Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 April	19 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Scott (footballer, born 1870)[edit]

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

Contested Prod, a non notable footballer who played in one 19th century football series. The sources given on the page are to a football database with little information on the man other than that game he played in and the second appears to be a print directory of past football players from the 1990s. The subject doesn't pass WP:NSOCCER by not having played in a Tier 1 International Match nor in one of the leagues outlined by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. The player also lacks significant cover so delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I was not clear on how notability of historical sports players should be treated, and I now release that this nomination was in error. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played for Scotland at international level, meets WP:NFOOTBALL - needs improving, not deleting, to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the international he played in is listed at [1] - how is this not a tier 1 international match? Also played for team playing in league listed at WP:FPL. AFDing this article rather than improving it smells of WP:RECENTISM. Nfitz (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played international football (contrary to what nom claims), so does pass WP:NFOOTBALL. There is almost certainly much more extensive info on him in this book, I have ordered a copy (a bargain at £1.23!) and will have a go at improving the article......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: - good find on that source, I've just invested in a copy as well! Giant Snowman 17:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pioneer international player. Carrite (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for Scotland at International level passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:15, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination, non-admin closure (non-admin closure) ― Padenton|✉ 23:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Platform for NFV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be WP:PROMO ― Padenton|✉ 23:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Nom in error.― Padenton|✉ 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio of single source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Network edge device[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT ― Padenton|✉ 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation. Content comes ad hoc from the sole source. Even in absence of the copyright violation, this article is a case of neologism. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Talbott[edit]

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

This WP:FRINGEBLP has been up for deletion before, but there was some confusion in the past as to what qualified as a decent source for this article. We need to find independent sources -- that is sources that are not connected with the author and are not in-and-of-themselves WP:FRINGE. If you go through the lists of sources, you will find that there is one and only one source that rises to this level: Palmer's Perilous Planet Earth. This book mentions the author in a list exactly once.

It's also fairly clear that this person does not pass the WP:AUTHOR requirements for notability in that fashion. jps (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and GNG. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Trusting Nom on triviality of that first reference. Certainly, to read links on page or look up these theories is to wade into a black swamp of crank pseudo-science. I suppose that cranks can be notable, but I cannot find that Talbott has gained notability outside a small, fringy bunch of fellow cranks, not in reliable or mainstream sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to be a coat rack for the subject's psuedo-scientific theories. As far as I can tell the sources appear to be mostly Fringe and severely fail WP:RS. While it is possible that the subject might be notable, as it stands the article fails WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Much better sourcing, coupled with a complete rewrite will be needed to salvage this article. And thus far I have not been able to find enough RS coverage to ring the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the re-nomination: This si the fourth nomination. The first was made by Nondistinguished, the second by ScienceApologist and the current one by jps. It should be noted that these are three incarnations of the same editor. This repeated renomination in the hope of eventual AfD-fatigue seems to be dangerously close to an abuse of process. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I take your point, the persistent efforts by crank devotees of truly fringe pseudo-science is also a kind of abuse of process, I mean that a handful of cranks can put up an article sourced only to a small cluster of non-notable self-published bunk, and keep it up through multiple AFDs, or through the inattention of editors who, rightly, devote long hours to writing, sourcing and maintaining good articles on real topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently describing those editors who have opted for "keep" in any of these four AfD discussions as "a handful of cranks". You'd do well to study WP:AGF. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading E.M.Gregory's comment. He was clearly referring to the creators of the article and more broadly, to those who use and abuse the project to promote fringe theories, which I am sorry to say is fairly common. That said, I read the three previous AfDs carefully as I share your concern about vexatious nominations. Conceding that I am not sure of what the article looked like at the time of the previous discussions, I will say that I was not impressed by the analysis or the arguments from the keep !votes. They largely ignored the issues involving DUE, and PROFRINGE while their interpretation of GNG seemed shockingly liberal to me. If the article was dramatically different back then, in ways that would have negated my concerns, I would be willing to reconsider my position. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment on the comment He made is explicit at FTN, before he took it to AfD, that he'd nominated it before several times. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Removed per WP:AE)

As far as I can tell the Palmer reference is trivial. I can't comment on Bauer because the link is dead. But GNG clearly requires in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Beyond which we still have the problem with WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE which make it clear you cannot mention fringe theories without presenting the orthodox explanation, and fringe theories cannot be given equal or greater weight that the correct version. Even if the subject is notable, which has not been established, DUE is policy which trumps WP:N. This article requires MUCH better sourcing and a complete rewrite in order to meet our standards. It is not acceptable in its current form and barring major improvements should be deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed per WP:AE)

This is not a minority view. It is patently FRINGE. From WP:PROFRINGE "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable." From WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." This article is a COATRACK for pseudo-scientific fringe theories. It massively fails both FRINGE and DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So much referenciness, and yet so little of substance. A namecheck in Palmer (presumably RS but trivial mention), Atlantis Rising Magazine, very very unreliable, a book by the subject (can't establish notability and advances the ridiculous Electric Universe theory to establish unreliability), a book about Velikiovsky, not Talbott, another book by the subject, an interview with the subject in an unreliable source, a staff listing (WP:OR), an unreliable source or four, another book by the subject, another book about Velikovsky... well, you get the picture. This article is a walled garden: a collection of circular references, an account of the beliefs of a crank drawn largely from his own words and without ever establishing notability independent of the great granddaddy of all cranks, Velikovsky. I have recently read a book on the history of Valikovsky and also Idiot America, I can find no mention in either, so this is clearly a crank mentioned only in some descriptions of works about another, much more important crank. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a low-notability WP:FRINGE topic has little coverage by independent sources, then it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 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. If anyone wants to merge anything, I will userfy on request. Deor (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Nuding[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Merge is possible but I wouldn't support it because there should be more sourcing than this for a blurb on a minor league page. PROD removed by an IP. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Muboshgu's reasoning.--Yankees10 00:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cleveland Indians minor league players. Alex (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The end comment that he "could" turn into a good player is just silly. Spanneraol (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to me, the purpose of pages such as 'Cleveland Indians minor league players' is to be holding docks for info about prospects that aren't quite notable yet, but may be in the near future. At this point, Nuding is not ever likely to attain such status. Therefore, I'm inclined to not favor a merge here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:40, 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 Close. Wrong venue, please relist at WP:MFD. Nakon 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Module:RfD[edit]

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

This module is entirely unused, and actually is incorrect in many ways. The way to list something at WP:RFD is to list it at WP:RFD, and the regulars of which I am one are very forgiving if people make some techinical mistake, we take things on sentiment and then go and check the facts, we don't go on whether you're a kestrel or a knave. There is simply no need for this and it is getting in the way because it was created by someone who has never been at WP:RFD, never sought consensus for it to be created. Entirely unnecessary and blocking searches by its presence. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue, and duplicate You already correctly filed this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:RfD. Why did you file it here too? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close as at wrong venue and already listed elsewhere.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:18, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 as the creator has been blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saachi Soni[edit]

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

The subject of the article is a student of Delhi University that is notable for one event. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:39, 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 23:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling's Greatest Fraud[edit]

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

This article is entirely a summary of the programme. It is not an article about the programme at all: none of the sources provided actually discuss it; they are all about the allegations contained in the documentary. As far as I can tell, the programme earned no great level of attention or critical comment.

The programme may be a useful source for articles such as History of Lance Armstrong doping allegations, but it is not notable in its own right. Relentlessly (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - National Geographic is notable of course but this one documentary is not, multiple searches found nothing aside from minimal sources at News. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 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 Withdrawn by nominator with only other delete !vote saying nothing more than "per nominator". ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interswitch[edit]

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

This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD. If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as nominator. My view is that sufficient changes have been made to allow this to remain. The article today cannot be criticised the way I have in the nomination. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per normOo7565 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message here on Timtrent's talk page – there are additional international sources (FT, Bloomberg, Forbes, The Banker, Jeune Afrique) that should establish notability. The 'regurgitated press releases' are all in Nigerian national newspapers with by lines but clearly there are issues to resolve so let's have a discussion about how to get it into better shape. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now redrafted based on better sources as per discussion with Timtrent here – see the article talk page for explanation. HOgilvy (talk) 18:48, 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. Erring on the side of caution here, if someone wants me to draftify (?) this so it can go through AFC at least please let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mikagehama[edit]

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

Excellent detective work from 220 of Borg found the original source, [2]. However, this is the only mention that either of us can find anywhere on the net. The article's content is copied entirely from that one source, and hence is not notable anyway, and quite likely a hoax (this is disputed) (noting that the source states many of the sections are "Modified from the Wikipedia article". Article is not notable, with no reliable sources. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this battle even seems to appear in the article for Ashikaga Takauji. Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's what I found too. It may have happened, but without a WP:RS for wp:Verifiability, we can't confirm it. I found Openhistory used as a source for 66 WP pages, [3] so we may have some more work to do! >:-/ 220 of ^Borg 17:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf: no, he seems a bit busy about 70km away in Kyoto (quote below from his article}: "

1351–1358 — Struggle for Kyoto.
1351 — Tadayoshi joins Southern Court, southern army takes Kyoto; truce, Takauji returns to Kyoto; Tadayoshi and Takauji reconciled; Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu are exiled". Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this is really a hoax. Maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is true there were several battles around 1351 between Ashikaga and Southern Court (see Kannō disturbance for the background.) The sourcing should be improved for sure. But the deletion? I don't think so. -- Taku (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 0 reliable sources for any battle at Mikagehama. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean "English sources"? -- Taku (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources via English Google. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point! 220 of ^Borg 17:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You (we) have to look deeper than that; for instance, Japanese print sources in libraries (probably in Japan). This is not s type of a topic Google is good at. -- Taku (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd there is no page on the Japanese wiki. Wgolf (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Wikipedia does have at least two articles on battles taking place in 1351. My guess is the article title might be misleading (there is more standard name for the battle). Also, remember Japanese Wikipedia is hardly comprehensive. -- Taku (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If in doubt don't throw it out. I don't believe this article is a hoax. It isn't nearly conspicuous or flamboyant enough. It is also notable given the topic. I would support research into the matter, the addition of sources and the expansion of the article. Failing this it should be retained to give someone else an opportunity to improve it. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trout71 Hoaxes aren't necessarily massively obvious. I would be interested to hear how this is notable, per WP:EVENT, this had no long lasting effect that I can ascertain, and it hasn't had coverage (at least in English, and I presume that if it was notable there would be, as there are no English sources, I suspect and (I may be wrong here) that TakuyaMurata has checked for Japanese sources). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate store of information that may or may not be notable, keeping it after 11 years has found no sources gives a strong indication of a lack of notability. In addition, this uses material from the source which is against the terms, and as such should not be used anyway. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No coverage as far as I can tell in any reliable sources. If anyone actually finds significant coverage, by finding appropriate Japanese sources, the article can be recreated, but as it stands now there is no evidence I see to suggest the battle ever took place. And by the way, 'If in doubt don't throw it out' is about as far from Wikipedia policy as you can get. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We may decide to delete for lack of sourcing, but it doesn't scream out "hoax" to me. Potential source? 1973 in German[4] "... des Kaisers Go-Murakami (Süd-Dynastie) über, schlug Taka-uji 1351 bei Mikagehama (Settsu) und unterlag erst 1352 bei dem hier erwähnten Kampf auf dem Satta-yama, wo er gefangengenommen und später mit Gift ermordet wurde." --Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just judging from Japanese sources on the net, one would be hard pressed to argue this was a hoax: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Some of the above sources are blogs (I just took what came up first in Google), but some are government sites and publications (the first one is from the official magazine of the Kobe City government; the last one is from Kobe's Higashinada Ward Office). Looking at these sources, it seems that that the battle at Uchidehama (ja:打出浜の戦い) was part of a series of battles that includes Mikagehama. Perhaps a trip to a good reference library would help confirm this. Michitaro (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding those. Perhaps merge to Battle of Uchidehama? Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a different battle than the one referenced (took place 200 years later).--Cckerberos (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I should have noticed that. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are apparently two "Battles of Uchidehama", with the English wiki only introducing the one in 1582 and the Japanese wiki only introducing the one in 1351. Many of the sources I found treat the two battles as a pair (as in "...in the battles of Uchidehama and Mikagehama"), but more research would be needed to determine if they can be put together or deserve to remain separate--or even just ignored. I should note that having looked at many AfDs for medieval Japanese history, my sense is that sources on the net are often insufficient, since apart from government sites I cited above (usually related to the local government tourist bureau), most sites in English and Japanese are run by fans and are thus not RS. Since there is this systemic bias, paper sources need to be consulted. Michitaro (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V unless explicit confirmation in a reliable source can be found. I can't read the Japanese sources, but the "Encyclopedia of Japanese History" can't be considered a WP:RS, apparently a one-man compilation giving no sources and no indication of what fact-checking has been done. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it might be worth someone having it moved to their userspace until it has enough sourcing to be moved back to mainspace. If someone wants to do that, and it ends up being deleted, I'll be happy to restore it and move it for them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreate if we can find sources that demonstrate this is notable. We lack sources proving it is real. However, every clash between armed groups is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't lack sources proving it was real. I have provided several from Japanese government institutions. That is no longer a question in this debate. The only question that remains is whether it is notable. Michitaro (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprised that the article existed for so many years. Noteswork (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: I'd like to take Nihonjoe up on his offer. Higashinada Ward is in eastern Kobe, where modern Mikage is located. For those wondering, Uchide is about 5 kilometres away in the neighbouring city of Ashiya. Even if general history books treat them as one and the same (or has confused the two over the centuries), I'm willing to bet that the local library in Mikage has some materials on what specifically happened in Mikage (and Otomezuka, which is also mentioned and is less than a mile from Mikage). But this is not something I'm going to be able to do in a hurry, so if the page could be shifted to my userspace I will work on it when I can. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping me when the discussion is closed and I can do that (or the closing admin can do it...either way will work). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- a one line stub with no citation is pretty useless. Assuming this is not a HOAX, the appropriate course is to convert it to a redirect, probably to the struggle of which it was part. Sorry, I do not know much Japanese history. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merger does make a lot of sense. The only problem is that we don't seem to have a target article, to which the article is merged, that covers the topic in a broader context. Clearly, what is needed is more work (on articles like this), citing sources and plainly more writing, and I don't think the deletion is a constructive step. -- Taku (talk) 18:51, 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 delete. Nakon 23:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cantando (Diomedes Díaz album)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence of charting. LibStar (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to improve the article, unlikely the album is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 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 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rowe Wallerstein[edit]

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

A member of numerous TV production teams, but fails the general notability guideline as has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article references are unreliable (IMDb) or passing mentions (familysearch and galactica.tv). The Variety obituary is too brief to meet the definition of "significant" and merely notes his passing. Searches have not revealed other references, though they're welcome if anyone has access to specialist publications to do with mid-century TV production. Otherwise, I suggest there's not enough here. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He produced several shows but there's not much about him. News and newspapers archive searches found nothing and a Books search found the usual with the browser finding the same as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 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 23:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The History Troupe[edit]

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

I see little evidence of notability, only some appearances in the local paper for Hull, and this fails to show the sort of national level of interest that would be required. _nonsense ferret 15:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep in addition to the two newspaper appearances there was on at [10] and [11] though the latter's independence is not clear. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two articles from the local Hull newspaper and something from the local town council website which falls very far short of notability per the guidelines. Are you unfamiliar with the provisions of WP:ORG and specifically the requirement to demonstrate interest at a national level per WP:AUD? --_nonsense ferret 13:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, a single non-local (doesn't need to be national) source is sufficient for notability when combined with in depth local sources. The problem here is more that the local sources are fairly trivial "a performance was held" type stuff and don't really talk much about the organization itself. Weak delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this appears to be a NN theatrical company. It is not even clear that they are professional actors. Citations in local newspapers are probably RS, but do noit inducate notability: typcially they print any news they can get. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Peterkingiron, sources do not demonstrate notability, appears to be a small, non-notable group. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:10, 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 23:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Green[edit]

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

Minor actress. No sources except a mention in IMDB. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple detailed searches at News, Newspapers archive and Books found nothing significant aside from several links at Books. Only a hanful of Stooges films and no significant attention for them. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidsoap[edit]

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

I'm not able to establish the notability of this software. No book mentions, no major websites with in-depth coverage, and the research paper about it has been cited exactly zero times according to GScholar (which usually overestimates citation scores). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears there are no papers citing it, no news sources discussing it indepedent of the author, agree w/ nom's comments regarding google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 07:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing aside from Google Books showing two links (not significant or in-depth). SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 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 redirect to Occupy movement#England. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Thanet[edit]

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

Not notable. Small scale protest with minor local newspaper coverage from over three years ago. Horsemask (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occupy movement#England. Seems to be a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS, so a redirect to the main article seems appropriate. Davewild (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as User:Davewild suggests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 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 delete. Nakon 23:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rishte Ke Deewar[edit]

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

Film that never made it to production, WP:NFF the guideline for films states, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unfinished film that does not have the coverage to meet WP:NFF. Yes, searches are hampered by it being an Indian film and waaaay pre-internet. If Hindi sources come forward, ping me.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing, I can't guarantee the same for Hindi sources but it's very likely this film is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and MichaelQSchmidt it clearly lacks the coverage to meet WP:NFF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Quin[edit]

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

Puff piece for non-notable political candidate per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just the usual brief local coverage every candidate gets just before the May elections in the UK. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON at best. Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article can be restored and improved if he is elected to Parliament. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As yet unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make a properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and is case of WP:TOOSOON would be notable only if he is elected.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:29, 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 Speedy Keep. Procedural close - As noted below the editor is new and obviously WP:BEFORE wasn't followed, No objections to anyone renominating if they do have genuine concerns. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans Campaign (World War I)[edit]

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

Article is virtually entirly unsourced. Half the sources just tell populations of people in the userbox. Only the Italian section is sourced, and that only comes from one book. Bottom line is this article as-is does not add anything to Wikipedia. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article isn't in good shape currently. it is a topic that is both notable (appears in news search, books about it, scholarly articles, etc) and is verifiable. WP:DINC If an article is bad we fix it. if we don't have the time or ability to fix it ourselves we tag it (which this article has been tagged) but we don't delete articles for being poorly written. We delete articles if they are about non-notable subjects, unverifiable subjects, or infringe on copyright. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. I see the user is new to WP, so I'd recommend they have a read of WP:BEFORE. Note that the Romanian and Russian versions of this article are at Featured Article standard, so there's at least something to plunder from, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Greater Brisbane#Independent primary schools. Plausible redirect. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Lutheran Primary School[edit]

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

This is a primary school, up to year 6, with no obvious notability of its own Fiddle Faddle 12:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found and added multiple, independent, reliable publications that meet WP:NSCHOOL notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There is basic coverage, but only what every primary school could claim. I couldn't find a good redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete primary schools are not inherently notable and there is no demonstration WP.GNG is met. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I support keeping articles about primary schools of historical or architectural significance. This isn't one of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Had there been anything notable about the school I would've kept but there isn't so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_schools_in_Greater_Brisbane#Independent_primary_schools, where it is already listed.PWilkinson (talk) 12:03, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ubaid[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED further do not think Maryam Jinnah had any brother and think it is WP:HOAX. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless, the article does not demonstrate notability other than arguably through invalid inheritance.--Rpclod (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Genetics, that is, being the brother of someone wiki worthy, in and of itself does not make you wiki worthy. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Brother gets an article. Chauffeur yes. Housekeeper, no? Gardner, maybe? Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is deleted, the articles this author has created on siblings should also be deleted for the same reasons. Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Dawn newspaper article[12] states that Maryam Jinnah was the "only child of Sir Dinshaw and Lady Dinabai Petit", so this is beginning to look like a hoax. Looking for a second source to confirm this. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this (U)ba(i)d (U)ba(i)d boy per nom. Couldn't find any confirmation, but couldn't find anything about this guy either. No claims of notability other than allegedly being related to someone famous. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'Asif Ubaid' is a rather unlikely name for a Parsi (although admittedly the surname Petit is not a Parsi name either), as is the birthplace of Nigeria, and a brother of Rattanbai Petit would be a Petit at birth. No sign of notability, or even of existence in Google terms. There seem to be rather few Asif Ubaids altogether. As a sideline, there seems to be an article about another Jinnah edited by a clutch of recent accounts, Bande Ali Jinnah the brother of the famous leader, whose article mentions a sister Mariyam Jinnah - virtually the same name as the marital name taken by Rattanbai Petit - and I can see no notability for this Jinnah. He is referred to as a 'politician', but I can't see anything to show that he was notable as such. Peridon (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth per CSD criteria A1 and G12. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 13:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learn angularjs[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO Amortias (T)(C) 11:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch this Obvious copyvio is obvious. Amortias (T)(C) 12:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Woodridge, Queensland. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Primary School Woodridge[edit]

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

Since Primary Schools do not have inherent notability and thus do not qualify for inclusion unless they are notable for other reasons, I am nominating this for deletion on the basis that it has insufficient notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article. It's a very pleasant brochure for what is doubtless an excellent school, but simple excellence is insufficient. Fiddle Faddle 11:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to a new section in Woodridge, Queensland for its schools. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. DOesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this primary school into the article on the school district, Brisbane Catholic Education, or as suggested by Boleyn into a new "Education" section of Woodridge, Queensland. The article cites a single independent source that mentions the school, the local studies handout. Its two sentences about the school do not constitute significant coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. The remaining sources are not independent (the school, school district, and parish) or are background context about religious figures and charities that do not mention the school. Searches uncovered only one other source, ABC Radio Interview with Choir, Music Teacher, and Principal, that wasn't a directory-type listing or passing mention. This is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Worldbruce (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very few independent secondary sources, and even in the few that there are coverage is limited. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Woodridge, Queensland per above (Brisbane Catholic Education is at the moment piss-poor so not really seeing any point in merging one crap article in to another!) - No evidence of notability to warrant a seperate article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems to be the best option as I'm not seeing any substantial coverage of the school. The district page would be the normal target, although the town page is acceptable as well. Pinging @Chiswick Chap: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:11, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando González (politician)[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable local politician. He's a councilman in a town of 50,000 people. All the references included in the article are local in nature; nothing seems to be beyond the state of NJ in terms of coverage. I do not see anything in the article that helps pass the WP:BIO guidelines. only (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal council is not a level of government for which Wikipedia grants an automatic WP:NPOL pass to all councillors in all municipalities — we do that only for the small and limited range of internationally recognized global cities, while for any place outside of that class a municipal councillor only qualifies for a Wikipedia article if you can make a substantive and well-sourced case that their notability extends well beyond the purely local. This doesn't really meet either condition — it makes no substantive claim of non-local significance, and it relies heavily on primary sources like the city's own website and his profile on the website of his own other employer, and thus isn't sourced well enough to claim WP:GNG instead of NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillor in a city of 50,000 people. Nowhere near the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 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. No comments in support of the article after three weeks. Nakon 23:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyakumari Christians[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted:

1. The article content is dubious, is badly referenced, and I suspect almost completely wrong or misleading.

2. Having looked for evidence of a distinct community or social or ethnic group called Kanyakumari Christians I wasn't able to find it.

3. As far as I have been able to tell, the Kanyakumari Christians are Christians that live in Kanyakumari, in which case the article should be renamed and re-written as Christians in Kanyakumari. The article makes out as if this a social or ethnic or religious group, which is misleading

4. There is no evidence many of the people listed are even Christians. I have looked for evidence.

5. The legend of St Thomas conversion in Kerala is used by Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala. Reference to this legend in this article, I'm guessing is due existence of some them in Kanyakumari. Josslined (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At best repurpose as a list of these Christians - The lead is about Saint Thomas Christians. The rest is merely a list. I am dubious about reference to the "plains", which normally measn north India. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 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, Nakon 03:49, 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 09:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satvinder S. Juss[edit]

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

Essentially unsourced biography with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Per WP:BLP this article cannot remain unless reliable independent sources are added. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search for independent reliable sources failed to support notability of the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately not enough sources for verification. Plus apparently contains original research. --TL22 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - without doubt, the article needs a lot of work and it is desperately short of references, including for some dubious statements. However, he does appear to be notable even though this article does not support it well - a search of Google Books confirms that he is indeed the author of an extensive collection on the topic of migration and human rights law. His works showed up as citations in a large number of other books in the field. He is indeed a professor at King's College (I provided a reference for that). So I suggest he should be given the benefit of the doubt for now and allowed time to provide references to back up the statements here. I will also notify WP:WikiProject Law in case they can provide references.

Comment - I'm not sure his published works meet WP:NAUTHOR but if further sources indicate a pass under WP:GNG I'll happily change my !vote. Flat Out let's discuss it

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am prepared to accept that being a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and having book reviews and an h-index of 9 satisfies PROF in this instance (Law is a very low citation field. According to LSE, the average h-index of a (full) law professor is 2.8, so his is more than three times the average). This is a book review. If the list of periodical book reviews here (SCOLAG Legal Journal, European Journal of Communication, King's Law Journal) is accurate, he will satisfy AUTHOR, because he needs two at most, and that is four. James500 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about being "a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and its Council Member": every member of that society is called a "Fellow" - more than 27,000 according to their Web site at https://www.thersa.org/fellowship/, so that is not a particularly notable achievement in itself. Even so, his name does not show up in their Fellow search tool there. As for being a council member, he is not listed on their Web site at https://www.thersa.org/about-us/governance/fellowship-council/.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Our article on the RSA appears to say that there have been 27,000 members since the 1750s. I assumed this was correct and that most of those were dead. Looking at their website, however, I think you are right about the present number. He is described as FRSA in this book by Routledge, and a few others: [13]. James500 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Juss easily passes WP:ACADEMIC and meets WP:AUTHOR as "widely cited by peers". The article needs a lot of work, particularly the likely copyvio. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:45, 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 09:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The invited talk in NZ is suggestive, but other than that I don't see the evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular, prolific publishing by itself is not enough — we need also evidence that those publications have had a big impact, and the citation record doesn't really show that. I'm also not impressed with the apparent lack of care with which our article was put together (not just the copyvio but also that the book listing includes an IEEE conference proceedings INTERACT-9 that is completely outside his subject and that nobody with a similar name has any association with), the fact that it appears to be an autobiography, and the fact that we are now seeing significant edits by a single-purpose account Razi100 with the appearance of trying to hide the autobiographical nature of the edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have so far regarded RFellow RSA as indicating notability. And there is reason for doing so here also on the basis of his books: WorldCat He is author of International migration and global justice, found in 1033 worldcat libraries He was editor of The Ashgate research companion to migration law, theory and policy , apparently a standard reference found in 524 worldcat libraries. Ashgate is not the highest quality of academic publisher, but this still enough to show he is regarded as an authority in the subject. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 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 merge to Princeton University. Nakon 23:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Environmental Institute[edit]

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

Article is referenced almost entirely by sources connected to the subject (Princeton website). Although it has been mentioned in some news articles, there is no evidence the Institute has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, the article could be merged to Princeton University, which presently does not mention the institute. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 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, Nakon 03:44, 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 09:44, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Kovacic[edit]

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

Non notable actor-all of his roles seem to be VERY minor. Wgolf (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. Even thoug some of the parts are minor, he has had some recurring works in the projects of Saban Capital Group. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Does not appear to meet the threshold for notability as ACTOR. Quis separabit? 17:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 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, Nakon 03:44, 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 09:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after several weeks being listed only source is IMDB. says it all really. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 16:41, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valley FC[edit]

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

Non-notable local football club. No sources apart from one that doesn't mention this club. gadfium 09:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly COI by one or more editors. Not only badly written and full of OR it clearly fails RS and SIGCOV. Unless there is a guideline somewhere (I couldn't find any) that allows a semi-professional sports organisation to be considered notable then there is no justification whatsoever for keeping this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, very low-level team. Giant Snowman 07:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did not make this page but I do help make edits on it. I do understand that to many people we would appear to be a non-notable local football club and I would agree that most points raised so far are valid, however I wish for you to at least consider our case. I would estimate that probably under 200 people have read this page. I would also estimate that there are many other pages on Wikipedia that have been read by less people. The information on this page and the links to Valley FC seasons is all honest and accurate. To many it means nothing but to people who are familiar with the Wellington football scene it may be relevant and interesting. As our history to date is recorded only on Wikipedia and a lot of time was taken making and updating the article, I would ask that we are given a chance to provide more sources to verify the validity of the article. If the page is to be taken down regardless of a lack of sources, I would ask for at least a few days for the users who made the page to transfer the history off it. It would be a great shame to some if the information was lost. I would also add that surely the amount of server space this article takes up would be out weighed by the usefulness of the article. Please let us keep our historical records. Tumlin (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to qualify for an article the club must meet Wiki's notability guidelines and those for sports. Take read of what Wiki is not as well. Hopefully these will help inform you. Sorry, but I can't find anything that would bring the article over these threshholds. NealeFamily (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the help NealeFamily. Wiki is not would suggest this page fits with what Wikipedia was designed to be. It seems the greatest argument for deletion of this page would be the notability requirements. After reading those requirements various times it would appear that the only real reason that this page is not ok is due to a lack of sources. The reason why sources are important is to ensure that information given is not false. Therefore the main argument for deleting this page is not that the club is small but that the information on the page may not be correct. To argue that the page does not require more sources would be ridiculous, however does the information on this page appear false? Having read both the section on why the requirements exist and the Valley FC page in depth, I believe that if more sources were to be added there would be little reason why this page should not stay up. Tumlin (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. No references in article about club. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club. Keep !voter above doesn't advance any policy-based reasons to keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Cavarrone 10:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anandavani[edit]

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

WP:Unreferenced, WP:Notability Vin09 (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:Unreferenced is not a guideline nor a valid argument for deletion. We have templates and WP:BEFORE to deal with that. About the current subject, the Telegu version of the article contains several citations, most of which appear to be reliable. Cavarrone 09:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, I withdraw the proposal may have mistakenly placed it being confused with other article.--Vin09 (talk) 09:52, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D Prince[edit]

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

does not meet BIO John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:PROF. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As EricEnfermero already said, nothing in the article provides evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M&S (production team)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Despite edit summary, I fail to see what is notable about a production team that has had only one charted song 15 years ago. Postcard Cathy (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage exists for this duo (snippet views available here, here, here, for example) and they had a Top 10 UK hit. One-hit wonders? Fair enough. But they meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 1 and 2 (not to mention 11, as the song was in rotation on BBC Radio 1, per the reference in the article). Whether the song charted 15 years ago, 50 years ago, or 1 year ago is not relevant, as notability is not temporary. Gongshow talk 07:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I agree that time is relative. For example, Frank Sinatra has been dead for some time now, and as such, has no current films, music, etc. but his body of work indicates notability. As far as I can tell, the people in this article are still alive and in a position to produce songs that receive critical and commercial acclaim. I see no indication of critical acclaim. I have issues with a one hit wonder. If there is evidence that any of their other songs charted, even in the top 100, I would feel less strongly about this. But as written, it seems that their one charted song had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with luck or right place, right time ... Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding talent, luck, or timing do not illustrate how these artists fail the above music notability criteria. Gongshow talk 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is why it was written as an opinion. I looked at the guidelines, because my first impression was that meeting three out of 11 criteria seemed to bolster my argument but I was wrong on that point. All I can say is that my minimum criteria and those of the people who developed the criteria are different. That is why I brought it here. My opinion on the subject should not be the be all to end all. I wifi be quiet now and let others weigh in. I have said all I can think of to say on the subject. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:11, 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 08:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage, and a top ten hit makes them obviously of encyclopedic interest. Arguing that this should be deleted because they only had one hit makes no sense - there are plenty of notable artists that never had a hit at all. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pressenger[edit]

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

Article about an app. The only available sources seem to be press releases and advertorials. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a starting app like Pressenger wouldn't be allowed to have a Wikipedia page and apps like WhatsApp are allowed. Neutral sources have been added. - user: Jachterberg9 14:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Though there are a few new-app descriptive reviews, both those cited in the article and others visible on Google search, as well as the sponsored/PR ones, these verify existence but do not amount to WP:RS evidence of attained notability at this point. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 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 speedy delete. @Struway2: What Struway2 said. Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Shakif[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for footballers. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Giant Snowman 07:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. I've tagged the article accordingly, but will repeat my rationale here. The idea that a just-13-year-old can be playing for the biggest club in the extremely rich and fully professional Qatar League is an amusing one. It's a young man's fantasy page, although he's put more work into it than they usually do: perhaps it was his English homework... There are no relevant Google hits for this name. The "citations" are all borrowed from the article Alexis Sanchez and have no relevance to this person or to Qatari football. Al-Sadd didn't play Al-Shamal on the date of his supposed debut, and he did not appear in the game they did play [14]. They didn't play on the date he scored his supposed first goal. Our article 2012–13 Qatar Stars League#Top scorers doesn't mention him in among the top scorers, but does mention another person as Al-Sadd's top scorer. etc etc etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:53, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Hutchinson[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP I dream of horses (T) @ 07:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Can find no evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:03, 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyte Gulf[edit]

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

WP:GEOLAND no inherited notability Darkstar1st (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i attempted a redirect and was reverted [15], also i pointed out the tools suggested in primary topic agree, the primary topic is the battle, not the gulf itself. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the first one to recommend deletion for dubious articles, but an article about a substantial body of water strikes me as a reasonable subject. One problem is that there is such a huge number or sources that discuss the battle, that these sources overwhelm those that discuss the gulf but not the battle and make them hard to find - I found a few, though not with substantial coverage. Perhaps someone with better search skills than me could find some real coverage that isn't just about the battle. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a sizable body of water in the middle of a large country. Plus there's the battle. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

true, yet there is not a single source mentioning the gulf sans battle.(you do realize there is a separate article about the battle?[16]) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggest some tools, Special:WhatLinksHere and Wikipedia article traffic statistics [17], both overwhellingly confirm the primary topic as battle. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is faulty. The battle does not qualify as a primary topic, any more than Britain does for Battle of Britain. Even if it did, that wouldn't preclude another article. Every significant body of water merits an article. It is absurd (and Western bias) to keep Round Pond (Connecticut) (32 acres in area) and not a gulf of somewhere around 7800 sq. km. Just because the battle overshadows the gulf itself and makes it difficult to find sources for the gulf doesn't mean they aren't there: e.g. "Trawl fishery of Letye Gulf", p. 44., A Review of the Auxis Fisheries of the Philippines and Some Aspects of the Biology of Frigate (A. Thazard) and Bullet (A. Rochei) Tunas in the Indo-Pacific Region, Leyte Gulf beach forest project cited, Philippine government Department of Environment & Natural Resources Executive Summary (2001-2005?): "Surprisingly, there are several important coastal and marine waters that are still unclassified. These include: Manila Bay in NCR; Nasugbu Bay, Tayabas Bay, and Balayan Bay in Region 4A; Albay Gulf in Region 5; Panay Gulf in Region 6; Leyte Gulf and Cancacao Bay in Region 8; ..." (bolding mine). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am using the tools provided. ex using Britain in whatlinkshere, there is a wide variety of topics, none mentiion the battle [18] using the same tool Leyte Gulf links almost exclusively to battle related articles. the same is true with the other tools. how did you determine the battle is not the primary topic, what tools did you use? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the scope of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is for disambiguation purposes, not determining notability. See also Cedar Creek (North Fork Shenandoah River) and Battle of Cedar Creek. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG specifically WP:GAZ and WP:MAPOUTCOMES.--RioHondo (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAZ is an essay, not policy. WP:GNG "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail i doubt the above counts as significant coverage. WP:GAZ redirects to wp:geo which is the relevant policy here, Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. if you are able to find sources, i would be fine with a redirect and allowing the article to stay. the problem with the current config is most people are trying to find the battle, therefore primary topic should be our main concern. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Info: (1) A big, honking sea battle was fought there. (2) It supports commercial fishing. (3) The Philippine government hasn't gotten around to classifying it, despite its acknowledged importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some info on its importance as one of the country's fishing grounds and marine reserve. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a body of water with historical importance in the Philippines, both politically and disaster response and mitigation. Added Haiyan Storm surge and relation with Battle of Surigao Strait WP:GNG Schadow1 (talk) 04:00, 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 delete per WP:SNOW. I'm closing this early per snow and also because there has already been AfDs that set precedent for things like this. Since there is no coverage to show that this character is an exception to those AfDs and a better redirect already exists, this is a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Musa(Winx Club)[edit]

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

Unremarkable character who lacks out-of-universe coverage in reliable sources. Could be redirected to Winx Club, but the redirect Musa (Winx Club) already exists, and it's unlikely anyone wouldn't be able to type this without the space. There really isn't much to merge either. And this is coming from someone who used to watch the series, long ago (though I was not a big fan of it and only saw a few episodes). Ineligible for A10 since it's a plausible redirect and there is information in the infobox which doesn't seem to be in the main article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No indication of notability per WP:GNG, just a pile of unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT copied over from Wikia. Techna(Winx Club) could usefully be added to this AFD. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Winx Club characters, including Techna if bundled. Missing one space is a plausible typo, and redirects are cheap. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated by the nominator. No coverage in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator has also created a series of articles about these characters. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Winx Club characters#Protagonists, which already has a section about the character. Redirects are cheap, and one of the main characters of a clearly notable animated series is an obvious search term. I also see no argument against redirecting in the above delete votes. Cavarrone 06:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , I missed the point that a redirect Musa (Winx Club) already existed. Cavarrone 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Requires independent (real world) coverage. Redirect already exists at Musa (Winx Club). maclean (talk) 19:59, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back To Home[edit]

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

An article by a WP:SPA account who in one edit summary appears to self-identify as the author. User:Narutolovehinata5 placed a Prod notice: "Unremarkable book lacking coverage in reliable sources." but it was removed by the article creator. I agree with the Prod rationale, as searches are turning up nothing on this book, hence a clear fail of WP:NBOOK but we lack speedy-deletion criteria for creative works, so I am bringing this to AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my original PROD. It doesn't help that searching for it results in nothing but false positives. If only A7 could apply to books. Could potentially qualify as G11 if the article creator is confirmed to be the author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I couldn't find anything to suggest that this book is as notable as the article claims it is. There is the possibility of coverage being only in a foreign language, but usually there's something out there to back up the claims in English and I can't really find anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. A google search brings up nothing, ditto for the author (lots of websites have misspelled based for bassed:)). Could a nice Administrator please speedy delete this as it is obviously WP:PROMOTION; WP:G11 perhaps? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage could not find anything and the book fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:04, 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 procedural close. This article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Online Global, which is still open. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Online Global[edit]

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

No reliable sources showing its Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toi Troutman-Walker[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Internet movie database is not what I will consider a WP:RS Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability. fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 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 speedy delete WP:G4 as an exact copy of Soteriological Traditionalism, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soteriological Traditionalism. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Baptist Soteriology[edit]

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

Delete as a neologism. This is based on one (very recent) document. There is nothing to suggest that this is a major stream of Christian soteriology in its own right. And the fact that is is called the "traditional Baptist" view is a very POV claim. St Anselm (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (perhaps renamed) - I see no neologism. Soteriology is a perfectly understandable term: Greek σωτηρ (soter) means saviour. It is possible that the title is POV, as Baptists have held a considerable range of views, but that requires a rename, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adlie Aziz[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played for the Kelantan Under-21 team. WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for fottballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian National University. The article content is still available in the article history for possible merging. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenner Hall[edit]

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

This is a reverted redirect that fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other residential hall pages which will need to be deleted: Burgmann College, Bruce Hall (Australian National University) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.111.46 (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian National University. Very little decent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:08, 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 01:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all 3 in to Australian National University - Not really seeing much point to having seperate articles when they're all best suited in one, If the redirects are reverted the next best place is WP:RFPP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all, agree with above. Neutrality^talk 03:55, 28 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. I personally dislike redirects for spouses, because we never know when or if that will change. Same for presidents or officers of companies. If someone feels strongly enough about us having one, they are free to create it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiladitya Mukhopadhyaya[edit]

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

No ounce of third party notability other than the fact that married to an Indian singer called Shreya Ghoshal. Notability is not inherited and this is a fine example of violating that. Only source comes from a The Times of India picture slideshow. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rasilant Technologies, which he co-founded. Alternatively, redirect to Shreya Ghoshal - but I would prefer a redirect to something he himself did, rather than simply treating him as somebody's husband. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shreya Ghoshal. Rasilant Technologies itself is probably not notable enough to warrant survival.--Rpclod (talk) 03:47, 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. Per WP:NOQUORUM, this is a soft delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra N.[edit]

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

There simply isn't anything to indicate this individual might pass WP:MUSICBIO, as a look at the sources will reveal:

"Daughter of the Mayor of Albeştii de Muscel, New Conquest of Cristian Boureanu" - er, ok....
A puff piece in a local paper informing us that the subject "wants to reach Eurovision". I'm sure many people want that; not all of them are notable.
Blog post; in any event, I think we can safely discount a site the name of which is "the nigger".
Interview for some student platform. Even if this were a reliable source, which it isn't, the introduction gives the game away: "Alexandra wants to have a career as a professional musician".
"Daughter of Mayor Năftănăilă Changes Her Name" - ok, good for her.
Tabloid trash from Libertatea
Autobiography on a music company website
Nominations list for an award - from the very people who hand out that award.

I think the level of coverage speaks for itself here, and we can safely delete until some more credible outlet picks up on this individual. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 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, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:20, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IRCCloud[edit]

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

Third party references apparently consist of a single press release.. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only references are entity's own pages and a press release.--Rpclod (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm new here and I'm open to contribute to this article until it fits the requirements :)

Hey guys my motivation to write this article was not to waste my time, instead I wanted to add something valuable to the community, I'm a long-time user of IRC and IRCCloud somehow connected me again to that scene. So I add 3 additional, independent reviews or press releases to the the article and than can it be accepted without any votes to delete? Thanks for your comments! Please also note, that this tool made me going to the WP IRC channels to get some help with another article I was contributing, so can't be that bad and also easy to use instead of other Internet_Relay_Chat#Clients, but at the end of the day everybody has the right to choose. --Never stop exploring (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions would be appreciated and I would recommend a delay in considering response to the AfD until you have had an opportunity to contribute. Please review the general notability guidelines. The primary issue is notability, not technical competence. Press releases are unlikely to help your cause since they are pushed by the subject. Look for articles in well-known technical magazines that critically analyze the software. Some real criticism (potentially negative) is good, because it is an indication that the article is not just a disguised press release. Good luck and thanks for your interest.--Rpclod (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability. Eeekster (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to learn about Internet services. D4v1d04 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. ― Padenton|✉ 23:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm counting 5 external references currently. The article should be kept and the originator or other motivated contributor should be given an opportunity to improve the article if necessary. It does not appear any "Alternatives to Deletion" per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy have been pursued. Ddosguru (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at them more closely, none of them are reliable sources, all are WP:SPS. The alternatives to deletion don't need to be tried before an AfD. AfDs are typically to determine whether a subject meets notability guidelines or not, which is not something that can be fixed or changed through tagging or the editing process. If people feel the merge and redirect options are appropriate, users will vote on them in an AfD.― Padenton|✉ 08:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very unfortunate how these corporate companies are hiring people to create their wikipedia entires and using wikipedia as an advertising platform for their products and promoting their brands under impression of another unbiased wikipedia article.--Badnaam (talk) 00:42, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcella Marletta[edit]

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

non notable public servant. The articles listed are not about her specifically. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree. Nothing appears to be notable.--Rpclod (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Orphan and no sources.--SimpleStitch (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Gilbert[edit]

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

Non notable; the Fox ref is pure PR; the LATimes is a mention; the PW review by itself is not enough for notability, especially since this is only a single book. . DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single book does not create notability. Plus, the article's claims, especially re hydrophillic foods, are questionable.--Rpclod (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article withdrawn . Moving it to draft space, it is now at Draft:Ryan Blacketter . For simplicity, I'm doing this even tho I brought the Afd. If anyone objects , they can revert me and close themselves. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Blacketter[edit]

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

non notable author. His one book is in only 18 libraries, according to WorldCat [19]. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Down in the River is an independent book, and therefore its critical success, and not its sales or library reach, should be given the greatest consideration. The book and its author have received reviews from many noteworthy publications, including Paste, the Rumpus, Largehearted Boy, Small Press Book Review, The Quivering Pen, and Rightsdesk. (http://wwwliterarycraft.blogspot.com). Mitch Wieland, Marilynne Robinson, Shann Ray, Wayne Harrison, Pinckney Benedict, and David Gutowski have endorsed the book (http://wwwliterarycraft.blogspot.com).

Delete - does not yet meet WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added several other reviews of Down in the River, as well as short story publications by author Ryan Blacketter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Mortoc (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ WP:TOOSOON ~~Self-published~~ first novel reviewed in small, online literary magazines, ~~non-bluelinked~~. Other references are to published short stories. to be notable, there would have to be articles discussing his novels and stories. And perhaps some day there will be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled by what seems to be open hostility and inaccuracy in one or more of these votes to remove this page. It's true that this independent book, Down in the River (Slant Books, January 2014, ISBN 978-1-62564-037-6) is not a big seller and does not exist in many libraries. But Down in the River is not in fact "self published." It is published by Slant Books, an independent imprint edited by Gregory Wolfe, founding editor of Image journal, which has published Annie Dillard and John Updike and many other well-know authors. Another Slant author is Erin McGraw, who is a big name in literary fiction, though not a big seller.

In addition, the journals that have published reviews on Down in the River are large, respected online journals, even if some are not commercial giants. Paste Magazine is a national magazine located in Athens, GA. Its "Drinks With" interviews include an interview with David Sedaris. The Rumpus, founded by Stephen Elliott is prestigious and features many literary stars, including Richard Ford, and is located in New York City. Fiction Writers Review is also well respected nationally. Largehearted Boy is another favorite site for independent books and music, founded by David Gutowski. Inclusion in these magazines signals that the author is notable. (Pat Mortoc (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for returning and blue-linking some of the journals. Please take a close look at WP:AUTHORS, and perhaps take a look at a few other Iowa-trained writers to get some perspective on the standards for creating writers' pages. WP can be puzzling to new editors, the best way to learn you way around is probably by adding content to some existing pages, and looking at AFD debates on topics or writers you have never heard . And please understand that the editors here are not debating Blackletter's literary merit or future prospects, we are simply attempting to ascertain whether he has, to-date, been written about in a sufficient number/caliber of reliable, secondary sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the initial proposal to delete was sensible, as I had included scant references in this, my first Wikipedia post. Also, it's sound to wish to provide strict guidelines for inclusion. But I hope that the sensible desire to keep out meritless individuals does not amount to keeping out those whose success is noncommercial and smaller-scale but nevertheless significant. (Pat Mortoc (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

undecided the case for notability: long interview in Paste Magazine [20]; Article about author, book in hometown paper Boise Weekly [21] review in Fiction Writers Review and reviews in non blue-linked literary magazines. He has had a number of short stores published in highly selective literary magazines. And publishing with a small press is highly competitive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more biographical material, in appropriate formatting, as requested, and provided more articles and references. (Pat Mortoc (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

User:Pat Mortoc, you can ask to take the article into your userspace, where it will be available to you and to others who can improve it, add to it as Blacketter's ouvre and reputation grow, and bring it back to mainspace when the sourcing is more persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and recommendations. I found information on how to move a page from draft to article, but I'm having trouble with moving article to draft. It appears that I began this entry in the wrong page. (Pat Mortoc (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

User:DGG You must know how to do this move.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done . It is at Draft:Ryan Blacketter. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ranger's Apprentice characters[edit]

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

I am nominating this character list on two grounds. Firstly, I don't believe that this set of characters is notable as a stand-alone list. Google searches for reliable information written about the characters of this series return little to nothing. While the list is 46,207 bytes long, none of it is currently sourced. Secondly, articles about fictional topics should be written from a real-world perspective, as opposed to an in-universe perspective. Reading the content of each character description, I'm finding that most of them are less than encyclopedic, and many are written in-universe. The list is so long and so overly detailed that even if the list is notable, it would be better if we just blow it up and start over. Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nomination. This list is excessively long and written in an in-universe style. It has no available sourcing, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find. It fails our requirements regarding verifiability and notability, and devoting so much space to such a trivial list is a violation of undue weight as well. Reyk _YO! 08:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN. A case of WP:FAN, way too much detail that has increased fivefold since being created in 2008, book series is notable, this list is not, only of niche interest to the fans. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SkyDesktop[edit]

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

Every reference here that can still be found is either a pressrelease (some cited several times under different names) or a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - every reference is a press release or dead.--Rpclod (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no reliable secondary sources to be found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G11 - blatant spam, sourced to press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial RS coverage. That, however, is not a sufficient reason for speedy deletion which requires ad-like content (which isn't the case here), not just lack of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Richman[edit]

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

wp:promotion all of the sources are Sheldon himself Darkstar1st (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i redirected to the notable publication and was reverted without explaination [22] Darkstar1st (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Original nominator had added above material to previous AfD page. I've moved it here where it belongs. I'm neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has contributed to a broad range of journals and he is cited often enough. One generally has limited biographical information on scholars. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 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, Nakon 23:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete The article shows he has published many articles in his own group's journals, and nothing more. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightgraff (lightgraff art)[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2008.Vague topic: Is it a "performance art" or is it a way of creating photographic images?May be a synthesis: Did the artists named call their work "lightgraff?" Edison (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam and Questia searches turn up nothing. Google Books provides this brief piece in a French book on street art. As per the nominator, this appears to be a neologism associated with one eponymous group in Lyon, with an after the fact extension to past artists. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selman Trtovac[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years. I really wasn't sure, but couldn't establish that it did meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep-I'm not sure either but he does seem to have a nice page on the German wiki from what I can tell. Though I think someone might want to look over the notability for sure. Wgolf (talk) 16:34, 16 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 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable individual. Kymako (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything that would support notability (significant coverage in journals or newspaper/magazine reviews; monograph from reputable publisher; solo exhibitions at major institutions; work in major collections; major awards; doing anything sufficiently weird to get in international press). He has been promoted by the Goethe Institute and several galleries, but there's a lack of independent coverage. I can read German but not Serbian so it's possible there are Serbian sources, but none jumped out. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 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 and salt. I'm closing this a little early for a few reasons. The first is that the article's creator has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of AnimationWhiz133, so it's a delete as a block evasion. It's also a delete since this is also essentially a recreation of content that was at the various Mark Flood articles (since much of the content mirrors information in those articles), but it's also a delete because the studio does not appear to have notability enough to where it'd pass notability guidelines where the main articles for Flood have not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flood Animations[edit]

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

This is a backdoor attempt at recreating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (filmmaker) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (animator) both of which have been part of an ongoing attempt at self promotion and advertising. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnimationWhiz133

As for the article itself, the sources are still (as with its deleted predecessors) being misused, and the few reliable sources included are either Wikipedia:Bombardment or do not always support the attached claims. Still way, way too soon. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability has been established. Not to mention the procedural stuff above and the lack of reliable sources on this subject. Luthien22 (talk) 21:26, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building Western Civilization[edit]

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

This article was created by an editor who has been banned from editing. This appears to be an introductory college textbook. I could not find reviews or citations or other evidence it satisfies WP:TEXTBOOKS. Edison (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation -- I am not sure if this is a significant text book or not. If it is, it requires substantive coverage. However what we have is such a trifling stub as to be quite useless. We cannot have an article on every single book published. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 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 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing suggests this meets WP:BKCRIT criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Radio 2[edit]

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

I think I may be proved wrong on this, but I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Tagged by Bradv over 7 years ago; hopefully we can now get this resolve either way. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the editor who originally tagged this for notability, nothing has really changed. There appear to be plenty of available sources, but they are in Italian. This article needs some help, but there's no rush. Brad 13:24, 16 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 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, easily passes GNG, 281 news articles, most of them significant coverage, in Corriere della Sera, the main Italian newspaper [23], 168 news articles in La Repubblica [24], plus a lot more [25]. The program had a television spin-off which had an audience of over 8 million viewers (!) and from the program 5 compilation cd were released, with the last one peaking first on the Italian hit parade[26]. There are plenty of choices in terms of usable sources, and notability is clear. Cavarrone 05:57, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loryn Locklin[edit]

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

Actress I'm trying to find notability for-basically nearly all of her credits are tv appearances-with the most being 3 episodes. None of her films are that notable (and that's a different Catch me if you Can, not the Leonardo DiCaprio film from 2002) Wgolf (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at most she seems to have once been a working actress and bit part player, certainly not a notable one. I can find no significant coverage and no notable achievements or roles, beyond appearing semi-naked in Taking Care of Business (not that she isn't notable in that regard). WalkingOnTheB (talk) 09:52, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 13:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She probably passes WP:NACTOR ("had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"), but it also seems that there's not much about her to be found in the sources. She starred in several notable movies, and got brief but substantive mentions (both positive and negative), especially for Fortress in 1992[27][28][29], as well as notice for Taking Care of Business [30] and in commercials [31]. She married celebrity producer/restaurateur Victor Drai, and they had a child in 1993 [32][33][34][35]; as far as I can determine, they're still married [36]; she continued to work, but there's very little press about her since then: on the IMDb message boards there are even several threads commenting on the paucity of information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think both Taking Care of Business, and to a lesser extent Fortress were quite notable at release. Many years later, I think there's still interest in Fortress from the cult sci-fi crowd, at least. I think between these two films and her other roles, she's notable enough. I will say that the article doesn't have much information, though, which is why it's only a weak keep. - Rainwarrior (talk) 06:02, 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. Michig (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes (Same Difference album)[edit]

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

Not notable album. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD removed without significant improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage/evidence of notability found; no sourced material to merge into the duo's main article. Gongshow talk 17:53, 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 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Album from reality TV show contestants who'd long exhausted their 15 minutes of fame. Absence of reviews, awards, or chart success. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to delete - Multiple searches found nothing specifically about the album. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Kyungsoo[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR. I can't see the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources to establish his notability. Subject of the article is a receiver of non-notable, local award. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off the Pan award is actually a signifigant award with it's ceremony being nationally broadcasted. Anyways the reason I say delete is because I think the 2 acting credits he has and 1 actual award he got could easily fit on his section of the EXO members page. All those tv shows are one time appearances and nothing special happened on any of them so they should not be listed. Peachywink (talk) 19:01, 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 speedy keep. per HaeB. Supreme facepalm of destiny With an intent to find out if the template can be fixed so this is never an issue again. (non-admin closure) ― Padenton|✉ 05:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dance or Die (band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any WP:NBAND criteria, or WP:GNG. All sources at time of nom are official websites or otherwise-self-published profiles.

Find sources simple [37] has nothing but self-published and wikipedia mirrors.
Find sources news [38] and books search, has nothing but nominated wikipedia article.
Find sources newspapers, scholar, and JSTOR have no results.

― Padenton|✉ 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pre-generated source search links cited in the nomination are unsuitable for pages with parenthetical disambiguation - leaving out the "(band)" leads to far more results, although not all of them are relevant. Still, one can find that the two most important publications about this music genre in this country have asserted the band's notability in clear terms:

Sonic Seducer called Dance or Die "the well-known Berlin cult Electro [band]" [39]
Zillo remarked that their 2011 comeback after ten years would "let many electro fans rejoice" [40] and says that "in the 1990s, they formed the link between Gothic [rock] and Electro, and were a pioneer at that" [41].

I've added these two sourcs to the article. While WP:GNG is satisfied now, much of the article indeed remains poorly sourced; it can be assumed that most suitable sources are not available online, because the band had its heyday in the 1990s. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Well....I think the best thing for me to do at this point is just wipe the egg off my face.― Padenton|✉ 05:16, 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 keep--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super16 (film school)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only degree awarding institutions have inherent notability. There is minimal third party coverage of this and the sources provided are mostly film industry related rather than third party. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seems to easily pass WP:ORG. There is significant coverage in secondary sources, including feature articles about the school in the well-regarded Danish film magazine Ekko ("They come in through the backdoor" (2007), "The Quality Swings at Super16" (2010)) as well as in national newspapers like Berlingske Tidende and Politiken ("Another way to the big screen" (2008), "Backway to the Big Screen" (2009).) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with kudos and thanks to CactusWriter. To source a Danish organization, Danish language sources are perfectly fine. Through WP:NRVE we can see that WP:ORG is met. Quite nice that he added them, huh nominator? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:50, 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deema Shehabi[edit]

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

A published poet. She does not appear to have satisfied WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. Being nominated for a "Pushcart Prize" without having won any major prize does not seem sufficient. Edison (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I placed the stub to replace an article deleted by copyvio, I had doubts about the notability myself at the time (expressed in the template). :) Honestly, I suspect this would have been a successful PROD. But in case it matters to anyone, these are links that were in the now-deleted version:

Profile of Deema Shehabi at the Institute for Middle East Understanding
Valparaiso Poetry Review
OF HARVEST AND FLIGHT, Valparaiso Poetry Review
Ulysses Press
Nuclear Times
Veggie Life
Featured Poet, Poetry Daily
Art Matters

A number of those links are now dead, but I think there's nothing in there that secures notability myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 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 00:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reworked the piece. Since the stub was written, she has published 3 books, served as VP of Radius of Arab-American Writers, Inc. and clearly meets GNG at the very least. SusunW (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has certainly been improved compared to before. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given more recent activities and the work of SusunW . --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 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.