a real secondary school: [44], [45], [www.academicjournals.org/article/article1411990259_Olubunmi.pdf^{[predatory publisher]}], [46], [47] (p. 10). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a genuine secondary school. But I also agree with moving to a non-ambiguous title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 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 merge to Silkeborg#Yearly_events. Nakon 00:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silkeborg Reggae Festival[edit]

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

A festival that was not that long from what I can tell and the website has been long dormant it appears. I'm getting a few results on Google but not sure if its enough for Wikipedia. Wgolf (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short-lived, non-notable festival. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silkeborg#Yearly_events. Can't find any decent English references, though there could be some in Danish, if someone speaks the language. Earflaps (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I can imagine this was a festival that didn't receive much flight and attention from the beginning. Multiple searches found nothing including at The Copenhagen Post (though even I knew I wouldn't find anything). Nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 20 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] ttps://www.change.org/p/tony-abbott-show-us-your-papers-renouncing-your-british-citizenship-before-you-were-elected

[2] ttp://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/an-email-to-attorney-general.html

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Magrathea

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29

[5] ttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/wyeth-the-birther-barrier-is-holding-parliament-back/5744556

[6] ttp://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/

[7] "Developing Portfolios in Education". pp. 160-.

[8] Schildermans, Jozef (30 March 2011). "Deel 2: CutePDF Professional". Computable.

[9] "Technology: 'CutePDF Writer' is easiest for saving file". Winston-Salem Journal.

[10] "Complete PDF Forms on the Cheap with CutePDF Form Filler". PC World. 13 January 2009.

[11] Shultz, Greg (9 October 2003). "TechRepublic Tutorial: Create your own PDF files for free with CutePDF Printer". Tech Republic.

[12] Scott, Amy. "How to Use CutePDF With a Scanner". Azcentral.com.

[13] ttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2009/09/02/reference/cell-phone-culture-here-unlike-any-other/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]