Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 April	21 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. It appears that unanimous consensus exists to keep this article on the site, so I am going to go ahead and close this nomination. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suzette Jordan[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E the subject was raped and is solely notable due to that incident and for disclosing her identity .She did receive a lot of coverage when she died recently but that is News .This lacks WP:LASTING beyond this rape case and all news reports mention the term rape victim or rape survivor while refering to the subject and is notable only for the park street rape case .Note edited it for clarity. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for notifying me, Pharaoh of the Wizards. In a context in which conviction rates have fallen by over 45% from the early '70s, 3/4th of the reported perpetrators go unpunished and in which rape remains largely unreported because of stigma and discrimination (see here), Jordan became noted across India as an anti-rape campaigner for her courageous stance and disclosure. She was notable before her death, but her death sadly offers WP the citations required to establish it. For instance, Economic and Political Weekly is South Asia's leading academic journal; this obituary for Suzette in EPW would confirm notability, I hope. Please let me know if you need modification in the way the article is written to improve it; I began the stub, but others, of course, have worked on it since. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason given for deletion (BLP1E) does not apply. There were two events: (1) the rape and (2) the decision to go public; both received substantial coverage. Furthermore, condition #3 of BLP1E is clearly not met: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." -Pete (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say disagree almost coverage to her is due to her being raped and all sources call her a Rape survivor and disagree there are two events .Now they refer her by name as she disclosed it and she received media coverage even otherwise in the Nirbhaya the victim's family received much wider coverage even through name of the victim was not disclosed it was disclosed much later. [1] ,[2] [3] [4] [5] all of them refer as rape victim or survivor .The Park Street rape case is notable and the subject can be mentioned there .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Indian society, very few rape victims take the path she has chosen, because rape victims are wrongly ostracised. While that aspect has drawn publicity, in her case, it served as an exemplar for rape victims to show the world as victims, they have nothing to hide from. The impact of her message has been tangible. It is not estimable just by media statistics and Google Hits. Imho she qualifies for Keep. AshLin (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peteforsyth: The point of notability is not her having been raped, but her having taken an unusual path following the rape, that has succeeded in bringing national attention to policy and law issues surrounding rape in India. Ijon (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - notability can be seen by the reliable sources that discuss the topic under park street rape - [6] [7] Notability may also be seen by the amount of press coverage on her and the history of the judicial case as well. [8] [9] [10] and here is something rather appropriately titled - Why was Suzette Jordan’s death ignored? Shyamal (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG regardless of WP:BLP1E. There are multiple independent reliable sources devoted to discussing her specifically. Kaldari (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons mentioned above and many many more. E.Doornbusch (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article about a notable individual. As an aside, "(s)he later died" applies to *most* historical biographies on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 06:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BLP the subject died only March 15 2015 WP:BDP policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside Extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime .Find it inappropriate that a separate article is being created for a rape victim immediately after her death and she has 2 Teenage daughters 15 and 17 years and also per WP:AVOIDVICTIM .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that she died from meningoencephalitis, not suicide or crime, so this is a spurious argument. Orderinchaos 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC

WP:BLP does apply as she died recently and she is notable only for being a victim .Creating articles for rape victims or even naming them in articles even they have been identified will be a WP:BLP violation and can have legal implications in general. Disagree if you are saying that anyone can create an article for any rape victim . This RFC is only after deep discussion that Jyoti Singh Pandey's name was included in the article and not included after her family initially disclosed her name in the 2012 Delhi gang rape . She is notable as a victim in the park street rape and her Judicial case her received a lot of attention but that can be dealt under park street rape case article as is the case with most rape case articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:BLP? Orderinchaos 09:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments ,I understand where you stand and respect your view but bluntly put you can call it Ignore all rules ,I would take the side in the case of rape victims error in the side of caution hence would apply WP:BLP and WP:BDP judically and avoid naming rape victims on site even if identified elsewhere unless there is community consensus like here even through it was identified ,You can it call WP:IAR if you wish in the side of caution would avoid naming rape victims who are alive or have died recently within a few month or so this is general not specific to this article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the above reasons and common sense. Jan-Bart (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "She later died". Seriously? That's actually a reason for nominating a biography for deletion? I'd love to see any other biography that was deleted for that reason. Witty lama 09:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if not clear clarified better.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's an iconic figure in India - where very few rape victims go public. Highly notable in India in her own right. Bishdatta (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears to favor keeping the article, so I am going to close the discussion. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2015[edit]

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

I believe this subject matter is not noteworthy of wikipedia. Also all of the crimes commited by the suspects in this article are tagged only as "alleged " crimes. This article seems to exist soley to slander law enforcement. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 23:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this subject matter is perfectly reasonable. This page simply exists to list US fatalities caused by Law Enforcement Officers and the circumstances involved, nothing more. There isn't any conclusion on whether the killings were justifiable or not, it is simply stating known facts. So I don't see how it could be construed as slander. In fact, in many cases listed, the fatality does in fact seem perfectly justifiable, while other incidents do raise questions. However, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions and do their own further research. I do not believe this article deserves deletion, but continuance. Keep --DSmythSoCal (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, this is a WP:NPOV issue that can be fixed by a rewrite of the disputed sections. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the page should continue to exist and that the table should be amended to include a column for references/sources of information for each entry. Unfortunately, I am not so adept at Wikipedia that I would know how to do this. - Taltruth (talk)

Keep I think this issue of regular fatalities caused by law enforcement is very pertinent. Hence, i think notability is there. I agree with other editors some sort of amendment may be needed. -- Fotoriety (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a topic that has drawn widespread media attention of late. The list is reliably sourced and meets WP:GNG. A serious deletion request should address the series of articles we have for each month since 2012 in Category:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There are dozens of pages of this sort; Are we suggesting that all should be done away with? As for the question of citations, I think that (as with all articles and all but the most self-evident assertions of facts) there should be proper citations included, and that is even more important when dealing with controversial subject matter. As for the assertion about this page "only existing to slander law enforcement" I think that is a very questionable assertion. Let's look at it from another angle - If (hypothetically) there are half a dozen instances where a police officer shot a suspect who was in fact a violent, immediate threat to the community, and those violent, immediate threats were evident (and cited), and those were listed along side the Walter Scott incident, then reading about those incidents might lead some readers to the opposite conclusion than one that would be brought by intentional slander of the police. At the same time of course, we ought to err on the side of caution and refer to actions (and certainly motivations) as "alleged", unless and until there is documentable evidence to back up our assertions. Let's discuss further if needed. KConWiki (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is part of a series (List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States) that covers many decades. Deleting one page is senseless. Content is sourced and notable. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a longstanding series of pages designed to track notable police killings. It's modern relevance could not be understated in today's social climate. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Murder is a crime, unless it is done by a policeman, or an aristocrat! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Police deserves support and respect but you can not generally put an institutions reputation above the right of citizens to live and not to be harmed. Thus reasoning for a deletion this way is absolutely wrong as its wrong to bend or prevent justice for the same purpouse. This is without doubt an major sociological issue in America for some time now and thus the matter deserves many articles including this list. --Kharon (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Guleria[edit]

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

Not sure what this is suppose to be to be honest. It had a blp prod but I don't think its a living person and I'm having a hard time finding anything of what this is on google. Wgolf (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable, unverifiable, incomprehensible... Cavarrone 09:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above cannot find or figure who the person and for what she is notable whether she is alive or not.This could have been speedied under WP:A1 as lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research Methods in Anxiety Disorders[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:Original research. Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks indeed like SYNTH/OR. The first sentence is wrong, too: anxiety is not an exclusively human emotion and occurs throughout the animal kingdom (there was an article about anxiety in crayfish recently in Science). Something weird also: the article was created in one huge edit by an editor who has not a single other edit (live or deleted).... --Randykitty (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Randykitty. This article looks more like somebody's research paper for a class than an encyclopedia article to me. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete school assignment, adding nothing to our coverae of the topic. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1274 Delportia[edit]

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

Not notable, doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and redirect. I found two publications with this object in their titles [11] [12] but they both report results (on orbital elements and light curve) that nowadays would be relegated to an entry in a database. I didn't see any special properties that would distinguish this object from other asteroids. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO. Concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO― Padenton|✉ 20:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Enough depth to warrant existence. Buffaboy ^talk 15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moosewood Restaurant[edit]

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

Non notable restaurant; sources are local only. Buffaboy ^talk 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6] North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Moosewood Restaurant, at 40, still cooking, creating cookbooks and alternatives". Cleveland.com.
^ "Moosewood turns 40, new book captures legendary restaurant's spirit". Chicago Tribune.
^ "Moosewood Restaurant: Vegetarian Cuisine from an Egalitarian Collective". Mother Earth News.
^ "Serving More Than Just '70s Leftovers, the Legendary Moosewood Collective Is Still Healthy After All These Years". People.
^ "The Moosewood Legacy in Ithaca". Ithaca Times.
^ "Moosewood Restaurant Favorites: The New Book + A Recipe for Classic Tofu Burgers". L.A. Weekly.

Comment – Additional sources for the Moosewood Collective, which owns and operates the restaurant. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Evidently notable. I have had a thick book about this place in my kitchen for many years now and that's in London, on the other side of the Atlantic. That is international fame, not just basic notability. Andrew D. (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Iconic restaurant that spurred a series of cookbooks. Easily meets WP:CORP with Northamerica1000's sources. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

This article has gone unsourced since 2006. I have tried to find sources for the Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra in its 1974-1979 incarnation and found nothing at all, reliable or otherwise. I am not even sure that this article is not an outright hoax. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax. Of the linked concertmasters and violinists, only Israel Baker's article mentions this alleged orchestra at all, and his obituaries don't. One links him to the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra, the other two to chamber music in LA. Ilkka Talvi is likewise connected to the chamber orchestra (which doesn't share the same period of existence with this supposed orchestra). The only hits I get are for an orchestra which took the name in 2005.[13] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a number of newspapers that use the term, but they all seem to be mistaking it for the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra. See this article referencing Zubin Mehta as conductor of the "Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra" and these articles that reference Otto Klemperer. I would suggest making the page into a disambiguation page of the different orchestras in Los Angeles as it is very plausible search term. Ravendrop 22:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every reference I have found in a book, magazine article or web page about the Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra is either referring to the early twentieth-century precursor to the Los Angeles Philharmonic or mistaking it for the Los Angeles Philharmonic or the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra. As to the latter, I found references, including in Gramophone of all places, to Carlo Maria Giulini and Neville Marriner conducting the Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra. They actually conducted the Los Angeles Philharmonic and Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra, respectively. Syek88 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. I also haven't been able to verify the Grammy nomination; the subject/author wants this article to be deleted, and, without an ironclad demonstration of notability and WP:RGNP notwithstanding, I see no reason not to oblige them. I doubt this would be controversial, so I don't see any need to draw this out for 7 days, either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimo Kaulani[edit]

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

Unremarkable record producer failing WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This would have gone to CSD but there is an unsupported claim of being nominated for a Grammy and a Dove Award, but I have been unable to confirm this. Article was created by Lotusmediadesign (talk · contribs), now blocked for "{{spamusernameblock}}: PR/media firm whose clients include Cindy Blackman, Kimo Kaulani, Geri King, Audio Impulsion, and Khepera Records." The Dissident Aggressor 20:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lionel Churchill[edit]

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

Not quite sure what the claim to notability is for this gentleman. Though he obviously had long consular service for the British government, verified by notice of his appointments in the London Gazette, being a consular official isn't a qualifying criteria for WP:GNG. This appears to be more of a genealogical piece, for example with the recent citation to his Foreign Office service record and the citation to a genealogical webpage, the Levantine Testimony. His family info is uncited, presumably also WP:OR. In my opinion he doesn't meet WP:GNG and there are better places where this family history research should be published. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holder of the CMG, which is held to be notable under WP:ANYBIO #1. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Shaw (healthcare administrator) for the confirmation. The CMG is an equal award to the CBE in a more senior order, so if the CBE is notable then the CMG certainly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As originator of this article I would be inappropriate for me to vote on this discussion but I would like to add some comments. As the originator of about 15 Wikipedia articles on people I am familiar with different interpretations of notability by different editors. Having studied the Wikipedia criteria notability it is my understanding that it is not the person’s notability per se, but the provision of independent verifiable references to support the article, and I believe I have provided this. For someone who was active more than a hundred years ago, it can be difficult to find many references on the Internet as many documents may not yet be digitised and in the public domain. When I first researched him I knew that he was less notable than his two younger brothers, for whom I have created articles, but my research uncovered enough material to start an article on him. Wikipedia works on the principle that nobody knows everything but everybody knows something and it is my hope that other Wikipedians with additional information will contribute to this article in the future. The fact that the page has been viewed 162 times in the last 30 days suggests that the article is of interest to people.MrArmstrong2 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is run-of-the-mill: just statement of appointments from the official newspaper that carries all statements of appointments, nothing in-depth. There's no claim that he was involved in any major historic events. The CMG is the sort of award which comes with the job of being a senior diplomat and doesn't indicate any distinction or anything extraordinary about him (since the honours system has changed considerably in the last 100 years, comparisons with present-day CBEs must be cautious). There's no clear policy on the notability of diplomats - a recent discussion was inconclusive[14] but they're not automatically notable. Could merge some info if there's a suitable target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "since the honours system has changed considerably in the last 100 years". No, really it hasn't! Other than the elimination of some honours and the opening up of the system to ordinary people with the creation of the Order of the British Empire in 1917 it's actually changed very little. It really isn't our place to decide that someone who was awarded a high honour then isn't notable now. He was considered notable enough in his day to be awarded an honour only one level below knighthood by his country, actually a relatively rare honour for a consular official. That cannot be said not to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The consensus on previous AfDs seems to be that a CBE makes someone notable. Since a CMG is a more exclusive and "higher" rank, then H.L. Churchill should be notable. All of the coverage I found was routine, but 1) WP:ROUTINE is an event notability guideline - attempts to apply it to all subjects have been rejected in the past. 2) Better sources may well exist since only a small portion of contemporary sources are available online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not convinced that the CMG provides automatic notability in Wikipedia terms. It indicates that the holder was thought to have done a good job, but this doesn't necessarily translate into Wikipedia-handy sources, which this man seems to be lacking despite a clearly solid career. If he didn't have the CMG there would be little question here but that the article shd be deleted as principally genealogical; and the addition of the CMG without sources doesn't seem to me to tip the balance. WP:ANYBIO itself surely supports this: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards [incl WP:ANYBIO #1]. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". (bolding mine).

The main points cd perhaps be merged into the father's article in the form of a longish footnote (in case the "better sources" postulated above should one day come to light - if they ever do).Eustachiusz (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. Dalliance (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that Churchill was also considered prominent enough to receive an entry in Who's Who. Not considered to be a definitive reason to keep, but certainly additional evidence of his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjai Moussa-Ajayi Musa[edit]

^[1] He has been playing the Benin republic national team and premier league for years

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP, on the grounds that he has played in the CAF Champions League. Since this was a qualifying match for non-fully-pro-league club, it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC). He played benin premier league teams.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

^[2]

check benin squad list <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_UEMOA_Tournament#Benin>

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kwahu Easter[edit]

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

Unremarkable festival. Declined speedy deletion. I don't think this topic is natable: the two sources (one of which was cited as establishing enough notability to deline the speedy) both look thin to me. There's hardly enough to merge anywhere.TheLongTone (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears this AFD was not formatted properly or added to the daily log. Although it is now ten days old, I am adding it to today's log. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, looks a very notable event in Ghana, examples of additional coverage include: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. The Alfred E. A. Asiamah's book The mass factor in rural politics refers to Kwahu Easter as "a catalyst for social development" in the region. Also, both the current sources look valid significant secondary coverage. Cavarrone 08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannathbuwa Purohit[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for seven years; hopefully, it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 16:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The information on the article suggests notability but of the three sources one leads to a broken page and one leads to a discussion group. I hope someone will find proper sources so this can stay.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for so long (over 7 years) and non-English sources are being looked for, could this be relisted again if it still doesn't attract more comments? I have just contacted Wikiproject Indian music. Boleyn (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Certainly notable. Article need re-writing Educationtemple (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Educationtemple, what makes you think it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG? Do you have any sources you could add to support this? Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I Googled it, which nobody else here appears to have done, and found an entire chapter in a book about him, and India Today article about a festival which was a tribute to the "legendary guru, Pandit Jagannathbua Purohit", and there are plenty more examples of coverage out there. If the nominator was unable to find these then quite frankly they should stop nominating articles for deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PriceRunner[edit]

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

It's an international company, sold in 2004 for several million. But I couldn't find the coverage to meet either WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and statements that suggested notability could only be confirmed by primary sources. This has been tagged for notability for seven years; let's hope it can be resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom Wgolf (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is relisted again rather than closed due to lack of participation? Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom lacks adequate third party coverage and fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, four reliable sources have been added during the nomination--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on the weak side: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did a brief search, this current article doesn't assert the company's notability, but its considered one of the leading shopping comparison services, or was at one point. The article needs some work, but shouldn't be deleted completely 2605:6000:E9C0:2400:24E3:D2C1:6E59:87EF (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as above. J 1982 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Blum (writer)[edit]

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

Non notable author of a single non notable book. Worldcat has only 28library holdings which is trivial for fiction. The HuffPost reference is basically a press release, complete with a plug for the publisher. This is not the same person as the notable writer Jonathan Blum. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are trivial, and subject does not seem notable enough for an article. ~EdGl! 23:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Writer of literary fiction with enough coverage, awards for an article. Just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up, sourced it. KCRW interview and Iowa Public Radio "best books" list put him over the top. He's an NPR kind of writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A local best books list or interview is not notability, but rather indiscriminate coverage of local authors. How can it be truly important with so few library copies? Libraries buy on the basis of national level reviews, and it is those reviews show notability. Not these. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

comment minor literary author, but he does have prizes, reviews, write-ups in small literary magazines, even profiles/interviews in real newspapers in town where he has done readings. And the NPR stuff. I'm not saying he famous, just that he squeaks past notability for a literary writer. I presume there will be more books. The article is now well-sourced ~~and purged of hype,~~ although the subject - who we all suspect of editing it under a series of names - would be well advised to edit on a few other writer's pages, in order to learn Wikipedia style before continuing to edit. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilianism[edit]

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

This philosophy seems to only be espoused by David Eagleman. There is not a single reference that is independent of him, leading me to believe that this is a non-notable philosophy. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (1) The statement by Primefac is verifiably incorrect: the article itself links to statements by notables such as Kevin Kelly and Philip Pullman describing why they call themselves possibilians. (2) The New Yorker article entitled The Possibilian cites a source from Facebook stating that thousands of Facebook users have changed their religion to "possibilian". (3) There are over 8,000 hits on google for possibilianism. These points demonstrate notability beyond dispute, I should think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.135.96.31 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though there are fleeting references to the word (many of which seem to be tongue in cheek) there's no real reliable coverage of any "philosophical system". This is either original research, or self-promotion. Not yet notable. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of reliable sources to pass notability guidelines, including sources such as The New Yorker, MSNBC, LA Times, and NPR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.83.161 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1406 Komppa[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is one reliably published paper entirely about this object [25]. With two it would be a clear keep, but I only found one. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Changing my comment above, which I have struck out. On second thought I think one paper on its rotational period isn't enough. It doesn't tell me any reason for distinguishing this asteroid from all the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kratka[edit]

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

Notability missing. Not Sourced. Few External links, all primary or personal websites and Linkedin profile. Educationtemple (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-are there 2 different people in this article? As the Polish wiki for example just has him a actor. Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 2 people. This one has got only official and social networking links. Noteswork (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R Prabhakar[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC as well as notability criteria. Educationtemple (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—This is going to be a cursory examination, but perhaps that's better than nothing. My reading of WP:NACADEMIC would not allow notability through his position of Secretary at Coimbatore Institute of Technology. Of the papers listed in the article I see the following citation counts in gscholar:

1975a (not listed)
1975b (not listed)
1977 (38)
1983 (not listed)
1984 (not listed)
1985 (not listed)
1990 (not listed)
1989 (not listed)
1991 (not listed)
2004 (not listed)

I'm familiar with the several biases that exist in Google Scholar, but for this field in this timespan I'm comfortable concluding that the subject's scholarship has not had the influence required by WP:NACADEMIC. Looking over the rest of the article I don't see any other obvious paths to notability. Based on the foregoing, I recommend deletion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 08:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Homes[edit]

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

no indication of Wikipedia notability -- only unreliable trade sources. y DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Not notable but what little news the company does have does not assert its importance, its just promotional S3venevan (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Valley Hospital[edit]

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

No evidence for notability. Most community hospitals are not notable, except in very unusual circumstances. There is here only one rival announcement-type third party reference, and it's generally impossible to find better. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and also qualifies for an article as per WP:AUD, which states, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" (underline emphasis mine). The topic has received significant regional coverage in The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in Arizona. Source examples include: Arizona Republic, Arizona Republic, Arizona Republic. The topic has also received additional significant coverage, such as [26], [27]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what you have there is state coverage of an Arizona hospital in an Arizona paper. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems Notable in the context of Arizona, and it got a nice mention at http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2014/09/west-valley-hospital-unveils-latest-in-robotic-assisted-surgeries/. It will be a short article and we have to make sure the puff is kept out, but short articles about Notable things are just fine, in my opinion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, I completely disagree with the nominator — most community hospitals are probably notable. It doesn't take much snorting around the internets to find independently published material substantially about the topic, such as THIS from the Arizona Republic. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Forms Most Beautiful World Tour[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. No evidence of satisfying any notability guideline of WP:NTOUR, WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Appears to be pure promotion for a tour that recently started. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calligraphist (artist)[edit]

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

Bulgarian rapper. Article says has no albums yet, although he has won at least one international award/competition. (By the way all four citations are in Bulgarian.) This article is the sole extent of the user DanielTotev's edits. It would help to have some opinions of hip-hop experts and/or Bulgarian speakers at this AfD; although using "Translate to English" by right-clicking when on Google Chrome is also useful. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-seem to be a too soon issue even last year when the article was created, and still is! Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not have a single album and there is only one (relatively) reliable source about him. Bulgarian-language search yields no results other than the links provided and a few Facebook pages. I see no significance here, to be honest. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significance at all.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. All four references in the article are identical: the same story (verbatim) posted on four different news sites, about Calligraphist winning a competition to appear on the next Kool G Rap album. This is nice, but it's not the national-level awards (Grammys, etc) that we look for as part of WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The competition that he has won seems to be prestigious (and arguably there aren't that many rappers in Bulgaria who generate headlines). News.ibox.bg and fakti.bg tend to be reliable sources and could be sufficient in terms of providing evidence for national coverage in Bulgaria. If the following statement: "Calligraphist is the first and only rapper to date to overcome the language barrier of his native tongue and achieve international success in a foreign language directly due to his belletristic and verbal skills in English" is indeed correct, this could in itself make a case for notability. I believe that the opinion of other Bulgarian editors should also be sought. Oleg Morgan (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement is erroneous. Big Sha was in Dime Piece together with Snoop Dogg way back in 2009. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are right, I stand corrected, though I do believe that there are rather few Bulgarian rappers who are as influential as Big Sha, he is a standout case. Still, I think that the recognition received by Calligraphist due to the foreign language aspect (his linguistic skills) could potentially qualify him for notability. Oleg Morgan (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of notability. --StanProg (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud9 (team)[edit]

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

No indication of notability is given. Notability tag was removed without any effort made to show notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, _{@TexasAndroid: pay attention to the talk page}. Just to reiterate my points - C9 is one of the most notable eSports team outside of Korea, next to TSM, fnatic, Team Dignitas, Ninjas in Pyjamas and other notable teams. Being the competitors in the top North American and World tournaments in Dota, LoL, Smash and as well as the new games HotS, Hearthstone and Halo: The Master Chief Collection. According to http://www.esportsearnings.com/teams they are the 12th highest earning team calculated by winnings (liable to change)

The intrinsic problem is that articles like this straddle WP:CREATIVE, WP:ATHLETE, WP:COMPANY and WP:ENT. The frontline gamers who are known both as entertainers and eSports Competitors, if we cross WP:PORNBIO into this where to be notable you need to have awards and substantial investment into a scene, then C9 have fulfilled this. Per WP:ENT, They even have a significant cult following as can be shown in the support present like in their recent performance in the NA LCS Springslit. Per WP:COMPANY there is even more Secondary and tertiary coverage to C9. Ideally WP:ESPORTS task force needs to come up with guidelines on this, but due to the only editors working on WP:ESPORTS articles being @ImRespawn and Prisencolinensinainciusol: the coverage is sparse, so just give it a WP:CHANCE, don't WP:DEMOLISH and allow for some WP:POTENTIAL.

Links

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017401/The-girls-glory-videogames-America-s-nerds-infiltrating-South-Korea-s-surreal-million-dollar-world-gaming-bedroom-geeks-transformed-heartthrobs.html
http://www.dailydot.com/esports/cloud9-league-of-legends-challenger-team/
http://na.lolesports.com/na-lcs/2015/sprplayoffs/teams/cloud9

And some More

http://www.pcgamesn.com/why-the-lcs-just-gave-us-the-best-weekend-in-its-history-and-what-it-means-for-pro-league-of-legends
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/c9t-yusui-i-think-we-have-the-highest-amount-of-in/1100-6426693/
http://esports.inquirer.net/home/6495/rave-visas-approved-in-time-for-the-summit-3-redemption-votes-still-ongoing/
http://statenews.com/article/2015/04/e-sports
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gfinity-uk-esports-arena-pictures-inside-britains-first-170436208.html#LFUOQgS
http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/03/inside-gfinity-esports-arena/
http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/3496509/cloud9-acquires-smite-world-championship-winners-cognitive-prime
http://pt.ign.com/esports/16033/news/team-solomid-e-fnatic-sagram-se-campeoes
http://halo.jeuxonline.info/actualite/47616/halo-championship-series-presentation-equipe-cloud-9
http://www.pcgamesn.com/dota/cloud9-valve-announce-invitees-dota-2-international-2014
http://www.godisageek.com/2015/02/cloud-9-tempest-disqualified-from-challenger-series/
http://proplay.ru/news/23321/
http://www.millenium.org/lol/accueil/actualites/incarnati0n-pourrait-coacher-cloud9-incarnation-aurait-ete-contacte-pour-etre-coach-chez-cloud-9-120660

--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As DerryAdama has pointed out Cloud9 has had pretty extensive coverage, including in some mainstream outlets. I've noticed that a number of esports articles end up getting nominated for deletion by an editor who is presumably unfamiliar with the subject. That being said I'm going to see if I can draft up some esports notability guidelines so it's a bit clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I spot checked a few of the references, and many of these are extremely trivial passing mentions. For example, this Yahoo source listed above is extremely short, and only mentions the name Cloud 9 - nothing else - in the article. That's not significant coverage, so that source wouldn't go towards proving it meets the WP:GNG. Still undecided personally, just wanted to encourage people to look closely at the source, and don't just assume there's enough coverage because someone blasted a huge list of sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same with this Engadget article. Yes, its a RS, but very little of the article is about Cloud 9, and of that already small part, much of it is a few direct quotes from one of their members rather than any coverage on them. And the IGN source? Less than 2 sentences of it actually discuss Cloud 9 itself. I hope there are better sources out there, so far every one I'm checking is very trivial coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to League of Legends Championship Series or another competition article, maybe Dota? I reviewed all of the above sources. The only ones that matter for our purposes (secondary, reliable, independent sources) are:

http://www.dailydot.com/esports/cloud9-league-of-legends-challenger-team/

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/c9t-yusui-i-think-we-have-the-highest-amount-of-in/1100-6426693/ – an interview, so doesn't constitute secondary reporting

http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/3496509/cloud9-acquires-smite-world-championship-winners-cognitive-prime – could work, but I'm concerned about reliability, no editorial policy

All the other stuff was passing/non-dedicated mentions or unreliable sources. At most, the reliable ones of the lot could be used to source a few sentences on the team's sponsorships, but not much more. I'm willing to change my mind if others can find articles from vetted video games sources. Myself, I found only passing mentions in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search—not nearly enough to justify an article. I'd entertain a redirect to one of the competitions as a useful search term, but I'm not seeing enough to write a sourced article on the team, as is. And for the whole content guideline discussion above—the only relevant guideline for this article type is the general notability guideline: either sources exist or they don't. In this case, the sourcing is very thin. Please ping me if you find more (non-English and offline) sources. czar ⨹ 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: with the custom search; did you search Cloud 9 or Cloud9 because Cloud 9 doesn't bring any relevant results but "Cloud9" does. Showing IGN, Kotaku, PC Gamer and gamestar.hu on the first page. Then miastogier.pl, polygon.com and 4gamer.net on the second.--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both (as well as other variants), but I also established that having a bunch of search hits from IGN, Kotaku, doesn't actually mean that the subject was covered in any meaningful way. I reviewed the sources and only listed those that I thought mattered towards the subject's case. The rest were passing mentions and/or had just as much coverage about a number of other non-notable teams. czar ⨹ 02:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you here. A ton of trivial mentions, very little significant coverage. I'd recommend a redirect as well, though I don't know what the best target would be... Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added League of Legends Championship Series as my suggested target. From the coverage, the team is best known for their League and Dota competition, so one of those where they're actually mentioned by name would be best. I chose the former. czar ⨹ 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually redirecting is an incredibly poor idea, as alone there are six other teams not including the LCS team in six different games. People coming here may be looking for information on the match fixing by C9 in the CS:GO sphere

http://www.dailydot.com/esports/match-fixing-counter-strike-ibuypower-netcode-guides/
which was quoted by http://www.pcgamesn.com/counter-strike-global-offensive/valve-confirms-csgo-match-fixing-allegations-issues-bans-to-seven-players

The Dota team is the current record holder for the longest competitive game ever

http://kotaku.com/we-just-witnessed-the-longest-dota-2-match-ever-1692715512
http://www.dailydot.com/esports/cloud9-scaryfacez-longest-game-dota/

There is plenty of coverage from reliable eSports sources like the DailyDot, but your search doesn't curate them as most of the Gaming news sites don't give much coverage to eSports, other than saying it exists.

--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People also come for all sorts of things we don't provide. The idea of a redirect is to provide a reasonable result for someone looking for the subject, which the above redirect would do. This said, I dug around in your sources again (had seen the Kotaku article and pcgamesn has no hallmarks of reliability). http://www.dailydot.com/tags/cloud-9/ would be very useful if we considered Daily Dot reliable. I've brought the site up for consideration at WT:VG/RS. czar ⨹ 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Daily Dot looks like it'll be added to the list of vetted video game sources and their wide Cloud9 coverage easily brings the subject past the general notability guideline. @Sergecross73 and TexasAndroid. czar ⨹ 13:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirect - per Czar, and my commentary above, to his redirect suggestions. Its a plausible search term, but right now, a vast majority of the coverage is extremely trivial. Redirect for now, and maybe spin it out to its own article if it gets a few more sources that are not first party, not trivial, and reliable, like the types of sources found at WP:VG/RS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC) The initial spotchecked sources did not meet the definition of "significant coverage", but the ones pointed out by Czar and Hahnchen do, so I'm find with keeping now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've found quite a few reliable sources focused on C9 that I'm starting to put in the article. I have no idea how everyone managed to find so few. There's even a print source, a cover article in Playboy that featured Cloud9. I think beyond a doubt that the article will be a keep. The only logical RD I can think of would be to something like List of esports teams or something, since C9 has a notable prsence in several games, not to the LCS article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered extensively in reliable sources independent of the subject. Playboy OnGamers Even teams which haven't been covered to this degree should probably be kept, and notability guidelines should more closely follow WP:NSPORT which is more almanac-y in nature than other video game guidelines. - hahnch e n 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by --- :D Derry Adama shows the subject clearly passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Derry Adama's persuasive arguments. Pax 23:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psychreg[edit]

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

Non notable web product, not covered in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does look to fail WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH 7 WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here is clearly for deletion, as per Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalasana[edit]

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

How to do it article -- no evidence of importance except being listed along with all other yoga poses in a book DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As DGG says. We have something of a walled garden when it comes to yoga-related topics but this really is a step too far. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it seems we have Lolasana also, which appears to have similar issues. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Seems like an entire article dedicated to this subject is a little too much, it should probably have a brief description on a related yoga page instead S3venevan (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTMANUAL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of asanas. No evidence of independent notability for a stand-alone article, but no reason it can't be covered in a list article. Most of the other positions on the list probably have the same issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTMANUAL. APerson (talk!) 13:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Luterey[edit]

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

This article does not have any references. Supdiop (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is International Lutery, but it references an International Lottery...?? Is this a mistake or a play on words??

Speedy-this is a page created by a sock. Wgolf (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page cannot be speedied under G5 yet. The sock isn't confirmed. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Agreed, the page is confusing and poorly done. It's not sourced and its unclear exactly what should be searched to assist in building out the article S3venevan (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G5 (creation by banned user). The SPI appears to be a formality based on the WP:DUCKish similarities. PS: The actual title of the film, per the cited source, is International Luteray (although it is unclear what the word "Luteray" might mean). The differences in spellings are no doubt attributable to the vagaries of transliterating Urdu to English. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pre-internet Pakistani films are difficult to source, and no real point doing anything to fix this as a sock of a banned user just about confirms deletion... but if any non-sock regular-editor wishes to bring this back to life, I'd say sure. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable unless RS are provided... I'll reconsider even if a local RS is present. PS. I've never heard of the film but I generally agree it might some times be difficult to source the pre-internet stuff from Pak. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in New Mexico[edit]

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

It's too soon. The list consists entirely of red-linked vineyards. When enough of them become notable enough to have their own articles, then it will be time for this list. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator), lists may have red links as long as they are supported by citations. Check the lists of other states, are you going to nominate them for deletion too? Skyerise (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they consist only of red links, I would like to nominate them for deletion. Which states are you talking about? ubiquity (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to aid and abet your deletionist tendencies. Do your own research. Skyerise (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs more in the way of sources but all of the information it contains is verifiable. Further individual wineries show up in a Google search indicating a degree of notability. I agree with User:Ubiquity insofar as the individual wineries not being notable enough for articles of their own. But the list as a whole is a notable topic. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTESAL "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists" So let's look at it, Wineries are notable. New Mexico is notable. As for the cross categorization? Wine is a very geographically important creation, location is significant. So I would argue that Wineries listed by geography makes perfect sense and is beneficial to the reader. Were it to be something with little importance to geography, say App developers of New Mexico I would support deletion. That being said, I think there are way too many red links it screams "unnotable" to the reader, let's be realistic and accept that not every one of these wineries will be notable enough for an article and go with black. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Wineries in New Mexico. Entries are verifiable, and those that have not received enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article can be de-linked or removed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mink[edit]

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

Non-notable sports personality. Has never played or coached above semi-pro/minor league level. Does not meet WP:NSPORT LionMans Account (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not finding any real sources other than an occasional blurb in local coverage. Lots of confusion with a journalist of the same name, though. Still, the page reads to me like a resume. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable semi-pro sports promoter/owner/coach. Fails general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Specific notability guideline for football players and coaches per WP:NGRIDIRON do not apply to minor league and semi-pro players, coaches, owners and officials. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear resume, fails WP:GNG and also WP:GRIDIRON since they haven't played in a good enough league. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 01:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Ghamkhar[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Notability of a famous club is not inherited to its members or staff. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and (the spirit of) WP:NOTINHERITED. Giant Snowman 19:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per his notable company Hhplactube (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, so the manager of a notable football club isn't necessarily notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG being a Manager of a Notable Football club does not automatically make him notable as Giant notes the spirit of WP:NOTINHERITED.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 01:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Las Fieras[edit]

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

Already 2 years passed since this article was created and until the day of today, this soap opera has not released, nor have any announcement on its premiere. I think that it should be created when at least Televen announce its premiere. Philip J Fry Talk 14:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Might of been a show that was cancelled before it aired is my best guess. Wgolf (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not passes GNG from what I see. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Seems this still doesn't exist, and probably never will. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JFLex[edit]

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

I don't find evidence of notability for this tool. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up some brief mentions on blogs and computer science department pages, but no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: After a search on the internet, I've come to the same conclusion as Dialectric. There are a lot of tutorials and forums and the like, but unfortunately there's nothing like media coverage. Orthogonal1 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are unreliable, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Thius village may exist, but this article was primarily about someone with either the name or title Thakur in that village. does not seem a notable subject and the article was written in a way that made it near impossible to even tell what the subject actually was. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Village of thakur -kikarwalee[edit]

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

I could not find any valid sources for this village. But it do has mentions in many other articles. But none are properly sourced. The mentions appears mostly as if to showcase the "Thakur" family. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who don't understand Hindi the article reads as follows "kikarwalee village is a beautiful village. Here there is a very old temple of peerji. Here there is a gogamerdhi(No idea what it means) which is directed by mangleya thakur (chotee thakur) THAKUR CHANDER SINGH RAJPUT. kikarwalee village is in raisinghnagar tehsil."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welker White[edit]

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

While Ms. White had a prominent if small role in Goodfellas (not mentioned in this bio), I searched high and low and unfortunately can't find any independent sourcing on her, and her roles don't meet criteria of WP:ENT. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen much less accomplished performers' articles remain unchallenged in this way. I don't see any reason to delete this one specifically. I added some text based on a quick bit of research I did on the web. Perhaps if this actress was dead or retired and we could definitively know the impact of her range of work and performances, we could make the decision that it's not especially notable, but I'm unwilling to make such a decision in light of the fact she is still working in a variety of ways. Careers are cumulative.--SidP (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sid, I would love to rescue this article, as I loved her brief performance in Goodfellas. But I just couldn't find much and this article was so brief it barely seemed worth having. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, little significance coverage by reliable sources and hence fails WP:BASIC requirements for a biography. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalberg Global Development Advisors[edit]

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

No third party references for notability. Essentially promotional article, mostly worked on by now-blocked paid editor. (previous afd nomination was pre-empted by a G11 speedy, but that speedy was reverted by the admin who placed it) DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ find significant independent coverage. Also, blank/revert all content added by the paid editor as it is bad for the rep of all involved. I have no idea where to look for independent coverage. Dalberg's own work and its joint work in the Financial Times suggest that it is highly notable, yet a naive web search shows me nothing. (Note: The original copyvio by inactive user Joe Capp (talk · contribs) was blanked and doesn't appear in the current article.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to change my view so quickly, but the Rolling Stone article mentioned at Talk:Dalberg Global Development Advisors#Suggested Links looks significant at first glance, and if The Expatriate is an RS (it is new to me), then I could be persuaded towards a keep opinion. (I didn't try to track down the Business Week dead link.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send for cleanup. If the paid editing material isn't there the article would have been in much better shape (and not be a repeat customer at AfD), but otherwise the organisation is notable with repeated appearances on the media. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Mahtani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. An internet search only reveals the subject's many websites and a LinkedIn profile. No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. BenLinus 1214^talk 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-no notability to be found. Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Agree with original nominator's fair summary. Educationtemple (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Can't help but wonder if people even bother to search for sources in these discussions. Simply selecting the News link in the find sources template atop provides several in-depth news articles about the subject on the very first page. The subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

– Topic notability is based on the availability of reliable sources that provide significant coverage, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: That's funny…I was just using the main search link, which, if you follow it, shows just the subject's websites. By contrast, I agree with you that the news link provides many reliable sources. I say keep it with a good deal of cleanup. BenLinus 1214^talk 00:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state article is nothing but worth delete. Educationtemple (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Educationtemple: Can you explain your rationale a bit further. I'm just interested to see your reasoning… BenLinus 1214^talk 15:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - What is there to explain! What I read there (as of the current time and date) a stub article, sourced with 2 citations - One of which goes to a unreliable blog type website and another on the personal website of the subject. What explanation you are expecting from me?? WP is a not a place to hang the advertisement banners about personal websites! Educationtemple (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, primary sources are acceptable to verify content in Wikipedia articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the sources available, BenLinus1214, are you still for deletion of the article? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 No. I am now for Keep. BenLinus 1214^talk 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerican1000 passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of sources, passes WP:GNG. Should be improved/cleaned up, not deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Smart (author)[edit]

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

No significant contribution, BLP. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book Clarity has coverage in the FT[28], London Times[29], a book from reputable publisher SAGE[30], and there's other sources listed (which may be briefer mentions). That puts either him or Clarity over the bar for WP:AUTHOR or WP:BKCRIT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only book review I see is the one listed above from the Financial Times. The London Times article is in the food section, and uses his books suggestion of "tea time" at work for a discussion of tea. The Telegraph link [31] mentions that a footballer walked into the stadium carrying Smart's book. That's a mention. And I couldn't find anything at all at the Washington Times (link is broken and a search didn't turn anything up). One review and a reputable publisher is a start, but not notability. LaMona (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ask me or any other admin if you would like the content userfied. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moawad GadElrab[edit]

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

This article does not cite any reliable sources that cover the life and work of the subject. All "sources" are just book listings without anything about his life. I tried Google Search, but it only returns few hits, none of which seams reliable [32]. Searching in Arabic similarily returns small number of hits [33]. It fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article has not finished yet ,material still under collections from several arabic sources , old newspapers and magazines also from the author and artist the late Dr Moawad Gadelrab own old papers obviously most his work was not saved in the internet at the time ,he was a well known personality in period of fifties and sixties with his work appeared in the press and TV therefore the article still under development (Raafat (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No claim of general WP:Notability or WP:Notability (academics). — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 13:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ the article still under development ,waiting for more references and newspapers cuttings (Raafat (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Raafat: You cannot vote twice. I've stroke your vote. By the way, if the article is "under development", it can be moved to the WP:draft namespace. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of clarity. It's not really voting. But you're right, making a Keep comment twice is inappropriate. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This doesn't appear to meet notability requirements, but Raafat claims that there are a number of Arabic sources to expand the article with. I don't see any problems with moving this into userspace and giving Raafat the opportunity to bring the article up to standards. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. There may be a WP:WORLDVIEW issue here, in that if reliable sources (such as newspaper reviews) exist for a mid-20th-century Egyptian author we wouldn't expect them to be in English and online. But until someone more knowledgeable digs up those sources, we have no basis for keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, unless there are significant non-English sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star/Buddy[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced and non-notable since September 2011. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Prod removed with edit summary of "deproded - so why not redirect it?) " Not sure I see this as a valid search term, surely searchers will look for the individual tracks, not the combined artificial title used by WP. Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (albums) Albums should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Even if an album is otherwise notable, there is no reason to indefinitely keep an article which can only list the names of the songs and who performed them It's clear that while this could be argued "notable" there isn't enough material to create a reasonably detailed article. I propose turning this into a redirect per the same guideline Albums that don't have an individual article should redirect to another relevant article, such as the artist or band in question. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – or redirect to Basement Jaxx or Basement Jaxx discography page. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NALBUM, both songs fail WP:NSONG. Just because someone created it as an article once is not a reason to leave a redirect, and I have trouble seeing it as a likely search term. By the article author's own admission, this is a "rare" single. ― Padenton|✉ 00:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind L Iyer[edit]

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

~~Not a notable figure. Could not find anything in google when searched Arvind L Iyer.~~. This article is Orphan as well as stub since last 5 years. Previous afd was Keep on the ground that subject has published papers, but nothing such thing is cited on the article with reliable sources! Article is not sourced, or sourced with only the employers websites, which are considered as primary source. An article worth 2-3 lines neither help subject, nor the readers and overall may become a burden on WP as a stub! This afd nomination thrusts to either delete this article completely and improve it to at least better state so that it does not go in afd again and again. Educationtemple (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - widely cited, h-index for L. Aravind is >100. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as I gave in the first AfD (high citations giving a pass of WP:PROF#C1), which was withdrawn after its nominator realized that the nomination was a mistake. Did the nominator this time not even read it? Or if he or she did read it, what on earth led to the belief that something would be different this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the sketchy article. It needs expansion not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sujoy K. Guha[edit]

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

Not a notable figure. Promo style Biography. Educationtemple (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the article having problems with WP:PROMOTION but I don't think the topic fails WP:GNG, the work done by Guha has been covered by secondary sources so while the article could use improvement I think there is enough notability to build on. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to be a distinguished scientist and holder of chairs at two prestigious institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the chair at IIT-KGP is enough for WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoop snake[edit]

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

"Hoop Snake" is a synonym for Ouroborus and should be a redirect. The article in its current state reads like a hoax/joke. If you want to add the North American/Australian interpretation of this creature, it should be in the Ouroborus article, just as the Egyptian/Norse/Japanese/Alchemical/Occult, etc. interpretations *all* are. — LiteEei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep appears to be a distinct folklore concept. Artw (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the Egyptian/Norse/Japanese, etc. conecepts of this creature are by definition distinct as well, as each of these cultures described a similar but distinct creature before these cultures ever interacted, and all of these descriptions share the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those are sufficiently distinct to get their own articles then they should have them too. Artw (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a distinct creature. I have known about these since childhood but never related them to the mythical Ouroborus. Borock (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a folklore concept, but addition detail is definitely required for this article. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable (indeed famous), verified, distinct, article has good amount of content.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic - see Hoop Sankes and River Monsters, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I was doing research on dropbears and came upon this very useful, documented article about something with historical significance.Broux (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The portable monkey[edit]

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

Article that hinges on trivial mentions in a letter to the editor and an encyclopedia entry, both from the 19th century.

The portable monkey actually seems to be have been machine for hammering stones into mortar or gravel, or something of that nature, but the cited sources and the few more that I can find on GBooks don't explain how the device worked or who invented it and when (maybe Francis Maceroni invented it, or he invented a railroad version of it--the sources aren't clear). Maybe transwiki to Wiktionary? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not explain what The Portable Monkey was with enough clarity, and the references given do not contain a clear description. A Google search doesn't turn up much. Unless a much better reference is found, I'm afraid there isn't enough here, or even the promise of anything, on which to base an encyclopedia article; not even a stub. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the subject would just be of interest to a specialist in engineering or construction. In retrospect, the information could easily be integrated into another article, I didn't find much on the subject during the creation, since the thing seems to be some-what archiac and of minor significance (i'm no authority in this area though), i'm thinking there isn't much hope of improving the article, or future for it.Thanks Whalestate (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't befitting an encyclopedia to have an article whose primary description of its topic is "something of a mechanical nature". That's even before we get to the question of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Moneague. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watsonville Primary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WE don't usually bother with pre-High Schools and I can see nothing exceptional in this instance - just another missionary school. There were two sources listed but both were passing mentions. Sitush (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moneague per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that piece of trash but, yes, since consensus is clearly extremely wayward when it comes to schools I will just have to go with that flow. Moan: it's about time we got a grip because the Schools project have run riot on en-WP with their crazy ideas on notability. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A 150 year old school? If in the US, it would be easy to find sources, probably the National Historic Register. I'm not experienced with Jamaican resources, so while I respect outcomes, I suspect the lack of good sources may be more a result of not knowing where to find them than their non-existence. Does Jamaica have anything similar to the US NRHP? Jacona (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a chapel school originally. The sources relate to the chapel/mission, not the school. If we have an article for the chapel then that might in fact be a decent target for a merger. The Moravian Church and some others were pretty heavily involved in the West Indies. Disclaimer: one of my ancestors was among them). - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to town or Watsonville Methodist Church if that shows up blue, per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moneague per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Norman[edit]

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

Propose deletion as per WP:NPOL, this is an (auto)biography of a political candidate, and does not meet notability criteria (yet). If she is elected, or her former journalism career is somehow notable, then re-instate the page. FUNgus guy (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage of them to meet the main notability guideline. There are mentions, but no significant coverage. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Further fails WP:POLITICIAN as the subject is not elected and nothing to show that she is journalism career was notable except for article on the comments made by John Moore.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been cleaned up since it was nominated, and sufficient notability has also been established. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christelyn Karazin[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Has been previously deleted for same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have shown from the links that the subject is notable. I also think that it is clear that her subject, inter-racial dating in the USA, is 'hot' ie. important and that she is the best known advocate for it makes her doubly noteworthy. This is not advertising as I have no connection with her, I don't even live on the same continent, being a Brit while she is American. Smokey TheCat 05:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With all of the following sources [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39], [40], [41], [42] and [43] it is quite clear that this article subject has had significant coverage in WP:RS including newspapers, magazines and other media outlets, so the article passes WP:GNG, and the article subject has far surpassed the threshold of notability.WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that the promotion was unintentional and I've cleaned up the article to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. It did take a little digging to find sources, primarily because Karazin is known more in the blogging world so the blog sources are the ones that came up first. (Blogs are usually seen as WP:SPS that cannot be used to source notability on Wikipedia because they're self-published.) However I did find enough coverage of her book and her work as a whole to where she now passes notability guidelines in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough there now for it to scrape through WP:GNG. Harry Let us have speaks 11:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl –Davey2010^Talk 12:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl and WordSeventeen. The nominative should see WP:BEFORE. Calidum T|C 01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. Previously speedy-deleted many times under various names. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Narzy (Narjinary)[edit]

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

Fails to establish Notability. Should be speedy. reddogsix (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly meets PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Michaels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails current WP:PORNBIO requirements. Pax 03:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article lists an AVN Unsung Starlet win, but the citation doesn't include a full name. If verified, the win would satisfy the letter of WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k, The Gianna who received AVN's Unsung Starlet of the Year award in 2008 is definitely Gianna Michaels. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winner of many awards. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has won many awards, some of which are individual. Subject thus definitely passes WP:PORNBIO requirements. -- fdewaele, 20 April 2015, 18:33
Keep. Her AVN Award for Unsung Starlet of the Year satisfies WP:PORNBIO #1. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Rive[edit]

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

A dreadful, almost entirely unsourced biographical article, packed with personal and family info about this South African conservationist. I haven't speedy deleted it because there is a claim she is a "star" of a TV show. There is an interview on a wildlife website, the one citation, but this doesn't give any personal info and is mainly Rive talking about her project. Searching online I can find no reliable in-depth news coverage about Rive (the myTVnews source is a TV fan website) . Based on her less common name, you would think it would be easy to find if it existed. Though she's undoubtedly making a laudable contribution to saving African wildlife, in my view this article should be removed as quickly as possible (and if all the unsourced personal biography was removed there would be almost nothing left). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable woman, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of lakes in Minnesota. Don't let this stop anyone from adding references at the merge target though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Hallett[edit]

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

This is a very small lake in a small town. Minnesota has a lot of lakes (they call it the Land of 10,000 Lakes) and it's hard to imagine all of them are notable, and this the only criteria that can make this one notable. Cited source explicitly is intended to list every lake and therefore can't be considered evidence of notability. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of lakes in Minnesota, where it's already included. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lakes in Minnesota. As stated in the nomination, there is nothing else other than the mention in the list that suggests it is notable enough to have it's stand alone article. — Yash! ^[talk] 02:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of lakes in Minnesota. It's already included at the list, but unsourced there. The article has a source that can be used to improve the list article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep + withdrawn by nominator. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Orchestra[edit]

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

Unsourced non-notable page that's the target of persistent sock puppetry. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main musical ensemble of a major national armed forces is clearly notable. Being subject to sock puppetry is not a good reason for deletion. The only question is "is it notable enough for an article?" The answer is obviously yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It lacks various sources, however... And I'm not sure where they are. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. An abundance of substantial RS coverage, satisfying GNG, is found just by clicking those little blue phrases above ... after "Find sources." And should the nom wish even more background, simply run the same searches with the native name, as here. Zeke -- you should be doing a wp:before search before making nominations like this, that will clearly fail. It's your obligation as a nom. You should also read carefully, understand, and follow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks. I suggest you consider withdrawing this nomination, give the above. Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per above. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://benin-finder.net/ligue-1-benin-aspac-au-dessus-des-buffles/
^ http://www.goal.com/en-my/news/3896/malaysia/2015/04/06/10506322/transfer-news-kelantan-and-sime-darby-on-the-lookout-for-new

[1] "Moosewood Restaurant, at 40, still cooking, creating cookbooks and alternatives". Cleveland.com.

[2] "Moosewood turns 40, new book captures legendary restaurant's spirit". Chicago Tribune.

[3] "Moosewood Restaurant: Vegetarian Cuisine from an Egalitarian Collective". Mother Earth News.

[4] "Serving More Than Just '70s Leftovers, the Legendary Moosewood Collective Is Still Healthy After All These Years". People.

[5] "The Moosewood Legacy in Ithaca". Ithaca Times.

[6] "Moosewood Restaurant Favorites: The New Book + A Recipe for Classic Tofu Burgers". L.A. Weekly.

[7] ttp://benin-finder.net/ligue-1-benin-aspac-au-dessus-des-buffles/

[8] ttp://www.goal.com/en-my/news/3896/malaysia/2015/04/06/10506322/transfer-news-kelantan-and-sime-darby-on-the-lookout-for-new

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]