Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 19

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - No references isn't a valid reason by its self for deletion, WP:BEFORE obviously wasn't followed, No objections to renomination by someone else.(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pheneticillin

Pheneticillin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references A8v (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Motu Hafoka

Motu Hafoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to qualify as notable according to WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:FOOTBALL, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Only citation looks to be WP:TRIVIAL and/ or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Multiple, independent, reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources are lacking. Attempts to locate them only point back to this article. KDS4444^Talk 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - has represented his nation at international level, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Here we disagree. WP:NFOOTBALL states that a player is presumed notable if he has played at the national level— this gives editors an easy way to quickly assess if a given player is likely to be notable. This is a rebuttable presumption. I have checked: presumptions aside, there is no actual evidence of notability here. Playing on a national team means you probably got enough attention to qualify as notable. But if, after checking this, an editor cannot find evidence of this notability, then the article should be deleted regardless of the player's level of participation. KDS4444^Talk 14:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for the Country at the International level.per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(You aren't listening to me— please see above. WP:NFOOTBALL is a guideline for quick assessment, but it does not trump Wikipedia's notability requirements which this article does not appear to meet.)KDS4444^Talk 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

• Keep International footballer. Deleting would represent WP:BIAS. Also got international media attention with his death [1]. Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

English is one of the national languages of Samoa, but the Samoa News and the Samoa Observer, two Samoan newspapers, do not seem to mention him anywhere in their archives. Neither does the Samoa Times. His New Zealand death notice (which says nothing more than that he died, apparently of suicide) might be the 1E of a WP:BLP1E; sometimes "not notable" isn't WP:BIAS, it is just "not notable." KDS4444^Talk 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps your not searching the right sources. Neither seem to have as much older news than newer news. It seems inconceivable that local media wouldn't have reported when international media did. Looking in other Samoan sources [2] and Oceanian sources [3] does find further information. Nfitz (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several editors mounted a spirited defense. However, their arguments all come down to "there's nothing wrong with this, why delete it?", which is equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT. On the other hand, the editors arguing for deletion have polic-based arguments, the most important one being the absence of reliable sources independent of the subject. No prejudice to creation of a redirect to another article if a suitable target becomes available, which currently doesn't seem to be the case. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

File 18

File 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This newsletter seems to have had only twenty issues - lasting less than a year - and a self-claimed circulation of just 2,000. However, there doesn't seem to be any claim of notability, or indeed any reason why it could be notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The small circulation and small number of issues are irrelevant: it was a publication aimed at law enforcement not the general public. The publication is mentioned in various books on the ritual satanic abuse scare of the 1980s and 1990s, such as Mary D Young's The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic, James T. Richardson and Joel Best's The Satanism scare, and Jean La Fontaine's Speak of the Devil (as well as skeptic and wiccan publications), as having played a significant part in disseminating claims of abuse. However coverage of the newsletter is not very detailed and probably doesn't meet WP:GNG, so the topic may be better covered in an article on Larry Jones, on Jones's Cult Crime Impact Network, or in a more general article on the satanic panic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Do not delete The number of publications of any newsletter is irrelevant but even more to the point the police officers who created the newsletters -- utilizing tax payer money to do so -- still have living members which continue their efforts to undermine religious freedom in the United States. These newsletters are not only historic documents, they are also evidence of criminal activity on the behalf of law enforcement officers, and as such a Wikipedia article dedicated to the newsletters is wholly useful and informative to researchers uitilizing Wikipedia.

Remember: More information is better than less. One must review Wikipedia articles from the viewpoint of researchers searching for information, not from the viewpoint of editors looking to "clean up" articles.

There are zero legitimate reasons to delete this history and numerous reasons why this -- and related articles covering obscure extremist newsletters -- are wholly encyclopedic. Also there have been anonymous individuals who have attempted to delete this article before when some of the people involved in the newsletters later sought public office, and evidences the Theocratic ideologies of said individuals, to the point where the article was on the verge of being placed for protection. Damotclese (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Leave it alone No, there is nothing wrong with File 18 and it meets Wikipedia quality standards. There is no legitimate reason to delete it. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is just absurd. FILE 18 was an excellent example of the "Satanic Panic" that swept through the low-IQ population of America in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and there is no legitimate reason to remove the Wikipedia entry for the newsletter; there are excellent reasons to keep it. The chief reason to keep the entry in Wikipedia is obvious: people studying and researching the "Satanic Panic" era need to have as many examples of the symptoms as possible to get a overview of the issue, and FILE 18 is one of the best examples of that hysteria. --Desertphile (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, although impressed by the enthuisiastic support for this article by a number of editors their comments are not that helpful for editors not familar with this subject. That said, based on the present 6 references the article does not appear notable. 4 of them are to File 18 issues and 1 is to the journal's creator. The remaining 1 may be okay (4 - The Satanism Scare, James T. Richardson and Joel Best, Transaction Publishers, 1991, page 194). However, a rudimentary google search brings up some sources that do appear to bring the article to WP:GNG. For example: [4], [5] (refers to another book In Pursuit of Satan), [6] although it may be appropriate to have an article on Larry Jones instead, with a redirect from File 18. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Leave it alone The article is fine as it is. Anyone who Googles "File 18" is directed to this page as the #1 search result. We don't want to limit suitable and legitimate research references or make researchers take extra steps when doing book reports or otherwise following Kindle links (which are in the Kindle version of the Law Enforcement Guide on Occult Crime issued by the State of California under Courken George Deukmejian.) We don't want to break links to legitimate research materials, and we don't want to redirect File 18 to pages which discuss books which mention the newsletter.

Also these discussions should have taken place in the File 18 Talk: page, the editor requesting deletion should not have done so without first discussing it in the relevant article's Talk: page. Wikipedia sets guidlines however they are not "carved in stone," however discussing major edits and changes usually starts in an article's Talk: page. Damotclese (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have added file 18 to my watchlist, I'll restore it if anybody tried to delete it. Yeah, this should have been brought up on the talk page, that's what it's there for. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned on the actual talk page, the editor that flagged the article for deletion is not allowed to delete it. After a week or so the flag will be removed and that should end this cycle of attempting to remove it. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please be aware that if the article is deleted, then restoring it can be seen as disruptive behavior. AfD restorations should go through the deleting administrator (whomever that will be) and if they refuse, then it should go through deletion review. Restoring it without going through those steps will make it extremely likely that the page will be deleted via WP:G4 and repeated recreations can lead to you getting temporarily or permanently blocked as a disruptive editor. You also need to take into account that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article, nor is WP:ITSPOPULAR, WP:GHITS, or anything else at Wikipedia:Subjective importance and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The long and short is that it's extremely hard to assert notability for anything even remotely fringe on Wikipedia unless it's something that has gained mainstream attention and received a ton of attention from mainstream media sources (NYT, etc). Being popular or well-known does not always translate into coverage in places that Wikipedia considers reliable and unfortunately most of the websites that cover fringe subjects are considered unreliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I know that when it comes to books there are at least a dozen WP:SPS that are highly, highly respected and have huge followings, yet are considered unreliable per Wikipedia's rules. This is because while there are some legit looking SPS out there, there are also a lot of SPS out there that aren't reliable for several reasons. (One site posted unverified rumors that ended up being false, another ended up being a shill for authors/publishers, and another openly plagiarized several different obscure websites, and that's just the start.) That's the problem with anything that is considered fringe and the thing is, Wikipedia is not here to make up for the lack of coverage in reliable sources. I know this sounds harsh and there have been times that I wish it could be otherwise, but keep rationales must be argued based on policy and rules have only grown more strict over the years. Multiple projects have been pretty solidly affected by this but none so hard as the fringe and literary/publishing sectors. Colapeninsula and Coolabahapple both made a good argument for its inclusion somewhere, so arguments should follow that rationale as well. I'm not arguing for the article's deletion, just that right now what you two are doing is not really going to help the article out any. You're making arguments based on passion rather than policy, which won't entirely help much, and threatening to re-create it if the article is not kept is not really going to help things either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of sources that support notability. All references except one are the newsletter itself. The one other resource lists the newsletter as having been a source for a survey, but isn't about the newsletter per se. LaMona (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Not finding any real argument for notability other than WP:ITSIMPORTANT. There's a complete paucity of relevant sources and the keep arguments aren't really asserting notability, but personal belief of importance. For an obscure newsletter that was published for a short period by a small audience 25 years ago needs quite a bit more than this to aspire to notability.24.210.149.223 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize I got logged out. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any legitimate reason for the deletion request other than personal opinions, though, while at the same time there is a great deal of history behind the creation of the newsletters and the background of the individuals who created the newsletters. The newsletters are wholly informational and part of researcher background in to so-called Satanic Panic episodes.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to delete such information without good cause, reducing researcher findings. It was, in part, the creation of these religious newsletters utilizing tax dollars which prompted the State of California creating the Occult Crime guide for law enforcement officers ( http://www.holysmoke.org/report/index.htm and other locations on the 'web ) which is intimately tied to File 18 history. That's not opinion, that's just the history of the File 18 newsletter which is entirely relevant to the cycles of "Satanic Panics" in the United States. I'm not sure why any serious editor would even consider the article for deletion. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Typically we nominate articles for deletion here when the subject doesn't seem to meet the criteria in our notability guidelines. And that's exactly what the nominator here has done. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As I mentioned in the Talk: page of the extant article, the newsleter is notable, it is linked to numerously out in the real world and there is no good reason to delete the page.

The fact that the article is informative, useful, and is linked to in the real world dictates that the page continue lacking any serious reason to remove it. This isn't an encyclopedia which has limited room, this is an open-ended encyclopedia which seeks to provide researchers and the curious information about all subjects.

Rule of thumb: More information is better than less. We seek to be encyclopedic while being useful, that's what :encyclopedias are. We don't limit information just because someone doesn't like it for whatever reason. Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

BiologistBabe BB, I don't understand what the issue here is. So far it looks like someone wants to delete the page "just because." You asked me to comment on this delete request but I don't see any reason offered why it is being requested to be deleted. Was there a reason other than "it's not notable" given by the person who wanted it gone? TrainsOnTime (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Karen, she's still in the field, you have to call her at Mammy Yoko Hotel Freetown and leave a message. Come by my office when you have a chance. Damotclese (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• keep Checking the comments for and agains removal, and checking Google to find 3,240 pages covering File 18, and finding this entry as #1 in the search list and finding other web pages linking to it, and seeing no serious reason offered to remove it, the page should be kept.

But I don't agree that the page needs to be updated to include more information, I find the newsletters themselves contain enough information for anyone researching File 18 using this article as a jump-off point to be just fine. TrainsOnTime (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — TrainsOnTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TrainsOnTime (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Guide to the Territories of Halla

The Guide to the Territories of Halla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a reference book to a part of a series of science fiction books. Not notable outside the series, really. I'm turning up no meaningful third-party coverage specific to this title. Mikeblas (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, google search brings up bookseller and fan sites only, appears to be niche book for fans of the series only. Have distilled the information to the author article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Multiple searches at News found nothing and Books only found passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger Stillwell

Roger Stillwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Case of WP:ONEEVENT. Coverage is solely related to the Abramoff scandal. Stillwell was a non-notable bureaucrat with the Dept of the Interior with no real coverage until the Abramoff case. All of his coverage is all in the context of how he was involved with Team Abramoff. I don't see anything else that indicates he gets past notability that isn't focused on the scandal. An editor on the talk page claims Stillwell died, but I can't find evidence of that, so I'm treating this as a BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Books found mentions specifically for that event as well as News, no significant or notable coverage apart from this. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, author request (see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Rochak Inter-College Fest

Rochak Inter-College Fest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable local inter-school competition. None of the cited sources are independent (they're the organization's Facebook page, etc). No indication of how this event satisfies our notability criteria, WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't Delete per nomination. -- Anonymousbananas (talk) The sources include various newsletters of the participating schools. the official school newsletters. There 2 social media references. No personal agenda here, but the event is significant since its centered around our National Language. I agree the article may look incomplete and nonnotable, but that primarily because i may not have all the required details; which is the essence of Wikipedia, to let articles grow based on community contributions. Its possible that the weight of a national-language based event may seem negligible to you, but you need to consider that English, the language of the USA, is now more predominant in India and this event helps keep the spirit of Hindi alive. I believe, a gun is being jumped here. Lets just let the community decide. — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, since the article has shown no indication yet of notability. On searching, it does not seem to be covered in external reliable sources either. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There was additional canvassing by one editor trying to save the article on the following mailing lists - wikimedia-in-amd, wikimedia-in-wb, wikimedia-in-newsletter, wikimedia-in-mlr, wikimedia-in-hyd, wikimedia-in-del, wikimedia-in-chn, wikimedia-in-blr. Not sure if linking to mailing lists is permissible here, so I'd refrain from also adding the additional link to the mail in question. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Anonymousbananas (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ON reconsideration, please delete this article since the presence of the Hindi language is arked by bigger events and things than just this event. Sorry for the inconvenience.

• Delete Hindi is one of the official languages of India and not the national language of India. . Also see this citation for more info Hindi#cite_note-10. The event looks like a regional event for Hindi Divas celebration. The language alone can't be a reason to keep this article. Omshivaprakash (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Neil Volz

Neil Volz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Case of WP:BLP1E. Coverage is solely related to the Abramoff scandal. Volz was non-notable before becoming a congressional staffer. As a staffer, no real coverage. As a lobbyist, his coverage is all in the context of how he was involved with Team Abramoff. His guilty plea and participation as a witness in other trials is all Abramoff related. I found an added some sources about what he's doing currently, but none of it is notable. Volz self-published a memoir about the scandal, but I don't see that getting past WP:AUTHOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - News found Jack-Abramoff-related links as well as Books, no significant or notable coverage apart from this. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

List of only children

List of only children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:DOAL: "Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable." I submit that this list is a perfect example of something that should only be a category, instead of being a list. In the U.S., for example, more than a fifth of children born these days will be only children.[7]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Twenty percent of humanity? massive list of no encyclopedic value. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There is an encyclopedia page about only children, so why would a list of notable only children have no encyclopedic value? "twenty percent of humanity" doesn't sound like a valid reason for deletion, because by that argument, Christians make up 30% of humanity, Muslims make up 23% of humanity, therefore List of Muslims and List of Christians would also have no encyclopedic value, too, would you agree?

Furthermore, that the original objection linked to an article about the effects of raising only children implies that it's got some encyclopedic value. WACGuy (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• The main argument isn't that the idea of being an only child isn't notable, but that mostly this would be so incredibly large that it would be unwieldy. Right now this list only includes people well known in the United States and even then it's an extremely short list. This has the potential to have hundreds upon thousands of names on it, which will be an extremely bulky and unwieldy list. That's not even including the number of names that could yet be added to it- ie, the people who are notable but do not yet have pages or have yet to achieve notability. I agree that this would work better as a category rather than a list, since that's more easily navigated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Tokyogirl79, thanks for the insight. I guess it's up to the Wikipedia users now on whether to keep or delete. Cheers! WACGuy (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• You also have to argue, do we only include real people or fictional characters? There are a ton of fictional characters that would fit the list, like Lavinia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Another thing to add is that the list of Christians and list of Muslims pages have been split into many subsections because one basic page would just be too big. If you want to try to split all of these into individual lists then that could potentially work, but that will take a lot of time. It's not something that could be done in a few days since you'd have to go through thousands upon thousands of articles- and those are just the ones where the article helpfully labels themselves as an only child. Right now a category is the best way to do this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete/make into a category. I'm adding names to the list, partially to highlight how infeasible this would be as a page and not a category. A search on Wikipedia for "only child" brings up almost 100,000 hits. Even if we discard half of those as false hits of one type or another and then another half as otherwise unusable then that would still leave about 20,000-25,000 articles that could be listed in this article. That's just too unwieldy size-wise. I think that there's merit in having this in some sort of searchable format, but a page isn't the right solution to this issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm calling it quits a little early- I only got about 4-5 pages (about 60-80 hits) into the search results for the articles on Wikipedia before I got tired of adding them. My point in mentioning this is that there are a LOT of only children with articles on Wikipedia and this list would be massive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I see what you mean. Wow you definitely expanded it! :) It's something that could get really really huge indeed. But....that's not unprecedented. There are dozens of lists on Wikipedia that have entries exceeding one thousand. But those lists of course cover specific subjects, and there are many people out there interested enough in those subjects who wouldn't mind maintaining and cataloging those entries in a readable format.
• Categories are a strange thing because Wikipedia, or its users, are so strict about citation that how do you prove a Wikipedia page belongs in a category? WACGuy (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Mostly you just have to show a citation somewhere in the article. With some of these it shouldn't be too hard since the only child status is already listed in the article, but with others it may require some sort of searching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as trivia. As noted, this is rather common, and while we will note in someone's article the siblings they are known to have, we don't typically go out of our way to note that they had no siblings, a fact that may not have had any demonstrable impact on their life and may be for far too many reasons of varying significance to make comparisons meaningful at all. And seriously, DON'T make into a category. I don't remotely see how it would (or should) survive CFD. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't going to start a category for it, though a category would be less inappropriate than a list. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe on the maintenance side of it, but regarding the significance of the biographical fact we're far more strict with categories than with lists. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)\

...sure enough, the category has failed CFD in the past... postdlf (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Too large to maintain and more importantly too trivial to warrant being in an encyclopedia. This is the kind of excess baggage that one must simply toss overboard in order to save the ship. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as listcruft; this is a non-defining trait. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as too large and trivial. I also cannot recommend it as a category per WP:CATDEF. As SNUGGUMS states it is a non-defining trait. Yes, I know that some will argue that there are traits that a single child has that those with siblings do not but that is subjective and there are numerous examples of people who do not fit that pattern. MarnetteD|Talk 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete; clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE on top of issues others have mentioned. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete OK, so I agree that the list will get unmanageably large, so should now be deleted as is. I created the page, but per Anythingyouwant's link to WP:DOAL and Tokyogirl79 demonstrating how the page will grow much too large, it makes sense to stop this page from becoming uncontrollable. I have no objections if that's a violation of Wikipedia's policy. WACGuy (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• @WACGuy: Would you be interested in userfying the content? If you're interested in creating a category the list thus far could be useful in knowing which people should be tagged. There's still a lot of names out there, but this would at least give you a head's start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79: I'm thinking probably not. It seems that if users aren't in support of keeping the content (which is fine, no objections) then it's best not to start something. I'd hate to invest energy into something that will probably get deleted. Take care. WACGuy (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments from WACGuy and discussion with Postdlf collapsed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

But I do want to note that the armchair sociology that Wikipedia users wield is alarming. Statements like being an only child is a non-defining trait, when there are stereotypes about only children that they have to overcome. Middle children have stereotypes, oldest children have stereotypes, orphans have stereotypes that they all have to put up with in life. A stereotype already means that a person is growing up differently than someone else. It's contradictory to say that birth orders are a non-defining trait when there are Wikipedia articles dedicated to if and how it affects a child's upbringing. Or that users think twenty percent occurrence means something is common rather than uncommon. The non-expert opinions that Wikipedia users swing to dismiss a person's upbringing is very alarming for a page that advocates NPOV. MarnetteD notes that there are examples of people that don't fit a pattern. But you just used the word "pattern", so if it's a non-defining trait, why does a "pattern" even exist? Exceptions don't prove anything, because if that were the case we could easily dismiss the claims of many people about socio-economic disadvantages in their education and careers because we can point out people from their background who became rich or successful or whatever, therefore the cries of "quit whining and don't make excuses", which is fine when it comes from someone who had the same upbringing, but really insulting when it comes from a person who has no first-hand experience of what that person is going through. So, I agree with the point about "Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable". From a NPOV, this supports deletion of the list because it indeed will get way too big. But there's nothing in that item that asks "justify the credibility of the list with your POV". Unpleasant.WACGuy (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Your comment seems to imply you think a non-expert editor's judgment to include something should be given more weight than a non-expert editor's judgment to not include it, which is curious. At any rate, those "stereotypes" all go to why "only child" has an article (note we otherwise have one on the concept of birth order generally). It does not follow that we must list together everyone with an article who was an only child or that we must assume it was verifiably important in the context of each (or most) such individual's life. On "POV", there's no way to construct an encyclopedia without making judgments as to the relative significance of information. We always have to decide what articles are worth including, what is worth including in an article, and what facts article topics have in common are worth indexing. Glancing at every article in the list that presently have a citation, not even half even mention their status as an only child, and none say anything substantive about it despite that sample of articles having rather well-developed sections on the subjects' families and early lives. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Hi Postdlf, my comment wasn't about why the list should be included. My comment was a reaction to people's remarks that only child status is trivial and not defining. That's insensitive and judgmental. I really don't care about the list. WACGuy (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, I was commenting on that reaction, which makes less and less sense to me the more you've elaborated it. I don't even know who you think is being judgmental against whom. And if we're caring about being "sensitive", I don't see how asserting that people are not defined by being an only child could necessarily be more insensitive than asserting that people are defined by being an only child; every stereotype described at only child is negative. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete not really encyclopedic and not really worth a category as very few if any persons are notable as "only children". MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Zhang Haihua

Zhang Haihua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am seeing no signs of actual notability (and only weak assertions of notability in the article itself) - although, admittedly, I am no expert in this area. (A Google search yielded many other Zhang Haihuas who do not appear to be the same person.) Unless notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I wasn't able to find any citations to support this Wiki. --SimpleStitch (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Not clear how the subject is notable and lacks verifiable citations.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

BIBLETIME

BIBLETIME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:OR as reference is written by article author. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I would have just put this up for speedy deletion, it is completely incoherent and unreferenced and unstructured. Clearly made up by author.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced, incoherent essay per WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY: reads like a polite version of the Time Cube guy. Includes linkspam to article creator's self-published book on Amazon, which I've left in place for context to other editors considering this AFD. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant or notable coverage about this, multiple searches found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tamara Thorne

Tamara Thorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia established in the article as it stands, nowhere near fulfilling WP:AUTHOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alistair Cross. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete due to no reliably-sourced claims within the article meeting notability requirements and insufficient reliable sources for verification. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing to Keep based on the sourcing work done by E.M.Gregory. I think this article barely squeaks by now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• needs a closer look there are, in fact, easy to find claims "bestselling', "well-known". I have added them to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of those are by the subject of the article herself, so can not be used to establish notability. Some of the others are passing mentions of her works, or listings of her works, which also can not be used to establish notability. If you can find other articles to use, that would be fine. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • User:Nihonjoe I can see that you are an experienced editor, but you are abusing AFD. You are charged not to judge whether there are sources on the page, but to ascertain whether sources exist. WP is NOTDESTRUCTIVE, and for you to breezily dismiss the notability of a writer with this many books in print - and condescendingly grant me your permission to search for more sources - is out of line. I am not responsible for the validity of this ADF. You are. You asserted, with your nomination, that valid sources do not exist. I see no evidence that you have looked for them. (try, for example, a simple search like: Tamara Thorne site:LATimes.com) I will proceed with a little more sourcing, because I assumed at a glance - correctly - that sources had to be out there just from the fact that publishers have published and republished so many books by this author for so many years. I am aware that I am blowing off steam at you, when this sort of irresponsible rush to AFD is all too common. I excuse myself because even when I politely began to work on the page, you could not be troubled to take the least responsibility to search for sourcing before offering your manifestly uninformed opinion. Wondering why people quit editing? Maybe they get fed up with arrogant editors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Please ramain WP:CIVIL. I am not abusing AFD. AFD is all about determing whether an article meets the inclusion criteria (a combination of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, as well as some of the sub-pages of those). I don't need to look for sources in order to participate in the discussion. It is not about determining if sources exist. They can exist all day long, but if they are not added to the article then the article may be deleted. Number of books in print is not a valid criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you took my comments as condescending, that's not the way they were intended. It's a turn of phrase quite common in English.
      • Also I didn't nominate the article for deletion; Justlettersandnumbers did that. If you look at the history of the article, you'll find I actually created it over 7 years ago (I don't even remember creating it, but there it is). Please get off your high horse and stop assuming the worst about people participating here. I don't currently have time to look for article on this topic which has no interest to me. I only participated because I was notified of the discussion due to my having created the article. If you find enough sources for the article to be kept, more power to you, and congratulations. I really don't care one way or the other if this article is kept or not. I won't lose any sleep either way. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Sincere apology for having misidentified you. AFD, however, is not determined by sources already on the page. It is a question of whether sources exist. I can respect a keep vote based entirely on sources already on the page (if they suffice, notability is satisfied). But iVoting to delete requires an inquiry into whether as yet uncited RS sources exist. When you don't care enough to bother searching (I often feel that way) you shouldn't be voting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
          • You are still misunderstanding how AFD works. Anyone may participate, whether they have an interest in working on the article or not. Anyone may vote "keep" and anyone may vote "delete". Anyone. Even if they don't want to search for sources themselves. AFD is determined by the sources in the article. The final decision is absolutely not based on whether sources may exist out there somewhere. Unless they are in the article, they don't count. And I'm now done here. I have more important things to do than to argue semantics with you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
            • User:Nihonjoe please take a look at WP:NRV and WP:ARTN. It reads: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." I grant that this was and remains a case of:"very poor writing and referencing" Also, Of course anyone can come to AFD. But the process bogs down and sometimes misfires unless editors understand the standard of judgment, which is the notability of the subject, not the sources that happen to be already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
              • Do not copy your comments here and place them on my talk page. I've already read all those poilicies and guidelines, and I likely know them better than you do. Just drop it already. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• User:Justlettersandnumbers has created an inappropriate AFD. By his own description, he based his AFD on "Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia established in the article as it stands, nowhere near fulfilling WP:AUTHOR" But the policy is WP:ARTN. Even when Justlettersandnumbers visited this admittedly paltry page, there were indications of notability. Frankly, I think the AFD should be withdrawn by Justlettersandnumbers as an act of good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's absurd. On the one hand, you say Justlettersandnumbers nominated in good faith, and on the other, you attack his motives for nominating. When the article was nominated, the article did not have sufficient reliable sources in the article to meet notability and verification requirements. It doesn't matter how notable someone is, if their article doesn't have any of those reliable sources in it, then the article might get deleted. All we care about on Wikipedia is if the article itself is properly sourced. We don't care how many tens, hundreds, or thousands of reliable sources there might be out there if none or few of them are in the article here.
  • Now, you've had your say on this discussion. How about you give everyone a break and let others make comments? There's nothing else you could possibly say which will improve this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Er, no, actually. You are entitled to have opinions, not to flout policy guidelines when you participate at AFD see: WP:NRV and WP:ARTN. Of course, experienced editor will simply ignore iVotes that ignore policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not flouting anything, let alone any policies or guidelines, and I ask that you refrain from making false accusations against me. Please comment on the article itself, not your perceived views of the actions of other editors. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Thorne is a paperback writer of horror fiction, (literary snobs may wish to leave the room now). Seriously, folks, she has sold serious numbers of books over the course of many years,several of her books have been brought out in new editions years after initial publication. She is not the subject of PhD dissertations in literature departments. Nor is she likely to be offered the opportunity to discover whether the cabins at Yaddo are haunted. What she has that few Iowa writers do is $ale$. In re: GNG: attention from general circulation press tends to appear just before Halloween (Los Angeles Times, [8]); formal interviews appear in the horror industry trade press (The Horror Zine, [ http://www.thehorrorzine.com/Special/ThorneAndCross/ThorneCross.html]); she gets interviewed for local color stories about places she has used as settings for her spooky tales, such as Calico Ghost Town, (San Bernardino Sun, [9]) There is sufficient secondary source coverage for keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I've reorganized the article into a better format, added an infobox, sorted the bibliography by series (when applicable), made the lead reflect the content of the article (per WP:LEAD), cleaned up the references, and corrected a bunch of typos and grammar. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Elegantly done. Lovely way to conclude an AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• WP:HEY, User:Justlettersandnumbers do you want to withdraw/close this now?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per article improvements; current references sufficient when I just checked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I can see why it was nominated based on what there was before, but at this point it looks like a pretty solid article.Bjones (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baseball Challenge League. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Niigata Albirex Baseball Club

Niigata Albirex Baseball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable semi-professional (not fully) baseball club. Wizardman 20:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Baseball Challenge League. Spanneraol (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Baseball Challenge League. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baseball Challenge League. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fukui Miracle Elephants

Fukui Miracle Elephants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable semi-professional (not fully) baseball club. Wizardman 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Baseball Challenge League. Spanneraol (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Baseball Challenge League. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baseball Challenge League. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Toyama Thunderbirds

Toyama Thunderbirds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable semi-professional (not fully) baseball club. Wizardman 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Baseball Challenge League. Spanneraol (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Baseball Challenge League. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Megaverse Simulation Network

Megaverse Simulation Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Multiples Google News, Books and browser searches with "Megaverse Simulation Network" and with "Open Source" and "software" added provided nothing. I'm not an expert with software or this product but it seems there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Finding no secondary source coverage in the typical searches, but didn't look too hard considering that the "game" and "genre" aspect of the article's first draft appears to be a joke. The software is clearly described as a simulator and not a real-time strategy game. Please ping me if other sources, esp. non-English or offline, are found. czar ⨹ 02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sherrié Austin. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Water to the Soul

Water to the Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Album barely notable. Colorhaus does not have its own article. One source is Answers.com which is not reliable and barely mentions the album anyway. The other is an Allmusic review which is the only reliable source about the album. Redirect to Sherrié Austin declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sherrié Austin. Turning this into an article on Colourhaus seemed a possible option but I don't think the band or this album received enough coverage to make it worthwhile. Colourhaus and this album seem to be adequately covered in the Sherrié Austin article so a redirect there makes sense. --Michig (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - "Innocent Child" was a popular song on the radio in the 1990s, No.10 in airplay at KDWB FM in Minneapolis, Minnesota and No.50 on Billboard. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ITSNOTABLE. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - WRT "WP:NOTINHERITED", an album can be discussed in its article in terms of its constituent songs, this is referred to as a "top-down approach", since "Innocent Child" was a Colorhaus song. WRT "WP:ITSNOTABLE", the songs on the album have charted on Billboard with airplay in a major city. The album article is "more than a track listing" per WP:NALBUM. The album "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it", while the hit single "has appeared on [a] country's national music chart" and "was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I recently added KDWB-FM, Friday Night Videos, Rick Dees Weekly Top 40 and Windswept Pacific. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sherrié Austin. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Northamerica1000:, on what grounds do you propose redirecting the article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NALBUMS, section Albums: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Although the article has some content, a redirect is in the spirit of the guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 somebody wants to have this userfied, they can ask me on my talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Alistair Cross

Alistair Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable author. Almost no sign of independent, substantial coverage via Google, except for one write-up in a home-town paper. Almost no independent coverage for the author's first book or the Ravencrest series or the radio show. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable Citations/References

• Cyrus Webb Presents Alistair Cross and Tamara Thorne May 29, 2014.
• Hellnotes March, 2015.
• Crystal Lake Publishing July 15, 2014.
• Arts & Entertainment Magazine: The Eerie Digest November 14, 2013.
• The Pyramid/The Daily Herald Newspapaer. March 26, 2015.
• Authors on the Air. April 18, 2014.
• The Horror Zine March 27, 2015.

— 2601:7:7380:176:a981:8771:8ecf:7a53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:08, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Just the kind of totally non-notable nonentity author we don't need a page on. That a local paper printed his press release does not come close to establishing notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Thorne. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please remain WP:CIVIL. Your calling them a "non-notable nonentity" is hardly polite. Please focus on the merits of the article itself, not the subject of the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete due to no claims meeting notability requirements and insufficient reliable sources for verification. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of notability and citations --SimpleStitch (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Move to User Space WP:TOOSOON. I mean that quite literally. Clearly the Ravencrest series is selling (publishers don't continue series that are not); the books coming out in 2015 may generate coverage, or, if not, very likely subsequent books will since this horror author has as strong start. User:BerlinMalcom I suggest that you request that this be moved into your User Space, others will be able to access it there, you will be able to improve it as Cross' ouvre & reputation grow. Meanwhile, BerlinMalcom, I hope that you will join us by contributing to the pages of horror authors or other topics that interest you. You will learn how to build a better page, and gain the trust of other editors by demonstrating a will to participate in the project, not just this one page. For example, the page of Cross's co-author Tamara Thorne could use smoothing, and Graham Masterton is one of the many horror writers in need of sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Eason Chan concerts

Eason Chan concerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced and non-notable list of concerts that fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT. Aspects (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - "2010年5月8日" means naff all if you're from the UK/USA....., Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - this looks like just a directory; no evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB _talk 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Adams

Amanda Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: non-notable author; only one published work; rest is theses and promos. Quis separabit? 21:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

keep User:[email protected] seems to have missed the fact htat there are 2 published books, neither of them her thesis (which dealt with petroglyphs on Gabriola Island). Moreover Science (journal) published a profile on her and her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also it is redlinked to a number of Wikipedia articles, (because 2nd book was a series of biographies of notable archaeologists).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In sum. What I have found is that Ladies of the Field gets cited, not only on Wikipedia, but also in, you know, real books. That both Ladies and Mermaids were reviewed in Booklist, and Publisher's Weekly, but, beyond that, only reviewed in minor outlets like archaeology blogs. That there is an occassional newspaper mention related to the books, and a few other mentions of her as a budding archaeologist, and that she is now a full-time mother. The only big deal article was the profile in Science, but Science is a pretty big deal. That, and the fact that the 2 books are real and are cited does, I think, push her into notability as an author. Albeit not by a wide margin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - two well-reviewed books since her dissertation is enough for tenure nowadays, even in this tough market. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per sources found/ –Davey2010^Talk 19:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy A.S. Wingate

Guy A.S. Wingate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't verify that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in the article seems particularly notable, I couldn't find the in-depth sources about him needed for WP:GNG, and I couldn't find reviews of his books on pharmaceutical computer systems verification (nor the ones on Scottish coalminer genealogy) that would help him pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete has a few links to social networking sites, but not much for passing GNG. Noteswork (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Books actually found a few minor mentions but aside from that, absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Brittanya O'Campo

Brittanya O'Campo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a person who has been a contestant on a few reality TV show competitions, but lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I reviewed and removed a bunch of unreliable sources. See this version to review those sources. Whpq (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Multiple searches found nothing including books, browser and news, nothing significant as Brittany O'Campo nor as Brittany Razavi. Nothing signicant or in-depth about her time as a reality show contestant. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alan Edwards (publicist)

Alan Edwards (publicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Plain promo without real independent sources The Banner talk 17:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. --–Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. I accept that the film makes enough difference for notabllity DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrea Blaugrund Nevins

Andrea Blaugrund Nevins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article on very minor writer with very local publicity. In contrast, one or both of her parents might possibly be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• keep there is significant stuff not yet on the page [10], there are adequate reliable sources, and note that her first film has a page [The Other F Word].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep Sorry DGG, but tone is a reason to correct through regular editing and rarely a reason to delete an article on someone whose coverage meets WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Centre for Studies in Social Sciences

Centre for Studies in Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a research organization, making no substantive claim of notability beyond the semi-promotional and unverifiable "one of the leading think tanks" (which sez who?), and relying primarily on primary sources — the only reference here that passes muster as a substantive reliable source is an obituary of one associated academic, which notes the existence of this organization but fails to be about this organization. And the other non-primary source is just a photograph of the building that the organization is based in, thus also failing to be substantive coverage of the organization. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but in its existing form the sourcing does not adequately demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 04:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

MTP-II MATER

MTP-II MATER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability since Marasmusine added the tag seven years ago; time for a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

the link to cordis for this project, given in the first deletion request above does not work. this is the perfect example that links pointing to somewhere on the web, are not reliable. some years ago, i have started to open lemmata of EU-research projects to have reliable links. all were deleted, MATER is the last remain. this ends up in a discussion about the relevance of research projects. the related article in wikipedia says, that a project must be large to be relevant to wikipedia. hard to find the propper definition of "large" for a research project - where is the limit in euro or man power or topics between relevant and not relevant. i am an inclusionist and i am wondering, why there is a limitation for research projects producing new knowledge for mankind. the eu spends billions of euro for its international reasearch and interesting findings are beeing published every year. tiresome discussions. Hannes Grobe (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is repeatedly relisted rather than closed due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. The EU Marine Science and Technology program under which this was funded may well be notable. I'm dubious that research grants, even large ones, are really a good subject for encyclopedia articles, but if they are then the Mediterranean Targeted Project may be large enough and written-about enough to be notable. I think it's quite unlikely that a single phase of a research grant (which is what the title refers to) is itself notable. And in any case we have only primary sources. If there were a larger parent article to redirect to I'd say merge but in the absence of one I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Geoff Brown (baseball)

Geoff Brown (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable minor league baseball player who is currently a free agent. Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough coverage to pass GNG.--Yankees10 17:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep World-renowned baseball superstar. Alex (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Are you serious? Spanneraol (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm always serious. Alex (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Yet another page created by Alex that never should have been created. Someone should track his page creations so they don't hang around for years. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete fails GNG. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Tropicana Golf and Country Club

Tropicana Golf and Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG and GNG. declined speedy but looks like an advert. All I could find was directory listings LibStar (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom's arguments. I tried to speedy this after finding nothing of substance online. Even the course's own webpage doesn't make any claim of importance. Sionk (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – does not meet WP:N; source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable golf course....William 14:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Neeraj Mehta

Neeraj Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promo-piece. References themselves are promotional pieces that don't support claims on notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I agree this appears to be a promotional piece by an SPA. However, there appears to be enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, albeit barely. I don't feel strongly about this article, so I reserve the right to change my mind (and vote) based on any arguments presented. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Userfication as this was a poorly accepted AfC draft and tge creator should get a chance to improve. I don't care if it goes back to Draft: or to User: - I think given more time it can be salvaged. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete or send back to draftspace. Shouldn't have been accepted. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep but Improve the subject is notable according to WP:GNG, the article should be improved rather than simply deleting it. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The Times of India and Hindustan Times are reliable sources. I agree the article needs improving, but AFD is not clean-up.Mdtemp (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep but Improve Chunlinc (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, some of the sources are interviews, but they're in major publications. That shows me that he's achieved the level of notability, through coverage in reliable sources, that WP:GNG calls for. Does the article need cleanup? Probably. Should the article be kept and improved? Yes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't like this article. It's very promotional, not very balanced, and its references are in terrible shape. I'm not even sure if there's really enough for a standalone article, but that being said those are not necessarily valid deletion rationales and all seemingly surmountable problems. This article may not expand beyond a start or stub but it meets what I would describe as the absolute bare minimum requirements for inclusion. Mkdw^talk 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Article could be improved, but the subject is notable. Mehta is widely quoted by the press as an expert on nutrition/fitness [11] and the existing sourcing is also sufficient to prove notability under the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Incredibly Strange Film Show

The Incredibly Strange Film Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Reason was " For this to remain we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. IT has not come through the WP:AFC process, despite the banner announcing that it has done so. No notability is asserted nor verified."

Since the contesting of the PROD a pseudo-reference has appeared, but notability remains unasserted and unverified. Fiddle Faddle 13:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Jonathan Ross OBE is a notable English filmmaker, and this series is well documented in the article. I added another inline citation.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep added few more reliable references from TV.com and IMDB. -Farhanimator (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep added more references and citations from the official production company's archives -Farhanimator (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Book Reference: Web References: IMDB TV.com theTVDB [12] [13] -Farhanimator (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Numerous mentions in books on cult cinema indicate its importance (more refs added to article). It also plays an important role in the career of Jonathan Ross, one of British TV's biggest personalities. There was also a spin-off book which may have attracted reviews (there's one of the Italian translation here but I don't know if L'Indice is a reliable source[14]). I wasn't able to check newspaper archives, but there is very likely to be additional press coverage from the pre-internet era. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This Book [Ross, Jonathan (1993). The incredibly strange film book. London: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0671712969.] is a later revision and spin-off to the show authored by Jonathan Ross himself.
• Part of the problem is the use of psychotronics in the lead, which is grossly misleading, far as I can understand. This is a series about B movies. One ref, TV.com, mistakenly uses "psychotronic," and I wonder if the summary text there is in fact merely mirroring what was on Wikipedia? is that possible? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see, it's the little used term B_movie#Psychotronic_movie. I'll fix that in the lead. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ERMES

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/ERMES
• Articles for deletion/ERMES (2nd nomination)

ERMES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, although it's not my area of expertise. Has been tagged for notability for seven years; we really need this resolved (tagged by Fabrictramp. Last AfD was closed as no consensus, mainly because it attracted only one comment, a weak keep from Levdr1lostpassword. Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Sources aren't brilliant and the article is in a shit condition but notability does seem to be there by a bare minimum, I'm more inclined to go with Keep & Improve. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Little trouble finding independent coverage from the 1990s. Wall Street Journal, The Independent, Work Study, Telecom ABC: Noyster (talk), 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Troy Lulashnyk

Troy Lulashnyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and there is no inherent notability for any of his positions. Only material are short bios from the embassy, some notices of appointment and a couple passing mentions. Jbh (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it is not a simple copy of other sources, it is well written and relies on various sources (see external links. The article is compiled in a different form, added with sources and links. The subject is a important person e.g. an influential ambassador from Canada in a war troubled Ukraine. If necessary, don't remove but help to improve it. I have put already a lot of work to find all the informations about this person, to translate and compile them into a new article for Wiki. --Stonepillar (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any rule that ambassadors or other diplomats are automatically entitled to articles on here just because they exist — a diplomat has to earn inclusion by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources. But that's completely failed to be demonstrated here; this article relies almost entirely on primary sources like DFAIT's own website and his own alma mater's self-posted list of its own notable alumni. A properly sourced article would certainly be allowed to stay — but "properly sourced" does not describe this article in its current form. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if and when real sourcing can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Ambassador of a major country to two more relatively major countries. I believe that qualifies per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIO isn't met. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and are not politicians. Therefore, they must satisfy the requirements laid out at WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• delete ambassadors are not inherently notable, and this one does not demonstrate WP:BIO being met. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and Ambassdors are not inherently notable and are not Politicians.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject; mostly promotional (article) in nature. Quis separabit? 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject has been reviewed by many outlets that the video games wikiproject has deemed reliable. Prose quality concerns are not deletion concerns and can be easily fixed. Withdrawal recommended. czar ⨹ 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Was just about to post the same link Czar had - and there's at least 3-4 good RS reviews in that list that meet WP:VG/S standards (eg PSM Magazine, Play Magazine, G4 TV). --MASEM (t) 01:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, notable as described above. Not really promotional, just short with an excessive list of songs. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: Is this a mistake? I don't see how it meets WP:PROMO. or fails notability. ― Padenton|✉   02:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of it was cleaned up. @[email protected] czar ⨹ 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahh that makes a little more sense. ― Padenton|✉   16:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is general agreement that (as well as being promotional) that notability is not supported by references. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Corporate Election Services

Corporate Election Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• No stated vote. Promotional. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at the following @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, for a deletion discussion where the case is clearer, the sources poorer, and the editor discussion is nevertheless richer, more substantial that what appears here so far: Binding_antibody. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Before any editor makes the foolish mistake of taking this seriously, I'd like to remind that Fortuna changes his/her mind every 4 days--180 degrees, | see here where by my reading Fortuna was in favor of the article in a more promotional state. This has been mostly resolved with 4 editors (including Fortuna) 5-6 days ago (now April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting) & I have 2 requests on the articles talk that 4 days later still have yet to be replied to. This page now makes the 5th location where this mostly resolved 6 day old discussion will now take place, part of me is wondering if I'll see this non-issue 'issue' clutter 10 wikipedia pages or 25 & then grow stale for 4 days (now April 16, 2015 (2015-04-16) & counting) with no response to my views ala the articles talk page. I'd respond directly to the "promotional" merits however you can already read about that being resolved on 4 talk pages. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That remark of mine tended towards the ironic. Hope that clarifies. (PS- "Before any editor makes the foolish mistake of taking this seriously"- REALLY?!Your defence of an article opens with an attack on an editor?!)_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No attack, just stating the uncomfortable fact that you hide behind 'irony' when you're exposed, can all editors have 100% ironic discussions here as you spent your involvement 5 days ago (April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting)? We could stretch this out to 2018 with ironic responses & get nothing resolved at all, do 180s every 4 days on and on and on. That defence of mine tended towards starting out that this is the 5th page we are having this discussion on, but that seems to be an uncomfortable fact for you too since you've gone silent on it despite 18 hours to reply (April 19, 2015 (2015-04-19) & counting), and yet your reply above really didn't explain your unsubstantiated claim at all, just like on the articles talk page there are valid (non ironic) matters to be resolved that have yet to be replied to 5 days later (now April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting). The irony indeed, why don't you get serious about this 6 days in (now April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting), quit playing 'irony' games and maybe you'll receive a serious reply in around 6 days :-). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP. Note:the concern is promotional NOT notablity, honest question here, IS THIS deletion request An BIG JOKEerror? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't find any mention of this outfit in doing two searches on Bing.com. http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=corporate+election+services&FORM=HDRSC6. http://www.bing.com/search?q=corporate+election+services&FORM=HDRSC1 Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, reject this analysis. The period in question may be poorly archived by digital search—I did not recheck your Bing effort—but the article currently includes a book reference, a half dozen newspaper articles, at least 4 solid online magazine articles, as well as a slew of SEC documents I have yet to look at. There seems to be no question that a company that has received this much attention, even if big-city-local, is notable enough for a good, short business article. Moreover, if the text in the article is accurate, its notability extends beyond metropolitan and regional, and touches on Fortune 100/500 companies. It's no Google, but also not Gemma's Fish and Chips, either. No, I see no merit to the notability accusation leveled against this article. [And as for general attitudes, note, an "outfit" is the organization that makes book and runs the docks for your waterfront metro, or else are things that the ladies (and maybe some gents) purchase in an apparel shop. This article, sadly, is just about a people-employing, tax-paying business. More boring than the eponymous alternatives, but still, perhaps due a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.] Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For persective, see this article for deletion, Binding antibody. But know I am fully behind you on the matters of good grammar and in-line references. Fully and unequivocally on such, just not here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:CHANGE ABOVE TO EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP, after 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 whole days (now April 14, 2015 (2015-04-14) & counting), no editor has been able to tell anyone why it is either promotional or non-notable. Lots of hot air here, no substance to any of this. If I were editors involved with this my primary concern would be mitigating a near-future Admin block for failing after 10 days to adhere to any wikipolicy concerning article deletion safeguards. BeenAroundAWhile, I could tell the world what that statement of yours was, but you already know it because of course you as a responsible/serious editor read the article & talk pages so you already see dozens of RSs for notability and you also are fully aware that the legit search you did actually pulls up dozens of sites for this topic. So going on the 11th day (now April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting), and knowing editors are reading the talk pages and still can't tell me why (aside from searches that validate this articles STRONG KEEP) how is this not a comedy productionruse? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• You can't !vote twice. BMK (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• BMK, isn't this AfD proof certain wikipedia editors can do anything they want for 13 days (now April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting)? Glad to see someone is interested in Wikipedia principals here, but I'd start with the 'drive-by' 'one-line', 'hide-for-a-week', editors. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. What I'm talking about is that every editor only gets to !vote on AfD once, and you !voted twice. BMK (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong motion to table. I would move to table this proposed deletion, until the following tasks are accomplished by those participating on each side of the discussion, after which discussion can be renewed:

1. Opponents of the article mark specific elements in the text with which they have POV issues, with the appropriate inline tags, so that we can see what you perceive the real issues to be.

2. Proponents of the article address the poor state of the URL-only sources, moving them to a consistent format that makes it easy for those reviewing to see the real substance, or lack thereof, of the sources on which the article is based.

Can I propose we do these two things, between now and 1200 EDT, 4 May (beginning of the day, that Monday), after which we reconvene to decide? Otherwise, I will cast a strong vote reflecting that this article is far more neutral, and apparently about a business of far greater notability, than many other unchallenged ones here (and will request experts to come on board to review of all aspects of this proposal and its aims). Cheers, Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: My father, rest his soul, purchased most of his wife's and children's holiday gifts from the hardware and tools section of Sears, I myself used the company Parker Hannifin mentioned in the article as a BTB vendor many years back, I have fought with and and been reconciled to a feisty editoress with Market in her name, have competed earnestly against Pfizer (and likely have consumed some product of theirs at some point, but not by the handful), have consumed manifold soft drinks made from cans produced by Alcoa, and at one point (Lor' forgive) dated a woman named Sallie Mae. Despite all these, I believe the forgoing to be an honest, unbiased attempt to do right by this issue and article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

First, nice to see you again Leprof (full disclosure Leprof and I have assisted each other a few times in the past). Second, I have wanted to clean up the references in the article as evidenced by the history and my submitting it to the tech message board here, but alas we are on day 12 of this hall-of-mirrors adventure. So I have no qualms with point 2.

Most importantly, with point 1, the problem with this entire endeavor is that a few editors who as best I can tell just like to play games over 12 days (now over April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting) are more than willing to tag everything in site then disappear for a week when you confront them with why or most importantly how they can show good-faith by actually using 12 days (now over April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting) to improve the article.

Nothing on this page after a week (and really 12 days ((now over April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting)) do I see as legitimate, reasonable or valid, and trust me I've waited for something, anything. This is not a 22 day (now over April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting) problem (with reference to your good faith May 4 date), at most this is simply a few days on the articles talk page 'problem', which interestingly enough these 'label happy' editors have done their best to ignore standing concerns there for 12 days.

There is a place on wikipedia for 22 day manufactured 'issues' (now over April 15, 2015 (2015-04-15) & counting) from editors who hide behind 'irony' and then change their minds or ignore valid questions every 4 days, not here, but I'm starting to think if I'm asked about this after 22 days I'll be putting it on that forum.

I do thank you for your good faith effort to neutrally mediate this LeProf in a way that seeks to bring sides together, I'm not against good-faith improvements to the article as evidenced in several areas, I'm against hit-and-run non-issues wasting our time. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Market, but you do me greater justice than I deserve—I cringe at articles whose sources cannot be easily reviewed, and simply wanted to see the article move toward being unquestionably acceptable (made all the easier if I can really vet the references). However, the analysis of the sources that I could do was supportive (see the Bing mention above), and I have no questions as a scientist-turned-businessman that this article's subject is important enough. Have a go at those sources, and we'll see if anyone gets to work and substantiates any negative claim, meanwhile. Now, I have to add my own disclaimer to my earlier posting. Cheers, Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not finding third-party sources of substance. The references are loaded with non-substantive links. #'s 4-6, 13, 19-20, 23-24 are all directory entries. #14-17 is the company's own web site. #22, 28, 30 have only a mention #27 doesn't mention it at all. This is reference cramming, and not only doesn't help, it wastes people's time during AfD's. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean "Keep" Mona, consider:

"I'm not finding third-party sources of substance." False

"The references are loaded with non-substantive links." False

"#'s 4-6, 13, 19-20, 23-24 are all directory entries." False

"#27 doesn't mention it at all." False

"This is reference cramming." False, April 14, 2015, read

"and not only doesn't help." False, APRIL 14, 2015, read what editors like you thought by launching 5 talk pages.

"it wastes people's time." True, block Fortuna if you're going to complain.

"during AfD's." False, see my 1st comment, r-e-a-d, this is a 13 day one-word insult lie.

I will happily accept your apology. Can I lie about editors for 13 days, make unsubstantiated allegations of them violating policies then run away for weeks and not reply to their talk page inquiries? No, so neither can any editor leaving a comment on this page, if you have good faith you will exercise it by reading the mess that a certain editor created with 5 talk page one-line insults & then hiding for a week (now over April 16, 2015 (2015-04-16) & counting) without responding to reasonable good faith inquiries. If an editor wishes to comment here maybe r-e-a-d at least the comments on this page, and really r-e-a-d all other 4 pages that the 'one-word insult' 'hit-and-run artist' 'hide-for-a-week' (now over April 16, 2015 (2015-04-16) & counting) editor was reading when they decided to as you put it "waste people's time". We do agree on that. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and promotional BMK (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Truly fascinating, did you read anything here? Is an editor's vote considered when they parrot unsubstantiated allegations that have unanswered reasonable challenges going back a week, and on the articles talk page? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

duh, no, i only does whatz all da udders duz cause i aint got no brainses.

You kmow what, you can stick your comment where the sun doesn't shine, sweetheart. If you don't like the way I !voted, based on my own personal evaluation of the material, there's nothing much you can do about it, but insulting me rates right up there at the top of the list of shit you can do which will make it absolutely certain that there's no possible chance of changing my mind. Now, stop being a jerk and hassling editors who disagree with you.

(Oh, and yes, my !vote actually does count. It's enough to make you cry, innit?) BMK (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

See your talk page, except you just edited my words there. I'd ask (for the 2nd time in 3 hours) if you read my two April 26, 2015 (2015-04-26) questions & if you intend to answer, but per usual with this unreasonable (violation of wikipedia policies?) AfD no answer to my April 26, 2015 (2015-04-26) reasonable questions to you. So 100% non-responses going back April 16, 2015 (2015-04-16) & counting. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources, per LaMona; and spam, per BMK. GregJackP Boomer! 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good rescue job by Everymorning. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Have a Nice Life

Have a Nice Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable band. Lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. There are three sources given, #1 is a user music review site, #2 comes from the record label of the artist, so it isn't secondary, and #3 is just a recording of one of their albums. There's also nothing to suggest that they meet the notability requirements for bands either. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per sources I added to the article as well as the following, which seem to enable this band to meet WP:BAND. [15] [16] [17] [18] Everymorning talk 12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as passes GNG + NMUSIC. 14:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, should have been speedied. May even be salted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Noman Group of Industries

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Noman Group of Industries
• Articles for deletion/Noman Group of Industries (2nd nomination)

Noman Group of Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All bar one source are incidental mentions. Posit this version fails WP:NCORP. Dolescum (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ADMASQ. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. GregJackP Boomer! 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Manolita Piña

Manolita Piña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. Fails GNG and V. Has been unsourced since creation and has been tagged with notability issues since 2012. Prod declined (after 7 days) by User:Ollie231213 because: "The oldest person ever from a country. More sources might be available. Take this to AfD". Nothing of value is in this article that isn't already present in List of Spanish supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - No verifiability. No indication of notability. Age alone does not confer notability. Megalibrarygirl, thanks for the expansion and the cool user name.--Rpclod (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - She is the founder of a notable museum in Montevideo. I have expanded her article accordingly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - The article has been vastly expanded recently, to show that she was notable for reasons other than longevity. Bodgey5 (talk) 2:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Indeed more sources have now been added and she appears to be notable for reasons other than longevity, too. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - A person, who is verified by the GRG as the oldest person of a country is to be considered as notable. What is more, the improvement of the article has been significant and it concerns a person also known for other reasons than longevity. -- Waenceslaus (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Article includes significant references from major, notable publications. OR drohowa (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

2nd Scottish independence referendum

2nd Scottish independence referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While there have been some sources about holding another Scottish independence referendum, these could easily be mentioned instead at 2014 Scottish independence referendum; in fact, it already is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong delete No sources provided and as of yet no notability. This article is mere speculation as to what may or may not happen depending on the views and sensibility of the Scottish people. As such it is unencyclopaedic. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - pure crystal balls. . .Mean as custard (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - crystal ball and essay.--Rpclod (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not add anything meaningful to the existing article on Scottish independence.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. Number 57 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per this image. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and is mere speculation at present.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for speculation. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Perhaps the better thing to do is improve the primary subject article Scottish independence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Conrad Mieschke

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Conrad Mieschke
• Articles for deletion/Conrad Mieschke (2nd nomination)

Conrad Mieschke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD was closed because I had pinged those who had previously commented on its notability, which was judged to have tainted the discussion. Hopefully we can get it resolved this time. Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources and no real notability even if verifiable.--Rpclod (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: (Repeating my contribution to the previous AfD) Highbeam and Questia searches turn up nothing, Google turns up the usual user-submitted art sites such as SaatchiArt. There is also a snippet view indicating that a painting by the subject achieved a 3rd prize in 1981, but neither that nor the Brampton Arts Council Arts Person of the Year award is evidence of meeting the WP:ARTIST criteria or those of broader biographical notability. (Also responding to this article identified in the previous AfD: Local paper coverage, which is normal coverage for a working artist, but not evidence of meeting the WP:ARTIST notability criteria. ) AllyD (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: agreeing with AllyD, and additionally pointing out that the Brampton Arts Council is merely a regional arts agency (a suburb of Toronto) and thus not substantial enough to establish notability. Additionally, this article makes it clear that the exhibition is part of a member supported gallery system. These kinds of exhibitions do not establish notability (and in fact are red flags for it). Theredproject (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable and lacks reliable sources and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacqueline Donachie

Jacqueline Donachie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I may be missing something, but I do not see notability here ,despite the Herald article DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Well, the nominator gives her the Herald article and I think that THIS counts to GNG. That gets us to the very loose definition of "multiple" presumably reliable, independent, published sources that we need to see for a subject to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per above, plus [19] (frieze), [20] (The Skinny), [21] STV etc. Meets WP:GNG, in my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per above and she's been written up in The Sunday Times. I added the references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Shirley Braha

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Shirley Braha
• Articles for deletion/Shirley Braha (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Shirley Braha (3rd nomination)

Shirley Braha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Media personality with extremely superficial coverage. (Sorry, didn't notice the 2 prior AfDs until now, but I having now looked again I still think the coverage's not there.) EEng (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marnie (dog), owned by the subject. There's a distinct whiff of strained promotionalism here. EEng (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• A very borderline keep, on the basis of barely meeting criteria 3 set out in WP:CREATIVE (New York Noise) and WP:GNG for receiving coverage from local free newspapers. I am open to being convinced otherwise, especially if an American is able to better assess the quality of these sources. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Financière de l'Echiquier

Financière de l'Echiquier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No eviden ce of notability. deleted fin 2008 rom the fr WP at [22] DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Found several mentions on Google News, but they are in French. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete - No reliable sources and no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable company. LaMona (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• I checked Google News and there are, indeed, mentions in French and Italian which might create some notability (I did not check all of them, but speak both languages). However, the current article is in such pitiful state that using these sources would amount to deleting the old article and creating the new one. I therefore suggest to delete the article without prejudice against recreation according to reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

EMMA for Peace

EMMA for Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems a very worthy organisation but has it established its notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Paolo Petrocelli, where it is already mentioned. The founder appears to be notable; the organization does not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep With significant coverage in BBC Music Magazine (see also here), the news agency ANSAmed, and the regional Italian newspaper Il Tirreno, we do seem to have "notability": Noyster (talk), 08:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep - seems to be multiple, reliable sources to just clear notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly notable. Organization is Notable enought to stick at Wiki. Paolo Petrocelli the founder of EMMA is also a Notable subject. Strong Keep! --Khocon (talk) 9:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The subject meets criteria #4 of WP:SKATER, having competed in the 2014 Skate America. This guideline states that satisfaction of one of the criteria therein equates to presumed notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Maxime Deschamps

Maxime Deschamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable sports-person. No claim of notability and the single reference does not provide in depth coverage as per WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete perhaps the shortest Wikipedia article ever. Not notable.Purplethree (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It could certainly stand to be longer than it is — but trust me, it's in no way setting any kind of record for shortness. Stubs of this length are actually quite common and I've seen much shorter too (people routinely try to get away with "John Smith is a writer, the end.") Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• Delete Most significant accomplishment was a 5th in pairs at the Canadian championships which is not enough to meet WP:NSKATE. The only source is a link to her record so she also lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - according to ISU profile, competed in 2014 Skate America and that meets #4 of WP:NSKATE. Article does state this in the infobox (I will add info in article text as well). Very short article and should have tag(s) added for improvement, but since we have the presumption met I say keep.RonSigPi (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Same reason as RonSigPi.TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Ronsigpi. Purple's !vote rationale (size of article) is not supported by wp criteria, and therefore should not be counted. Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how coming in 6th in one event equates to notability. I did find one other article [29] that mentions a "second place" in a Canadian event, but I'm still not convinced about notability. Note that a virtually identical article exists for the skating partner Vanessa_Grenier. LaMona (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Clíona Ní Chíosain

Clíona Ní Chíosain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

She has some coverage, but not enough to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Tagged by Fish and karate 7 years ago; hopefully we can now get some resolution. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong Keep I am from Ireland and I can assure you that this actor is quite notable. For a while the show she stared in, Aifric, was TG4 flagship production. She remains quite prominent in Irish youth culture as well as Gaeltacht areas. Admittedly the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired but I am sure that sources can be found. I will note however that the Irish Independent, which is listed, is a good source and is relevant. This article should be kept as it is both relevant and notable for Ireland. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note I have done some work on the article expanding it and adding sources. It certainly no longer fail on WP:ENT.The information I have added shows that Ní Chíosain has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and has also made "unique, prolific and innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." She also now passes WP:GNG as indicated by the significant coverage in Irish media sources I have included, eg. The Independent. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep A notable actress in an underrepresented area of Wikipedia. Thriley (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep With just a brief search, I found enough in-depth reliable sources to establish notability WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination' oer all above. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Rajesh Sharma (traumatologist)

Rajesh Sharma (traumatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced, fails Notability guidelines - could not find any reliable source Strong delete. Recreation of previously deleted article [30]. Jethwarp (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Simon (Upcoming film)

Simon (Upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be a hoax; a careful Gsearch comes up with nothing. It doesn't help that the article was created by DevelopmerntOfSimonMovie1 (and "development" isn't even spelled correctly). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as hoax. I can't find even the slightest whisper of evidence that this proposed film actually exists. It's pretty out of the norm for Disney to back something and not talk about it. There's also the issue that the article for Munich Animation suggests that the studio has closed (IMDb has their last active project as 2010). Given that this is supposed to be a Disney film with a soundtrack by notable performers, the lack of coverage makes zero sense unless you consider that the film is a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've also blocked the editor for a promotional username. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a hoax. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jordan Hartney

Jordan Hartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems borderline, but I don't think he quite meets WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability for 7 years, hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable athlete. Has competed in some events but has not medalled. Doesn't meet WP:Notability requirements. Suttungr (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. Never appears to have competed at the highest level and winning a national age group title is not enough to show notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - no sport specific guideline for swimming, but he has competed in the 2009 World Championships (see [31]) and competed (making the 'B' final) at the 2006 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships and 2010 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships (see [32] and [33]) that are equivalent to the European Championships. In addition, with little searching I was able to come across these [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38]. I think this shows GNG is met. Also, and this is just my opinion, when a sport does not have sport specific guidelines I try to look at a similarly situated sport. Track and Field can be considered similar in that it has meets, its major event is the Olympics, is timed race that are mostly individual and some relays, and receive a solid amount of sports coverage. Competing in worlds or a Continental-level meet is enough to presume GNG is met. With what I found with little effort and in view of the high level of competition, I say keep.RonSigPi (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 04:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Just over the border of borderline. Meets GNG, as ronsigpi points out. Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

SkillTwins

SkillTwins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was No sources or references (beyond their own page) are offered to support the information in the article or otherwise indicate notability. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Giant Snowman; page seems promotional in nature. As I stated in the PROD, no independent sources are offered. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of notability. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosegreen GAA

Rosegreen GAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I added two references from local coverage, but I couldn't find anything to support WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG. Tagging the editor who tagged it for notability (7 years ago!) Fabrictramp, and Pmunited, who has edited this and is an expert in this area).Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bibliothèque Municipale de Riom

Bibliothèque Municipale de Riom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Libraries are not inherently notable. I could find no in depth coverage. Note there is no corresponding article in French. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Intervals (software)

Intervals (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about non-notable software. The only source I could find was a press release. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 14:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I removed all the info that was self-referenced (to Pelago). The other two sources seem to have some kind of editorial control, but I am really not sure without further checking. Also, the citations might or might not be phony. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice to re-creation if sufficient in-depth sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Dark art

Dark art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cannot find WP:RS discussing this subject significantly. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete find a source for this , put it into the article Art and then when you have a lot of sources spin it out. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: a vague description masquerading as an art movement. There is nothing here and this does not remotely satisfy WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 20:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment if this is deleted, the title should redirect to dark arts, since a single dark art (black magic) comprises the dark arts -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree, DABs don't need redirects people will get there just fine without a redirect. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • DABs have not-infrequently had redirects, there are categories for such redirects such as {{R to disambiguation}} and {{R from partial disambiguation}} ; it's not uncommon for variant spellings singular and plural forms to redirect to the dab -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Not a great article but there are several sources out there, e.g. [39], [40], [41]. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Undecided What the article describes is certainly real and notable. It's not clear if sources use that name for it to the degree that would justify an article, or if maybe there is already a better article under another name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Move If this page is not just a hoax I would favour moving the content to the page Goth subculture. Failing support for this motion my vote is a weak keep. I am not sure if this topic is worthy of its own page in terms of notability but it is certainly worth a mention on Wikipedia. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete; vague description, used in a unrelated ways. Neutrality^talk 04:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cherry Hill. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cherry Hill, New Jersey (disambiguation)

Cherry Hill, New Jersey (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unneeded DAB, since it is primarily best known as the township. The community in Bergen County has been redirected but is not mentioned on the New Bridge Landing page, as a side note. Tinton5 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Cherry Hill disambiguation page, per WP:INCOMPDAB. Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Cherry Hill Djflem (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Federico Sangirardi Wardal

Federico Sangirardi Wardal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I considered putting a prod up for this but doing this instead. I looked around nobody under this name appears on the film Casanova with this name. Only one person I can find with that name (or rather close to it) and had just one role total. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The IMDB entry lists only one item, back in 1985. Otherwise no references.--Rpclod (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep-it does not say he was in the Federico Fellini film even! (I had to undo the page creators edit to the film Casanova as he listed him as the main star!) Wgolf (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete if even the subject appeared in Fellini's Casanova, it was in a non-significant role. Fails GNG, NACTOR and other suitable SNGs. Cavarrone 06:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• comment-COI issues-one of the contributors is named:Count Federico Wardal Wgolf (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Perlman

Mark Perlman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP article unsourced and therefore information could not be verified Fresh Sullivan (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. These entries here and here confirm he is an NFL official and helps with the BLP issue, but I don't know whether he satisfied WP:GNG. This one here may have bearing on GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not finding anything that would pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• In addition to the sources User:Cbl62 found, I found that he is in the Toms River, New Jersey, Hall of Fame [42] (don't you wish your hometown had a hall of fame?) Unless someone finds something bigger than this, delete and/or add him to List of NFL officials - if such a thing exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Multiple News searches found results for him but nothing significant or notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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