Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 April	24 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. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Preacher's Site[edit]

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

Article on website fails WP:GNG, there is one reference from a Christian news site from 2000, other coverage in media consists of passing mentions that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The last AFD attracted some SPA/COI interest but did not generate a quorum from established users. Vrac (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Christianity Today is an exceptionally good source for things related to this topic. A brief Google Books search also turned up this, which suggests this website was actually a pioneer in its niche, 15-20 years ago. That's two independent reliable sources, and WP:GNG is met, even if we grant nom's assertion that the other four mainstream media references (which are admittedly brief) don't contribute a thing to notability. Per WP:NTEMP, notability, once established, is presumed indefinite, even though I've never heard of the site and presume it's been eclipsed by others. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close -- We had this discussion barely over a month ago and it closed as "no consensus". We should accept that outcome, unless there is fresh evidence againast the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It closed as no consensus because it got only one vote from a non-SPA, non-COI user. It's entirely appropriate to reopen the discussion, lack of a quorum doesn't resolve the question of whether an article should or should not be kept. Vrac (talk) 21:49, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that this site is only one examples of something that could be an interesting WP topic, and which might fit into the Sermon article -- the source of sermons as well as re-using sermons. In the 19th century, "good" sermons were often printed and could be purchased or found in libraries. Surely many of those were repeated on different pulpits. So this phenomenon is not limited to this one site, much less the internet. I say weak keep but my preference is to integrate this into the article on sermons, or as a more general article linked to it. LaMona (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "world of clergy" is indeed a special "niche" unto itself, which is perhaps why the "authorities" at Wikipedia question "Desperate Preacher's Site." Simply, there are many publications, mostly small, such as at seminaries and elsewhere in the "church world," which are often read only by those involved with "church" from its "inner-circles" and not by the general public at large - including not being read by almost all lay churchgoers. Should such "niches" be viewed in their own contexts or must they always be viewed from the larger focus of "popular society and culture?" Surely there are more such niches out there, in law, medicine, etc., where some publications are popular only inside of their own "niche." Just my opinion, but DesperatePreacher.com is still quite popular inside its own niche, and yes it has been joined by a few other such websites - but it has not been "eclipsed" by them, as was alluded in other comments above. If anything DesperatePreacher.com is still recognized as being "edgy" in its own niche, even in comparison to other newer competitor websites, perhaps most just because of its name. That all said, I think that the page itself ought to be kept. I would be against "Desperate Preacher's Site" being thrown into the weeds under other Wikipedia articles on "Sermons," "Lectionary," or "Lectionaries," just because there would likely be "push-back" to have it removed from those articles as there are "many/legion" who want those Wikipedia articles to reflect "church" in only the most positive light. However, I think other articles/pages on Wikipedia ought to have prominent links to "Desperate Preacher's Site" at the bottoms of their presentations. Yes, that would be proper. And,...truth be told, I do make my own references to DesperatePreacher.com and to Wikipedia's "Desperate Preacher's Site" on my own website at www.ClergySecrets.com, a website which I'd like to see be "important" enough to have a Wiki page of its own sometime too! ;) lol --WarrenVitcenda (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and other references provided appear to pass GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:49, 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.

Renneker Jenkins[edit]

The result was DeleteChrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actor with only 2 roles it appears and not inherited issue also. (Though more of older brother of someone more famous so he couldn't quite inherit that okay you get my point though!) Wgolf (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches failed to find anything close to the required significant and in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 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.

Muhammad Awais[edit]

The result was Delete Clearly a delete per WP:NOTABILITY even with no discussion, WP:IAR Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This subject does not pass the WP:General Notability Guideline. Winning a medal at the Asian Para Games is not sufficient for notability for an athlete with disability. SFB 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Derailroaded: Inside the Mind of Wild Man Fischer. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ubin Twinz[edit]

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

Twins with little notability to speak with from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - Two brothers using one name and made only one film, News only found two links (not significant or in-depth) and Books only found the same. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derailroaded: Inside the Mind of Wild Man Fischer. A bit too soon for an article. Anything we have to say about them can be said at the article on their sole film. If they attain significant coverage, we can recreate the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Crilly[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:MUSICBIO. All sources I could find were things like Google+ and Linked-in as well as some blogs for his band. Jbh (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-seems like other band members for this are up for either prod or speedies. Look: Nico Venere and Adam Falkor. Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band. If by some chance the band survives its PROD (seems unlikely and I've declined the speedy since there are more sources on the article than there were when it went to AfD in 2012), then this would be a reasonable enough redirect. If the band article's PROD runs out first, then just delete this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Ashestoangels article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashestoangels (2nd nomination) Jbh ^Talk 10:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data Wisdom[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a generally used term DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A neologism from a blog posting dated less than two weeks ago. Obviously it has not had time to gain the attention and in-depth secondary sources needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing aside from the current links listed. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 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 merge to child labour. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Child Work[edit]

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

I approved this from AFC because I don't think it's undeniably deletion-worthy, but I think it should be deleted as an essay nonetheless. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article Child labour already exists. This one is indeed an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. The creator should be encouraged to contribute to the existing article if he/she has material that is not included there. LaMona (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child labour. Unnecessary duplicate article. Pax
Merge duplicate selectively to child labour. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boy Better Know. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBK Records[edit]

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

The article includes no valid citation of reliable sources nor any evidence of notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Boy Better Know, of which it is not independently notable. Everymorning talk 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Kishore[edit]

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

Director who seems to fall under too soon. Only 2 films so far. (love the note super hit) Wgolf (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

super hit is true as per the industry we are in. Kannada industry

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

Keep: I'm seeing a fair bit in the Indian press about Kishore, who is apparently an up-and-coming hotshot. I think this is a WP:FILMMAKER pass. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This debate has been relisted for further input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are lots of available sources online. Unlike producers (see WP:MILL), directors are auteurs. He seems to pass WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I am unable to find any major source focusing on him except for this, there are numerous mentions about his work, vision, direction by his peers, actors, and other people working with. He appears to have quite a buzz among in the Kannada film industry. Should pass WP:DIRECTOR. — Yash! ^(Y) 21:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nichola Dixon[edit]

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

TV presenter who I can't tell if notable or not (looking up google I keep on getting "do you mean Nichole Dixon?" then again seems like they would try to get a spelling like that) Seems like a redirect to the show might be the best! Wgolf (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - TV presenter best known for one program, multiple searches found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Sandstein 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1698 Christophe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Could redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per WP:DWMP. No suitable sources to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I only found four papers that even mention this (usually there are a dozen or more) and in all cases it was only as a line in a table. Not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Sandstein 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1903 Adzhimushkaj[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per WP:DWMP. No suitable sources available to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't see the independent in-depth coverage of this body needed to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. As they say, size doesn't matter, at least not in terms of notability. Sandstein 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1512 Oulu[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted and/or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect per WP:DWMP. This object does receive some minor attention as a member of the Hilda family, but probably not enough for notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. I don't see the independent in-depth coverage of this body needed to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is very well hung at 83km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corey P. Smith[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Credit for his book). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no 3rd party resources, only sales and promotional sites, plus the person's own web site. LaMona (talk) 21:34, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uygar Aktan[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has one role in what is probably a notable production, Master of the Game [1], but that's only one. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's wp:TOOSOON. Renata (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nems (rapper)[edit]

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

Not notable. Albums not on important label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Best is a single short review of RapReviews, not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:28, 23 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, Kraxler (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects[edit]

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

This is just what's in a booklet put out by the museum. A passing mention in the Toronto Star is about all the independent notice it's gotten,[2] if we're being generous (as "iconic objects", not "Iconic Objects"). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is really just a list and, as such, does not need the same level of referencing that the linked articles require. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability applies to lists, and this is likely a copyvio, since the list is basically a copy of a ROM publication. Pburka (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal Ontario Museum which should have a list of its notable objects. After all that is what a museum is most notable for. BTW "Iconic" is just an opinion, and IMO somewhat misused here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of notable artifacts owned by the Royal Ontario Museum and keep - under that title, the list will have clearly defined and neutral inclusion criteria. A merge would not be a good idea, as the main ROM article is already very loong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Txcrossbow: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists need to be notable, and this one is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Secondarywaltz. This a list that supports the information given at Royal Ontario Museum. It doesn't need the same level of referencing of an article.--Solvete (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal Ontario Museum. I agree with Kitfoxxe's position - this list should reside in the Museum's article, and the word "Iconic" should be replaced with "notable" or something like that. PK T(alk) 17:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, it's a different list. This list is a list of items which a ROM publication has declared to be "iconic." I'd support keeping a list of notable artifacts, but republishing their own list is a copyright violation. Pburka (talk) 19:57, 21 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) 18:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is essentially just a copyright violation of a work self-published by the institution, containing its own subjective assessments of which items in its own collection qualify as "iconic", without even the slightest attempt at reliably sourcing even one of the items or its iconicity. This is not the kind of thing we should be retaining, and contrary to some assertions above lists do still require some sourcing. People regularly try to add inappropriate entries to lists, such as adding a person to a list of people from a place that person isn't from, or adding a band to a list of bands in a genre that has nothing to do with that band's music (e.g. The Clash on List of hip hop groups), or adding a heterosexual person to our lists of LGBT people as a form of attack editing, or adding a nonexistent fantasy sports team to a list of sports teams, and on and so forth. So lists do require sourcing to demonstrate that the entries in the list actually belong there. No objection to listing some of the items in the ROM's main article, or a more general and not primary sourced "list of notable artifacts", if there are independent sources available to verify that the ROM's holding of that object is considered noteworthy by anybody not directly employed by the ROM itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Policy allows a closing admin to accede to deletion requests for marginally notable people if they are only barely notable. That is how I read this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Biondo[edit]

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

The subject of this article has requested via OTRS Ticket that this article be deleted. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject Flat Out let's discuss it 11:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: It's not clear to me that the subject is sufficiently non-notable for her request to carry any weight. I would also like to note that the G7 template on the article at the moment is inapplicable since the article has multiple authors. It should be removed. --N Y Kevin 16:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep-She does have a little notability it seems. Though on the other hand-too soon? Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she's requested deletion, I don't see why it shouldn't be granted. Her notability is marginal at best with the main claim being that she has a Guinness record and I don't know of any notability criteria that says that grants automatic notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:24, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability's there: [3][4][5][6][7][8] - I don't mean to sound like a dick but If you don't want attention you don't enter yourself in to the Guinness Book of Records, Also there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating this again, Personally I don't see the point in deleting this. –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE "Also there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating this again," Well, there's speedy G4. Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She is a bit of a one-trick pony, but there are sufficient resources about her, IMO. I don't believe that subjects of articles can have those articles removed unless there is some compelling legal reason to do so. LaMona (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is non-notable enough to defer to her wish not to have an article here. Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somnio[edit]

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

This seems like a pretty ordinary advertising agency which has achieved only local recognition and non-notable honors ("one of the 50 fastest growing agencies in Austin"?). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The listed accomplishments do not appear notable in themselves: a combination of local, associated-supplier, and up-and-coming long-lists. We're left with 12th largest firm of its type in its city and I am not seing WP:RS coverage going beyond that. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero results in Adweek and PRWeek. Not sure how large it is in terms of employees or revenues. Current page is an advert. CorporateM (Talk) 01:20, 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. As self promotion, which is not to say that a good faith user without a COI couldn't have a stab at creating this as long as it was possible to do so based on sources without overly dwelling on negative aspects such as the court cases. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gailen David[edit]

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

I'm not sure whether he is or is not notable, but I am sure that this is an advertisement for him. If an article is needed, it should be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely promotional article, created and maintained by SPA accounts. The only possibly "notable" incident, David's video campaign, would fall under WP:BLP1E, if it would be notable in itself. Talkshow appearances, brief "interviews" and other PR-activities do not establish notability, unless they are covered in-depth by independent reliable sources. I couldn't find such significant coverage via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. Who is this guy? He seems to have written his own entry.... shameless self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobLouis (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — JakobLouis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - the subject of the article has received significant RS coverage for his activities to the point where Discovery hired him to host a TV show. Much of the coverage is biographical in nature (including several sources already in the article), and the coverage spans multiple years, so notability is clear established. I disagree that the tone of the article is sufficient reason for deletion, although it certainly could be improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are numerous articles, most are around a single video that he created (but that appeared on Youtube and his own web site only). He was also sued for using airline logos on his site. None of this adds up to notability. Also, his page was partially edited by a now-blocked COI user, which fits in with what I see as a pattern of self-promotion. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that he isn't notable because he didn't do important things. That is indeed how the real world defines "notability", but Wikipedia defines notability based on depth and length of coverage, not the cause of the coverage. If all articles appeared in say the same week and none of them covered David as a person, then he would be not notable. However, here the coverage is over a long period of time (multiple years) and in some cases is biographical. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB, I definitely read the notability guidelines differently. If someone has not done anything "important" but gets coverage, to me the coverage does not trump notability. Let's face it, there's a lot of garbage in our media -- from "eye-bait" headlines to filler. I think that a modicum of evaluation is better than a mere quantity of sources. The source requirement does not exist alone, but supports an argument of importance. That's my view. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is "importance" is subjective. To some people acting in a film isn't important. To other playing a sport professional isn't important. When we allow for subjective judgement of importance, AfDs will be decided randomly by who shows up. I learned early on in my Wikipedia career that "notability" means coverage, not importance, when this guy was up for AfD. It is hard to imagine a person doing less to be worthy of inclusion - his claim to fame is exclusively that he impregnated the daughter of a vice presidential candidate - yet the AfD, which I voted "strong delete" on, was (properly) closed as keep because editor judgement of importance can't override media judgement of importance. It doesn't matter whether we think someone should be notable, only whether reliable sources (including the news media) treats them as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (vote see above) Just as information, I nominated two of the non-free images for deletion as they both lack valid rationales. Aside from that point and regardless of this discussion's result: the article will need a complete overhaul and removal of promotional and poorly sourced content (if it would be kept in the first place). GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 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 redirect to Craig_Lancaster#Novels. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Kindle First Selection is not a notable accomplishment. Jbh (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still under construction. Withdraw this nomination until it is actually written.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my reply to you on my talk page [9]. Acording to my WP:BEFORE the book is self published bu Amazon and the only coverage I could find was in blogs, Facebook and sales material. I will withdraw my nomination if you show some coverage that meets WP:NBOOK. Jbh (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request AGAIN you withdraw this nomination until I have actually written this article, you're just being obnoxious and rude by doing this. You obviously do not understand the use of templates, or more likely you missed it, since I had unwisely placed it at the bottom of the page, and you aren't prepared to admit that.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia discussing this with you, I have redirected this page to Craig Lancaster, and move the article to an incubator. I would have preferred to spend the time writing actually writing this article as the template suggested, but you've wasted enough of it on this already.

Suggest again you withdraw your badly timed nomination.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... As I noted on my talk page I must revert that. Just as you may not remove the AfD template (Which you did twice) you may not blank the page. I have told you now three times that if you can show the article passes WP:NBOOK, which you should have been able to do before you even started writing the article, I would withdraw the nomination. You have done everything but do this. Jbh (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK... stepping in here for a moment. The book does not pass notability guidelines and Jbh is correct in that MacRùsgail should have made sure that the book passes NBOOK before creating it as a live article. However MacRùsgail is also correct in that it's also considered impolite to nominate an article for deletion only minutes after it's been created. The best course of action here would have been to wait for MacRùsgail to finish. The thing about searching for coverage for books is that sometimes it's easy to miss coverage. I've saved more than a few books from deletion because I was able to dig up sources that others could not. Granted this book is not one of those examples, but it's still considered polite to wait for an editor to finish editing an article that they are still actively working on. Sometimes it's OK to do this if it's an article that's incredibly promotional and/or has absolutely zero assertion of notability, but in this case the article wasn't promotional and there were two things that would assert some sort of notability- the author's notability and that it was one of four books chosen for the Kindle First program. Neither of these are things that would make the book notable enough to pass notability guidelines, but it does give off the impression that there may be sources out there somewhere. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if it's a brand spanking new article that is actively being edited and has something about it that suggests that sources might possibly exist, don't nominate it immediately- wait at least a day to see if the article creator provides proof of notability. Now all that said, I don't think that the best course of action here was to nominate this for deletion. I think that it would have been better to just redirect this to the author's page since he looks to pass notability guidelines and leaving an article history behind will give us something to work with if the book passes notability guidelines in the future. It is possible that an author's work will gain enough coverage over time to pass notability guidelines- I've seen it happen multiple times. Now I'm going to propose that this article redirect with history to the author's article and if neither side has an issue with this, I'll close this AfD early. I don't see this ending any other way, really, and closing it early as a redirect would still mean that MacRùsgail would probably still have to go through deletion review if he wanted to re-create the article later on down the line if/when more sources become available. Jbh, technically you are right in that the book does not pass notability guidelines and to be honest, it doesn't look like it will pass anytime soon. I don't want to discourage you from trying to get rid of problem articles, but I would recommend that you try to work more with other editors in trying to find a solution before bringing something to AfD. It's entirely possible that MacRùsgail would have agreed to redirect the article if you'd approached him about this. Maybe he would have protested, but the thing here is that you didn't try to talk things out beforehand. You don't have to do this every time you want to nominate an article for deletion- if you see that nobody has edited it in the last 10+ hours then go for it- but if you see that someone edited the page only minutes before, it's just common courtesy to try to talk things out first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Thank you for stepping in here. I did not see the {{under construction}} template when I first nominated this (It was at the bottom of the page) No real excuse but when MacRusgail objected I asked him to just show how it passed NBOOKS, assuming he would have that information, and I would withdraw the nomination. Simple, clean and the issue would be closed in two edits. I made this offer three times and all I got was bluster and being called a Smart alec (Complete with blue link) [10] If I had noticed the link at first I likely would have waited a couple of days to see where the article went but once it was nominated all I could do is offer a speedy keep.

Once MacRusgail started removing the AfD tag on the article and calling me names I assumed he was just some PR editor not someone with 70,000+ edits and ten years of experience on Wikipedia so my desire to work with him took a bit of a nose dive after that. I guess I could have apologized for the AfD at the outset but it was a good faith nomination with a WP:BEFORE so I figured an offer to withdraw and an apology if my BEFORE was bad was a reasonable way to approach the situation. Oh yeah... no objection to the speedy close and thank you for taking the time to go over things here. I guess this article just tripped my spam trigger so I did not engage the author as I should have. I will endeavour to do better in the future. Jbh (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence this book is notable. The provided reference (on wired.co.uk) which says the article was a "selection" for a Kindle marketing campaign is not notable. This selection is the only mention of the book made by the Wired article, and does not demonstrate notability. Unless reputable, non-trivial references can be found, this title doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:21, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluations of Internships at Ball State[edit]

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

Original research. The article explicitly states this was a study undertaken by five students at Ball State University that is being published primarily here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Publish elsewhere first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely nonnotable and original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. Neutrality^talk 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is original research, and admits that it is. It is not notable in any way. It was developed by interested parties. Jacona (talk) 13:21, 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 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accolade Competition[edit]

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

Article is about an awards mill. The organization has been the subject of no significant media coverage I could find. Article still has no references after more than two years, nothing shows up in a Google Books search (Google web shows lots of people saying they got such an award, could find nothing on the award proper, e.g., who the judges are or what credentials they have, etc.). Failing the appearance of some reliable non-trivial sources about the competition, I propose this article be deleted as non-notable. KDS4444^Talk 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is two years since a sources needed tag was added but, in fact the sourcing problems go back to its creation just short of 9 years ago. I only found one mention of the award and that was a sales ad for a DVD for a film that had been in several small film festivals. WP:SECONDARY sources were not available. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sad that the article has sat NEGLECTED for so long, but that is more a reason to ACTIVELY fix it in a encyclopedia that is self-admittedly IMPERFECT and a WORK IN PROGRESS, and not to delete it due to a possible laziness or animus (and no... I am not implying nor inferring anyone at this AFD is lazy or hateful). No secondary sources? Searches find it written of in Google scholar, multiple books and in multiple Google news. Does it being written of an mentioned in so many places outside of Wikipedia mean we can ignore it in all ways? That so may non-Wikipedia sources feel it notable enough, should be a clue. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two pages of Google Book results, many are things such as, "...Today only one retains that accolade. Competition moved strongly into all four areas...". That's an accident, not a citation. The others unfortunately don't say anything about the award. The nine Google Scholar hits don't look like they will do the job either, though if there were one in particular, that would be a great start. Lack of notability isn't something that anyone can (or should necessarily try to) "fix", it either is the case or it is not. I am not suggesting the contest be ignored, I am suggesting that it is not notable and therefore that it does not warrant a stand-alone article. Being mentioned by multiple "non-Wikipedia sources" can't be used to make a claim of notability (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). Neither can asserting that there WP:MUST be sources or that the fact that WP:ITEXISTS. KDS4444^Talk 04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like some money-making scheme with a person named Charles Baker in charge. If this outfit were truly WP:Notable, we could find mention in WP:Reliable sources. There are not any. You can check it out yourself. Wikipedia is simply giving free publicity to this endeavor. There is a $60 entry fee for the first entry and $40 for the next. That would be OK if this were backed by and referenced by professional or trade mags, but it is not. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no basis for notability under the guidelines, per nominator and BeenAroundAWhile. The list at Google Scholar above contains no article that discusses the Accolade Competition, all mentions are incidental (made in passing), mostly in lists. WP:CORP puts it best: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. --Bejnar (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IZArc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept in 2008, but many of the rationales would certainly not pass muster now. Of the sources cited, none actually establishes notability per WP:GNG - listings, blogs posts , a how-to, that kind of thing. The software itself is generic in nature and there is no evidence of widespread use (I am unsurprised by this, I have personally seen software lists from tens of thousands of computers all over the globe in the last ten years and have never once encountered it). Guy (Help!) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many non-notable, free archivers. A few short reviews do not establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried a search myself and, among the 390,000 Google results, couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Just two. I also studied the first AfD and carefully study the irritated response by Jimmy Fleischer. He had introduced three sources as evidence, two of which were mere download listings. (Surprisingly, the number of Google results at that time was 414,000.) Also, the closure itself seems questionable since many of the participants had used very weak arguments, mostly appeals to usefulness. Looks like the last AfD closure was more of a vote count.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good sources, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Computer magazines often compare IZArc with other file archiving utilities, e.g. WinZip. Editors can search Softpedia, PC Magazine, PC Computing, PC World and PC home Advanced to verify my comment.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Softpedia only lists it as a download, but there is no editorial review. PC World and PC Magazine don't even list it! PC/Computing never even had the opportunity to list it because it was folded in 2002. I didn't find a publication called "PC home advanced" at all, let alone search it! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review made by PC home Advanced can be found here: [11] (in Chinese). It argues that though IZArc supports plenty of archive formats in fact it is quite slow in compressing and decompressing ZIP archives. And since it has been frequently used by netizens I think that keeping this article will be quite useful for readers, since they may not know the fact that its compressing and decommpressing speed is slower than WinZip or WinRAR before downloading and installing it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another RS: [12].--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mirror of Download.com and everything in it is author's own commentary. Seriously, your statements' factual accuracy is too poor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Download.com is a prestigious download site, and its editor's reviews can be used as RSes, thus [13] can be used as an RS. [14], [15], [16], [17] are also good RSes, since Should I Remove It? and TOPAttack are all informative commercial websites.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Download.com is a prestigious download site"! That's a weird way of saying it is pretty. But it is not "independent from the subject itself" which is required by WP:GNG; and it is definitely unreliable. 2008 Wikipedia consensus holds that reviews by Seth Rosenblatt are immature and unreliable; since then, Download.com no longer writes the reviewers' name.
TOPAttack is one of the two valid coverages that I found. You are yet to find my other!
Now, either you are writing all this to convince the closing admin or to convince me. If it is the former, no comments; but if it is the latter, I am afraid I have to say when you find yourself raiding the garbage dumps of the Internet, like some Chinese website and shouldiremoveit.com, I am more convinced that the subject is definitely not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no obvious significant coverage or any indication this is used by the wider world. For the majority of people, a zipfile is just a means to an end, something you double click on to get what you want - that's kind of it really. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sourcing to meet GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:11, 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 redirect to Lodz University of Technology. Can be merged from the history as may be desired. Consensus is that it's not notable enough for an article. Sandstein 12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG on its own. No independent sources in article. Delete or merge with Lodz University of Technology. Jbh (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not worthy of a stand-alone article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other departments do not have their own articles, so adding the chemistry faculty to the main article would place undue weight on that field. My perspective on notability, as a chemist, is that Lodz has a medium to large staff. I don't recognize any faculty members myself, but the institution does have a notable presence in the field. Also, since the article is a list of faculty members, a reference to the appropriate website is all that's really needed, as that presumably provides verifiable information about history and statistics. At any rate, the lack of references does not merit deletion. Roches (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other departments do not have their own articles, so adding the chemistry faculty to the main article would place undue weight on that field is borderline WP:OTHERSTUFF and at any rate easy to solve (add them too; if chemistry is worth adding but not the others for some reason, then no undue weight problems; and if chemistry is not worth adding, delete instead of merging).

The lack of references is not a reason for deletion but the inexistence of sources is. Although the absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it's still some indication hence the WP:BURDEN guideline. Tigraan (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References are needed to establish notability per WP:NRV. The individual faculty members do not contribute to notability per ~~WP:NOTINHERITED~~ WP:ORGSIG. If it is WP:UNDUE to merge then it should be deleted rather than merged. Jbh (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "undue weight" I mean that this article would represent more than half of Lodz University of Technology after a merge. If other faculties don't have articles, it's not because they're not notable. Many articles for American universities have separate articles for parts of the institution.

If it's not clear, "Faculty of Chemistry" does not mean the academics themselves. It is a subdivision equivalent to a department at a U.S. university, and the word "department" is used for a group of related researchers, which is not normally a formal group at American schools. In the U.S., "faculty" is the next higher level above a department, as in "Faculty of Arts and Science". Roches (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some relevant details to List of Universities in Poland, definitions of what are called "academies" (for arts) and "technical universities" (which are like universities that only teach physical sciences and engineering). It's nothing whatsoever like a technical school in the U.S.

If any editor here can read Polish or wants to machine-translate, the website almost certainly has a media or press page that will list recent mentions of the faculty in secondary sources. The English version seems to be missing one. Roches (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No evidence of independent notability from its parent university, and no third-party coverage of a type that would satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So we should delete all these faculties that are not completely independent: University of Sydney#Organisation, University of Zagreb#Faculties, University of Montenegro#Organization, McGill University#Structure, University of Belgrade#Faculties, Faculties and institutions of University of Peradeniya, McMaster University#Administration and much more? In fact, they have high self-reliance, have their own history, have their own scientific research, dozens of full professors and thousands of students. Chrumps (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, unless they can show they have independent notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lodz University of Technology. As written, it fails to show any independent notability (only ref is to its own webpage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 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. Nakon 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Mad Ki Aya Story[edit]

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

Little to no reliable secondary source coverage. Also per WP:CRYSTAL, as an upcoming film with no backing of reliable sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's way too soon. Cavarrone 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Filming has not even started, if one can belief the info in the article, and no sources in the article, and 0 hits on google (except our article here). Kraxler (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. the arguing around the redirect hasn't overshadowed the fact that the arguments about the sourcing not cutting the mustard have not been refuted Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatomy[edit]

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

Up-and-coming creative ensemble generating some momentum, but Wikipedia:Too soon to meet inclusion per WP:BAND. Sources found are mostly WP:UGC. The review by Eden 2014 is independent in an online magazine, but I'm not sure that is sufficient. They have a respectable Facebook following and may be appropriate for Wikipedia soon, but... WP:CRYSTAL. Gaff (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some well-meaning editor has now made the page a REDIRECT, pointing to the page Traumatomy (band). I don't know how to fix this page to reflect that change. --Gaff (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/rename. Sources appear on google 1 2 3 in relation to the search term, but the band should be renamed to help improve the article (see Wikipedia:Article titles) in order to avoid any confusion. ITfan1990 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I history-merged Traumatomy with Traumatomy (band), and then moved it back to Traumatomy because it was under AfD. Someone redirected Traumatomy to Traumatic brain injury, but Google search found no use of Traumatomy as a medical term, but only as the music band. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your help, but the band should be placed in parentheses. I have restored the page content and redirected the namespace to the band correctly (see above), but kept the {{R from move}} template(s). ITfan1990 (talk)
That was a cut-and-paste move, and I have just history-merged it and put the article back at Traumatomy, where it should remain until this discussion has been settled. Is this discussion about deleting or moving the music band article, or about deleting the redirection? AfD is not the place to discuss deleting a redirection. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the histmerge, but the article clearly doesn't belong there per AfD discussion at this time. As stated above, the band name should be listed in parentheses for now. This time I added a complex histmerge tag, also explaining the naming policy mentioned move. Please be aware of it. ITfan1990 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Subject fails on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Google search emits facebook, twitter and other music indexing sites. At the moment this band does not qualify for a Wikipedia page, but they will definitely in coming months. Hitro talk 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This time I added a complex histmerge tag": I have done the histmerge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment- It is clearly mentioned in the notice that "article should not be blanked" but it is blanked for like 24 hours now, it is an AfD discussion, it is a 'keep' or 'delete' debate. We should emphasize on basic rules. Hitro talk 19:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is no AfD notice on the page for the band, which is today at Traumatomy (band) (I found it while stub-sorting Category:Stubs), but there is an AfD notice at the redirect for Traumatomy. While this AfD stays open, there should be an AfD notice on the article itself. Could a passing admin (@Anthony Appleyard:?) perhaps sort this out? PamD 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I have copied the content from Traumatomy (band) and pasted it on the article under consideration, and I have requested Traumatomy (band) to be deleted speedily as per G6.Hitro talk 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- My edits are being reverted without any proper reasons by ITfan1990 (talk · contribs), however I believe he or she is new to Wikipedia, so might not be aware of rules and guidelines here. Hitro talk 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See above. Stop trying to revert the histmerge that was agreed upon here. Please do not remove the tag again without a valid reason. Thank you. ITfan1990 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I've removed the deletion notice from the redirect to the article. To closing admin - if delete, please delete both Traumatomy (band) and Traumatomy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 07:57, 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. Michig (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Running Home (book)[edit]

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

Contested prod, so wasting everyone's time doing this the hard way even though nothing has been done to address the issues raised in the proposed deletion. (Nor could it be, since this is a patently non-notable self-published e-book.) The original rationale - "Non-notable e-book, written by a non-notable author and published by a non-notable publisher. Only one actual source (the second source doesn't mention this book, and in any case appears to be to a blog), and that "source" is the publisher's website." - has not changed. – iridescent 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I note that Books of the Dead is a one-man publishing company. I looked for some evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, but I did not find any. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Fearnet review would be considered a reliable source (even though the site is now gone), however we need more than one source to show notability- by today's notability standards on Wikipedia you really need about 2-4 really good, in-depth sources to come close to proving notability for an author. I can't find anything else to really show notability and the closest I could find was this interview on a site that doesn't have any clear editorial guidelines to show that it'd be considered a RS. This is a delete from my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete; I agree with Tokyogirl that the current reference would be valid but clearly not enough. I could not find any aditional reliable sources other than routine listings to buy the book. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 11:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paessler[edit]

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

Zero evidence for notability. Prod was removed, but no information added. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notablity is established by sources e.g. [18] and [19]. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for your note, DGG. I’ve added the most current developments regarding Paessler AG as reported by independent sources. See also the updated references section. Anton555a ( Talk ) 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete, apparently unknown on dewiki. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an in-depth review in Network World here and a product release story here. The article gives me the impression of COI editing, but it is not hopelessly promotional to the extent of not being worth keeping. Add a COI tag to the article and give the original author a COI warning if they are an SPA. CorporateM (Talk) 01:42, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Siegel[edit]

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

No notability besides a single composition. The composition itself doesn't seem notable after a cursory glance. At best, it should just be a page about the composition. References are very slim and from what I saw, the only one used is the only one out there. I prodded it a bit ago and the author simply removed it without improving the article. Jcmcc (Talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an oratorio on the holocaust recorded by a major orchestra and distributed by Naxos is obviously notable as press coverage indicates. So http://lawrencesiegel.com/works-of-lawrence-siegel/ haven't had more than local press coverage. It happens. Moving a composer page to a composition page is just asking for more work later. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the work is notable, then it should have a page about the work itself with a mention about the producer at the most. Jcmcc (Talk) 09:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, independent sources to establish notability. It appears that he has released Kaddish through Naxos, according to Naxos' own website, but he needs two or more albums through a major record label. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for him nor for his work, a couple of lines in an obscure magazine are not enough, fails GNG, ANYBIO or other suitable SNGs. Cavarrone 06:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TNT's Next 10 Greatest NBA Players[edit]

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

Nominating after WP:PROD was contested 12 days later. Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The list is a product of a made-for-TV special. I can't find any sources after the event to indicate enduring notability. The most significant coverage is archived here from SI.com. However it is not independent. From the source: "I've been asked to offer my opinion on who should join the NBA's original 50 greatest players for SI.com (TNT's corporate partner)." Seems to have been written for cross-promotional purposes. —Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If it were a formal NBA-endorsed addition to the original 50 then it would be notable content to merge into the article on the original 50; but this does not appear to be the case, so a deletion would seem the logical conclusion. Aspirex (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that WP:PRESERVE was not an option here in lieu of AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale: completely lacking in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG and WP:RS. Clearly promotional for TNT, the primary source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable TV special failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Specials have little more inherent notability than episodes, and this seems like it was a special only aired once, likely with only archive footage and commentary, no original programming. ― Padenton|✉ 02:54, 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 Speedy Deleted G4 by Tokyogirl79 NAC –Davey2010^Talk 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flameboy Pyro (rapper)[edit]

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

The article's subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. The only sources I could find for Fameboy Pyro were either owned by the subject or consisted of suspicious looking websites that brought up security warnings when I tried to open them. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was apparently deleted a number of times under Flameboy Pyro, so I nominated the article for speedy deletion per G4. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 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. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Hogan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Even though this was previously deleted in an AfD, a prod was declined. The prod rationale was: "made up, unsourced, not noteworthy." I don't think she meets the WP:GNG and it currently reads like advertisement. Tavix Talk 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Tavix Talk 05:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tavix Talk 05:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources whatsoever. The peru.com source provided on the article only mentions her in passing. Possibly WP:A7. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notabilty fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 - This is nothing more than the recreation of the previous article, and except for a mention of a liposuction and other beauty surgery there doesn't seem to be anything new. Google also doesn't turn up anything to foster her claim to notability. Kraxler (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:G4 as a recreation and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 11:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ó Ruanaidh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The deletion rationale is "resumé" Reyk _YO! 11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- now, having examined the article, I agree with the IP nominator's assessment that this is just a CV of a non-notable person. Reyk _YO! 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he is highly cited, as the article claims, would he not pass WP:PROF criterion 1? "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is very badly sourced and should be trimmed to only material that can be supported by sources (primary sources may be ok for simple factual claims; no sources not ok). But judging by his Google scholar profile he does indeed pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He does indeed pass WP:PROF#C1, according to his Google Scholar page. Much rewrite needed though. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm usually a little squeamish about the filter-fed GS stats because even very obscure pieces routinely have a few dozen citations, but his '98 paper in Signal Processing has >200 citations according to WoS and he has some other cited papers there too, which I think should be passable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- @Agricola44:: WoS is a bad choice for computer science because it has poor coverage of conferences, which are more important than journals in many subdisciplines of CS. See e.g. the final bullet point in WP:PROF. For this reason I prefer GS, at least for this subject, despite its somewhat-inflated citation counts. (This may be more computer engineering than computer science but I think it's close enough for the same issues to apply.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @David Eppstein: Thanks David. I am well-aware of this dynamic, i.e. that the CS culture assigns great importance to refereed conferences, so WoS will be at a "false-negative" disadvantage here. My main point was the converse: that GS is equally, if not more disadvantaged on the "false-positive" side of the balance sheet, for example it will include citations from unpublished documents, e.g. white-papers, which are certainly not of the same rank as citations from refereed publications. Be that as it may, I think we largely agree on this particular case. Thanks for the ping. Agricola44 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Fully meets WP:PROF on the basis of citation the very high level of 1387 for his paper in Signal Processing, or which he was senior author. Followed by 541 in IEEE Proceedings-Vision & Signal Processing, which is in the field as impt as any journal, a book with 431, then 486 , etc. This sort of record should never be questioned here. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 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. The keep arguments are almost a poster child of how not to refute a well argued case for deletion based on a lack of sourcing. They therefore did not prevail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Heraldic Registry[edit]

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

Unresolved notability tag for 2 years. Entire article fails GNG. Article is about an online single proprietorship company with no RS provided in article and none easily discoverable following a cursory search (note, that there are a smattering of references discoverable, but these are primarily from blogs and message boards and the websites of heraldry clubs, not RS). BlueSalix (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1 - The claim is incorrect. The USHR is not a single proprietorship company. It offers a free service to all armigers in the world. Armigers can opt for a printed certificate to be mailed to their home. This is admittedly charged, but only so much as to off set the cost of printing and posting internationally.

2 - Heraldry is a very niche market specialist topic. There are no more than a dozen printed heraldry journals in the world, most have gone over to digital publications. There will not be dozens of sources for any heraldry topic. Even the quality newspapers consistently get it wrong.

3 - No article on Wikipedia has ever been improved by deleting it. If it does not meet standards it should be improved, not removed. The USHR is notable, if only to the 500+ armigers worldwide who have registered with them. --Kiltpin (talk) 20:38, 10 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons cited above, as well as the fact that the registry is cited by respected heraldic societies (the American Heraldry society is sourced in the article, but many others cite their registrations, eg http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/membersarms/kimonandreou.htm). The registry is cited by scholars such as Nick Birch, 2014, "Branding Harvard", Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH. The registry is important within the narrow field of American heraldry, as much as a reference tool as for the services it offers. I should think Wikipedia over time will have more and more complete information on the assumption of arms, and all the legal ramificaitons and implications contained in the subject; when that happens the USHR will certainly come up as well and be talked about further. Then the need for this article will be all the more apparent. --Marlow4 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has now been re-listed twice and the consensus is to Keep. How many more times will it be re-listed? --Kiltpin (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article provides no indication of notability as described at WP:GNG, which would require substantial third-party coverage. The people advocating "keep" above have few contributions, and the comments by Kingpin may indicate a conflict of interest. Sandstein 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Weasel Words! We are supposed to be discussing the article not the quality of the editors with different opinions. Check out Commons before deciding I have "few contributions". As for "the comments by Kingpin may indicate a conflict of interest", the comments might also indicate that Kiltpin is a neutral observer who has a specialist knowledge of heraldry and coats of arms. --Kiltpin (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reputation management. Since there is currently no target for the consensus redirect, I have redirected it to the closest I can find. This can of course be tweaked when/if the suggested list is created. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website reputation ratings[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY but it is not my area of expertise. Prod removed by Mr. Guye. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now find some resolution. Tagged by Bfigura. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I looked at GBooks and GScholar, but the few hits seem generic, and not sufficient to establish notability as a widespread technical or academic term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term as such may be a bit of a neologism, but this article could be moved to List of website reputation websites or something. Or made into a category. —Ruud 11:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. The article doesn't have enough verifiable references, which makes it seem non-notable. This is largely because it is currently acting as a category/list while summing up the function of this type software in the lead section. However, one can find sources to use in this article but it seems like a better idea to convert it into a category or a list. — Jordan Mussi (talk • contribs) 13:34, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted until there have been a reasonable number of responses? Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the article to WP:WikiProject Business...it's arguable, all entries in the list will be businesses of some kind, so I suppose it's a list of businesses and therefore w/in scope. I also added WikiProject Software and Computer Security, all of which are within scope. Software might be a stretch. I won't be hurt if software's removed. I also posted on WP:WikiProject Internet's talk page, wasn't sure whether or not it was in their scope as well. ― Padenton|✉ 21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1) None of the entries are businesses—they're software services. 2) If they were businesses, the appropriate WikiProject would be {{WikiProject Companies}}. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list proposed by Ruud. Topic meets WP:LISTN. There's a clear inclusion criteria, and there's already written prose for the list's overview. ― Padenton|✉ 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after collecting the listed sites in a category as suggested by Ruud. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ruud's proposed list, per Padenton's reasoning. APerson (talk!) 01:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Simon Itelima Afiesimama[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Three of the four sources in the article are unreliable. The leadership source doesn't mention the subject. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

DElete -- another NN pastor. Even if he is relkated to notable people, notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources found. The news source provided on the article doesn't even mention him. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -there's not even an assertion of notability for this run of the mill self-appointed 'minister'. Wikipedia is not a web host for every minister whose father was a chief and his cousin is so-and-so. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 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. G5 already refused. This smacks of asking the other parent Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian F. Martin[edit]

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

Contested Prod Fails WP:GNG and Declined AFC submission and a paid article created in violation of block and ban and thus eligible under WP:G5.Please refer to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the article was originally created by a now banned user, a simple google search reveals several news articles on the subject from reliable sources. Including Los angeles Times, The New York Times, World Neighbors and many others Cada mori (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:G5 this page has no substantial edits by others almost entirely created by user socking as per this last edit done by that user and the other edits are basically tagging the page.This is about the New York Times about a sale of a house.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brian F. Martin and his work to bring awareness of children brought up in homes of domestic violence even caused Congress to take action. Jon Conyers, Jr, a congressional member of the house even thanked posted information on his personal blog about this. The Hill, a government policy website also posted information on this topic and the charity. It seems this guy has nothing to gain from this article and is making a notable impact on society. John Conyers & Makers of Memories The Hill & Congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.15.216.179 (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC) — 4.15.216.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established by sources listed above and others. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable lacks significant coverage and written by banned users.2001:E68:4414:1C38:6C5E:EA17:1ED8:AAB6 (talk) 15:02, 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. Consensus is that the articles meets WP:NBAND and is no longer completely unsourced Davewild (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Oh My[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article I couldn't quite make out of. It was up for a AFD in 2008 with 1 merge, 1 delete and 1 keep. It has apparently been inactive and nothing has ever happened with it either. Wgolf (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sandstein, Darth Panda, Nouse4aname, Esradekan, MBisanz, MacGyverMagic, who participated in last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NBAND #6:Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely unsourced, per WP:V, and apparently nobody cares enough to find sources. We can't even verify whether this alleged ensemble exists. Sandstein 12:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was unsourced, but isn't now - it was just neglected. I'm not sure the references I've now added would take it over WP:GNG, but they verify that it meets WP:NBAND #6. Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this was a band with one notable member we'd probably merge it to that article. Having two notable members makes it no more suitable for deletion and there's no single target to merge to. --Michig (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 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. Michig (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heavy Equipment Specs for Transportation[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic linkfarm. Prod contested by article creator. --Finngall ^talk 01:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is like an index to an equipment leasing site, but that site already has an index for the equipment it handles. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both the nominator and Margin1522 are correct. This is a catalog for an equipment leasing site. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 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 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Poland, Canberra[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. purely a directory listing showing name of ambassador and address. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find any sources discussing this building/organization in depth, neither in English or Polish. Would prefer to see it merged; perhaps as the beginning of the List of diplomatic missions in Canberra? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's already List of diplomatic missions in Australia, and Poland is already on the list. I've just added the picture of the Polish Embassy to the article as well. Orthogonal1 (talk) 10:14, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Gregoroff (singer)[edit]

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

Two references included, neither of which has more than a fleeting mention of the subject. Dweller (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 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. Sandstein 13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XML-Enabled Networking[edit]

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

The concept of "XML-Enabled Networking" is a marketing/technical buzzword that does not really reflect anything in reality. There are no sources discussing the concept except as a marketing phrase by a company called Reactivity (who themselves don't have an article) that for a brief while sold hardware and services that claimed to provide "XML-Enabled Networking" (see this as a representative example).

I have found no other use for the phrase that is not within the marketing copy of Reactivity who were bought by Cisco in 2007. It seems likely that the concept was dreamed up at the height of XML fever in enterprise software simply as a marketing phrase to sell hardware firewalls with some protection against XML parser vulnerabilities (like the billion laughs attack etc.) to big corporate IT departments. It doesn't really make much sense as a phrase because it violates the layering principle, as you can see in the article: it isn't a protocol, it's a very vaguely defined "abstration layer".

Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG (and WP:B2B is applicable too). If someone wanted to write an article on Reactivity Inc. then it might be worth a brief mention in that article (and a redirect), but it isn't notable in and of itself. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: I'd also note that Reactivity Inc was once a page, created by the same user who started XML-Enabled Networking. It was speedy deleted under A7 (db-corp) because it did not assert significance, but based on the existence of sources about Reactivity Inc being bought by Cisco Systems (the GigaOm piece linked above, for instance) it may pass notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nom--the phrase is closely associated with Reactivity, but gained no notability outside of this company. I could find no secondary in-depth sources talking about this topic. Thus the topic seems to fail the notability guideline WP:GNG and should not remain as a standalone article. --Mark viking (talk) 05:10, 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. Keep opinions do not address the delete opinions that demonstrate that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hopkin[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article's subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. References consist mostly of the subject's own publications, links to listings of his publications, or summary reviews of these publications with no in-depth coverage of the subject himself. Other references are insider magazine announcements and a youtube video, neither of which constitute reliable evidence of notability. Subject has won no national awards or received any particular merit for his accomplishments. I do not see coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. KDS4444^Talk 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, Paul hopkin has coverage sufficient to cover variability, but not the coverage of Notability. routine coverage that gets the facts and primary sources are needed in a good article. but without notability writing the article in Wikipedia isn't the best solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edited thanks for the comments. irrelevant references removed and the article simplified. any comments to avoid deletion appreciated singo66 — Singo66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the mainstream reviews for his book that would give a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and if those reviews did exist there would still be a question of whether he passes WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dont' delete meets criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller1001 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC) — Roller1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. P. Sadashivaiah[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Unable to find any sources outside of the ones listed on the page, and they are minor mentions at best. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NRDC and WIPPO Medals are National Award(s) in India. He got them. Educationtemple (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Romantic Collection[edit]

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

I see no announcement at all for this album, no support from the artist, nothing promotional from the record company. It appears to be somebody's collection of Inna songs hosted on this or that torrent server, with various track listings depending on where it's hosted. The album looks like it was never released by Inna or her label. There are no reliable sources discussing it. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Vairo[edit]

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

BLP, doesn't seem to be notable. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother (season 6). Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariestella Racal[edit]

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

A bio about an artist that was speedied repeatedly under the title Maris Racal and eventually salted. Submited through two different drafts, both of which were rejected twice (this title and User:Inajane/sandbox/Maris Racal), until it was moved unilaterally by the submitter to article space. Blatant promotional tone aside, subject's claim to fame is finishing second in a competition. It seems to me that aside from some routine coverage of her short career (1 year?), she does not meet WP:GNG either, but given the history I feel an AFD should decide once and for all if the article is kept. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This is a rather borderline case. At first, I was going to suggest redirecting this and Maris Racal to Pinoy Big Brother: All In, but a search reveals some non-affiliated coverage, such as from GMA-allied PEP.ph and Rappler. Not enough to warrant a stronger keep, but the coverage is there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:35, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pinoy Big Brother (season 6). All of the references (I checked all of them) are either from ABS-CBN (not independent coverage), fails WP:RS, or is about her Pinoy Big Brother appearance (WP:ONEEVENT). If someone finds non-ABS-CBN quality references for her non-Big Brother activities we could give this article a try. –H T D 09:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Howard the Duck: Please check my comment above. She has received coverage from PEP.ph and Rappler regarding some of her recent acting gigs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources aren't used in the article. –H T D 11:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: Yes, but they can easily be added to the article in order to establish notability. Also, WP:GNG and others pretty much say that the sources don't necessarily have to be in the article to establish notability; merely that they exist (yes I know this is a BLP, but I don't think BLP is in conflict with policies/guidelines like WP:V). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think these sources are good enough for a discussion her post-PBB activities (and not just passing mentions), you're more than welcome to add them to the article. –H T D 02:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - The references I found, among others, are: [20], [21], and [22]. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother (season 6). Subject has received multiple mentions in reliable sources, however few if any meet significant coverage, calling into question whether the subject is yet notable per WP:GNG. While the subject has received a Star Cinema award, the award doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable for the subject to pass WP:ANYBIO. I am also unsure as to whether the subject meets any of the three criteria set forth in WP:NACTOR. Therefore, as the subject appears to fall under WP:BLP1E, redirect to the show where the most mentions include the subject of this AfD. If the subject passes any of those notability guidelines I mentioned later, I would not oppose recreation then.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fuwape[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:NACADEMICS Dolescum (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As vice chancellor (in a system where the nominally higher positions are ceremonial) he appears to pass the "highest-level academic post" subclause of WP:PROF#C8. However I am highly dubious that Salem University, Lokoja would count as a "major academic institution" as required by the rest of that criterion. In particular, this source shows it as being both small and new. So I think we will have to look to other criteria for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep Weak Delete~~Neutral. per WP:PROF#C8. I will go with a Weak delete until an independent source is provided that documents him delivering a speech as the VC. All the references currently present are promotional primary sources sounding like a resume.Isakaba (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the independent source provided by Wikicology, that vaguely mentions him as VC in the article. I'd prefer to be nuetral on this one.Isakaba (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isakaba, this independent source documents him delivering a speech as the VC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of the article obviously meet WP:PROF#C6. The size of the university and its age doesn't count, since there are sources that establish the existence of the university. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this argument different from WP:ITEXISTS? And clearly size is relevant since an indicator of size ("major") is built into the statement of that WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Major" in WP:PROF#C6 doesn't refers to "Size", that might be your own personal interpretation. In my own interpretation, it means a duly accredited and approved degree awarding university by the National Universities Commission (in Nigeria, for example). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Notability still not apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point to you that, per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources, subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. In reaction to your argument, Salem University is a Major degree awarding university in Nigeria like National Open University of Nigeria, Covenant University, Achievers University and Afe Babalola University (in private universities category). Multiple reliable sources established the university as a Major university in Nigeria. The University was approved by the National Universities Commission per this punch Newspaper which also stressed that the university had successfully conducted more than one convocation per the same source. I also find this [this Vanguard Newspaper, The Sun Newsppaper, News Nigeria, this one, The Nigerian Voice Newspaper, Information Nigeria. A report by http://www.4icu.org in 2012, ranked Salem university as 63 of top best university in Nigeria above several Major Federal University in Nigeria per this source. If all this does not count to you, I may want to assume your argument is based on personal opinion and that is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument and references establishes the fact that Salem University is an accredited university, but says nothing about this professor in question. Maybe you should try finding sources about this don and not the school. Notability can not be inherited from the school to the VC. Isakaba (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isakaba, WP:NOTINHERITED does not applies here. The professor in question is the Vice-Chancellor of the university, which made him to clearly passes WP:PROF#C6 which stipulated that a person may be notable if The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: – "Prominent tenured professors tend to be kept" per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slowdance Records[edit]

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

Record label that has been tagged for notability since 2008. Looking up slowdance I get expected stuff like "slow dancing with records" (Seriously I got this) The only source that I could find for a news story actually appeared right below this wiki article which was that they called it quits. Wgolf (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk! Tsk! Records[edit]

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

Another record label I'm trying to find sources for-though the only refs I really can find are from either Facebook or blogs. Wgolf (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaun Banega Champu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Obscure game show that was previously up for a AFD that only got delete and keep and that's it. Not sure how this is notable enough as the keep vote said. At best a redirect to the host or the channel. Wgolf (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 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. Sandstein 12:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Pistols[edit]

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

Very obscure band who only released 2 rather obscure spoof songs. I would say redirect to Charlie Drake but it says it was not him then. Can't find any notability or reliable sources. Wgolf (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reason to keep this article if it has no references or notability. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article should be kept even if it has zero references -- if such references could be supplied that meet wp:GNG. Just saying that it has not references in the article is not a reason to !vote delete. And as to whether it has notability -- you can't really opine on that until you do the appropriate searches to see if it meets any of the notability criteria. Such as GNG. And a !vote that is not in accord with wp guidelines does not count. Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche-well to be fair finding info for the band is tough considering looking up water pistols I get the obvious and even putting band I get stuff like "bands for water pistols!" Wgolf (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Wgolf. And at least at this point, haven't myself !voted. I just wanted to clear up the misconception of the other editor, by clarifying how AfD works (he is apparently somewhat new in !voting in AfDs). Best. Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was a fun single but all I could find was a Mojo article that mentions it (stating that it was Charlie Drake, although that seems unlikely) and this brief mention in Dave Thompson's book London's Burning. Not enough to justify keeping the article. --Michig (talk) 09:15, 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 redirect to Dartz!. Davewild (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Apparatus[edit]

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

A EP that I can't find much notability for (as a note I did change Dartz Demo into a redirect) has been unreferenced for years Wgolf (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dartz!. Not enough here to justify a standalone article but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T.P. Bragg[edit]

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

Notability is the big problem here. Although there are several releases listed as a musician he fails WP:MUSICBIO as they are all self-released or on tiny labels with no coverage in any notable publications. Several reviews are admittedly included in the external links section but none are on any sort of major website. He also fails WP:AUTHOR as his listed books (all of which are actually pamphlets despite the articles claim) are entirely insignificant, published by tiny printers or self-published. Finally he fails WP:NPOL as he was a failed candidate in a single election and, according the article, was merely a paper candidate at that and the environmentalist group he is supposed to be involved with is so minor that it doesn't even have a website of its own, much less a Wikipedia article.. Keresaspa (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 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. The notability issues haven't been addressed by the one "keep" opinion. Sandstein 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So You Want To Be Taoiseach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network's website. No indication of notability. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't really find anything to show that this was that notable of a show. If there was a good redirect target I'd argue for a redirect, but there's nothing at Taoiseach to redirect to nor is there a list page for shows broadcast by RTÉ One. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure why Irish programmes keep on being nominated, but this was on the main Irish TV channel and ran to several shows too. -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the notability that is in question here, not the nationality. Saying this was on TV and "ran to several shows", while not providing evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is nothing to do with notability as understood by Wikipedia. --Greykit (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately just being on television isn't enough to pass notability guidelines, not anymore at least- I know that years ago this would have been enough but guidelines have been tightened over the years. I think that part of the reason that non-American shows tend to get nominated is because the coverage tends to be far lighter. I'm trying to find a nice way to say that American shows tend to be overly obnoxious in plastering themselves all over the news and that us Americans reward them for it, but that's kind of the best way I can describe the situation. I have no problem with you userfying the data, if you're interested in doing that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garda ar Lár[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (the one possibly independent source refers to an event that happened in the 1970s, not the documentary itself). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a one off documentary (read the listings), but seemingly a miniseries of documentaries, and therefore notable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this demonstrate notability? Insisting that something is notable and not providing evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is nothing to do with notability as understood by Wikipedia. --Greykit (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most TV shows on national networks pass GNG, being a tv series aired on the biggest tv network in a country, it should qualify under GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Customs (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Might need more sources but overall the show does seem to have some notability. Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." --Greykit (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - six part series on the main Irish TV channel.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this does not demonstrate notability. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." --Greykit (talk) 18:36, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aghamore GAA[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable club. Was declined for speedy deletion because "winning a county club title is a credible indication of importance", however no such assertion exists in the article (unless I missed it). Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 21:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from Mayo Senior Football Championship they appear to have been runners-up three times and, though it is ambiguous, seemingly winner once. This is not my field so I will leave it to others to determine how far this takes them towards notability. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fairly notable GAA club. And to those that don't know, ALL GAA clubs are amateur, so please don't try that one on! -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EARMARK[edit]

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

Non-notable technology; declined PROD. Research papers describing it have low citation scores on GScholar, and I haven't been able to find other reliable sources that discuss it in-depth. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything online that is not authored by Silvio Peroni, Angelo Di Iorio or Fabio Vitali, save for this and there it is clearly a passing mention (dicdef) even if that source turned to be reliable (I am not even sure what that book is, based on the preview). Tigraan (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find sources sufficient to pass WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claremorris GAA[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable club. The only sources that I could find were some very brief mentions in local newspapers. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 23:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 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. Sandstein 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency transformations with Pascal matrix equations[edit]

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

WP: NOTJARGON. Unreferenced, evidently self-published (see User talk:Nguyen Si Phuoc). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has no indication of importance, let alone proof of notability. The speedy criteria (WP:A7) does not apply because it is not really "web content" (and other categories do not match either). Searching finds two websites that I would not visit because my NoScript flashed big warning lights: [23] [24]. They could contain interesting information; they could be nasty XSS attacks, too. Tigraan (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks (alphabetically)[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of banks with no distinguishing characteristics. WP:NOTCATALOG. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could be good information for Wikidata but I don't see it as a needed list for Wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, it's no better than Category:Banks, and requires unnecessary work to maintain. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete. As I have again rewrite page. This is now more informative. Every Bank name is showing its head office and country name. There are so many list like List of banks in the United Kingdom. List of banks (alphabetically) is my first step to create separate pages for country, which have not its separate list of banks. Every person should know which banks are working in his country. I have also fixed all Disambiguation links. Ameen Akbar (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the nominator gets their rationale from, as the obvious intent is for this to be a list of banks that are notable (i.e., that have or merit articles). Which makes this clearly discriminate and the banks clearly distinguished. I'm also not sure what a "banking catalog" would be, as the nominator suggests, but if the intent was merely to link to WP:NOTDIR, they would do well to read the first two sentences of that section before nominating any list of articles.
The only real question is then whether there is value to having a master list of all bank articles in one place rather than just sublists split by country or by type (e.g., central banks, investment banks). Clarityfiend is the only commenter to address that, and raises a valid concern about the work needed to maintain it given that its only real value would be if it were an accurate and complete conglomerate of all the sublists. One way to do that would be to convert all the by country lists into standardized sortable tables, enclose everything but the lists' entries in <noinclude> tags (to exclude the headers and categories), and then transclude all the separate pages to this list (which you can do with mainspace pages no less than with templates, just add a colon after the first curly brackets). This would then combine all the entries from every separate list in one table that could be sorted alphabetically. In theory that should work, though I don't know that I've ever seen a master list constructed in that way, and any structural changes to any of the individual pages could break the effect (and I can't think right now of how this list would then identify the country, given that the sublists by country would obviously not restate that within their own tables...could a table column be enclosed in <includeonly> without breaking the table formatting? the mind reels...). But really that's the only solution I can see to making sure such a master list has no updating lags or discrepancies from sublists. postdlf (talk) 17:39, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Banks. Red-linked articles that qualify for an article as per having received significant coverage (per WP:GNG) can remain, while those that do not can be de-linked if still verifiable, or removed if unverifiable. As a long article, this can be WP:SPLIT as per WP:SIZERULE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. The argument for deletion due to a category existing fails WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although there could be some discussion about how to organize the various lists found at lists of banks, certainly a list of "all" banks or at least all notable banks is useful. The page could be renamed (the "(alphabetical)" looks weird) or its scope modified to include only notable banks, but outright deletion is not in order as this is a very valid list per WP:LISTN (and WP:NOTDUP). Tigraan (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is notable per WP:LISTN. See Multinational Banks and Their Social and Labour Practices, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum bell (medicine)[edit]

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

This is a medical product. No sources that satisfy MEDRS, so not NOTABLE Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I agree with the logic of the nomination. If a product (medical or otherwise) receives in-depth coverage in the New York Times, Telegraph and Washington Post then it is likely notable. Any medical claims require MEDRS sources for verification. But a lack of MEDRS sources is not the same thing as a lack of sources. There's plenty of pseudo-science and pseudo-medicine which is notable but still total bullsh*t. Any reason why the sources in question shouldn't be considered good-old significant coverage? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are four sources in the article. Three are primary sources from the biomedical literature (which should not be in the article) and one is from a trade rag and is based on a press release from the hospital where they did a clinical trial of it (press release at phys.org). Jytdog (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the contention is that they aren't RS, in addition to not being MEDRS? The first is a problem for notability, the second, not so much. Certainly the Klobe source is a WP:PRIMARY source without sufficient separation between the proponent and that source, but the others? The fact that the last one is based on a press release doesn't automatically make it unreliable. It isn't a word-for-word re-print and there is clearly some editorial toning-down. A significant portion of all news is based on press releases or press conferences, that doesn't make the news an unreliable source. The fact that a trade magazine elected to give it coverage works in its favour in some ways. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has a single reasonable reference (PMID 15793724) from J pediatric Surg, but which is original research so fails MEDRS. Without that, non-notable vs non-verifiable. BakerStMD 17:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - @Stalwart111, where is this in-depth coverage in the NYT, Telegraph and WaPost? Can you link? BakerStMD 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hypothetical - part of my original query as to the nominator's suggestion that non-MEDRS sources = non-notability, which isn't supported by policy. WP:OR applies to content drafted by WP editors, not to reliable sources - we expect them to be original research. That's the point. As to the others? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what Bakerstmd meant is that PMID 15793724 is a PRIMARY source. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary.

As it is co-written by Klobe, yes absolutely (as per our discussion above). Sources written by the creator/proponent of a product (any product) are primary sources. Again, any reason the others (that do no share the same characteristics) would be considered WP:PRIMARY sources or otherwise not suitable for conferring notability as significant coverage in reliable sources? I should point out that I'm still not convinced this should be kept. But if it is to be deleted, it should be for the right reasons. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

definition of PRIMARY source from MEDRS: " A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." yep. This is contrast to a SECONDARY source which: " in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations." It is really vital that we use secondary sources throughout WP but especially in biology/biomedial/health topics; the PRIMARY literature is littered with papers that are not retracted but were dead ends, were not replicable, etc. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of what the WP:MEDRS guideline suggests, but I'm also aware that it contradicts, to an extent, what the WP:PRIMARY (WP:OR) policy suggests. Take almost any other subject area (non-medicine) and such research, conducted by an expert in their field, would never be considered a primary source. And I'm aware that's exactly what WP:MEDRS acknowledges. This particular instrument is a terrible test case for balancing that policy and that guideline. Though the article makes no medical claims, it is about a medical product and so I suppose the WP:MEDRS guidelines should apply, though I don't think that is (ever) what they were intended for. As a prouct, has it been the subject of coverage, study and research? Yes. Would that be enough for it to meet WP:GNG in any other context? Yes. But it falls under the umbrella of "medicine" and so those sources are unintentionally disqualified. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart WP:PRIMARY says "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That is exactly what any publication of scientific research is and what the definition of PRIMARY in MEDRS directly echoes. If folks are widely citing PRIMARY academic/scientific sources in fields outside of health, that is a terrible thing, and opens WP to things like the SCIgen and Sokal affair hoaxes and all the stuff in List of experimental errors and frauds in physics. Secondary sources cull that stuff out, except for the very worst of them. I haven't found any place in WP that really pulls together (what I view as) the centrality of secondary sources to everything we do here as editors so I recently put a mini-essay on my userpage about it: User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that MEDRS goes on with further restrictions. The equivalent would be to suggest that someone who sees an event himself, even participating in it (like a journalist in a storm or reporting live from an event), is a "primary source" because they are "directly involved". That's not at all what PRIMARY intends but it is exactly what MEDRS instructs. Analysing the situation, coming to a conclusion and presenting that conclusion in written form does not make a source a "primary source" except in the context of WP:MEDRS. I don't strongly disagree with the premise of your commentary (or essay or...) except in its premise as to how editors come to insert said OR into articles. I might leave you a note on your page in that regard. Needless to say, we've moved some distance from this particular subject. I might hat this section and leave Bakerstmd's comments to stand on their own. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@jytdog, yes i meant primary source rather than original resource. Thanks for correcting. BakerStMD 14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just want to note that i agree with Stalwart above. if this device had been discussed in major popular media like NYT, WSJ etc, that would make it NOTABLE, for whatever was discussed in those sources. It is also likely that if a medical device became such a matter of public concern it would also be discussed in a review in the biomedical literature. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 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 02:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Theory of the Absolute Individual --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenomenologia dell'Individuo Assoluto[edit]

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

Book with questionable notability that has had no references in over 8 years. Interesting its not on the template on the bottom as well (I also tagged a couple other books by this guy as a prod) Wgolf (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Wgolf: This book was originally written as a single volume with Theory of the Absolute Individual, which I've added a couple refs and some information on, and which now mentions this title. I just redirected the English translation, Phenomenology of the Absolute Individual and went to redirect this one when I noticed the AfD. I don't think there would be any objections to a redirect here. Consider withdrawing with that intention? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 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 02:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Theory_of_the_Absolute_Individual - redirects are cheap; this one is useful and there is nothing to merge. Tigraan (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theory of the Absolute Individual for now, seems reasonable especially as looking at Google Books many sources talk about "Teoria and Fenomenologia dell'individuo assoluto" (ie "Theory and Phenomenology of the Absolute Individual"), joining the titles of the two volumes into a single title and discussing them together. Cavarrone 06:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Paul Bowles. Nakon 22:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points in Time[edit]

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

Should be deleted or merged into the author's page. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be minimally merged and then redirected, neither of which required it to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Michig: I tried a prod with a suggestion of merge if not deleted, the prod got removed. So I moved it to here. Most other *fD are for Discussion, so I'm not sure where else to place it. Can you point out where to go, maybe just the talk page? Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article talk page for merge proposals. Even if there's nothing to merge it's worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and redirect to Paul Bowles. I added two third party independent sources to the article. I think its time saving to source and unsourced article than to waste time on unnecessary discussion at AfD. I have no idea of why the article was nominated for deletion in the first instance. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can just be rewritten on the author's page if needed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:52, 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 02:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul Bowles. Doesn't come near books notability guideline, so no stand-alone article, but valid as a redirect: Noyster (talk), 11:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Combat Veteran[edit]

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

Part neologism (the Lea person described in the article--the article's author?--has trademarked the term), part dictionary definition. I accepted this from AFC because I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but I don't think it's a valid encyclopedia article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Nobody's paid much attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a clunky term which has no particular definition and hasn't been widely adopted as a concept. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism with no indication of notability. Calliopejen1, please free to decline obviously non-notable subjects at AfC on notability grounds instead of wasting editor time with unnecessary AfDs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 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 no consensus. This has had as long as it can reasonably have to achieve a consensus but it didn't reach one. Michig (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Prabhu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD was closed as no consensus, but only attracted one comment. I'm hopeful it can be better resolved this time. It is hard when sources are not in English. Although this looks like it has a lot of references, they essentially go to the same source. I couldn't prove that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. As it has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for over seven years without resolution, it needs a good discussion. Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator, person who tagged it for notability Cobaltbluetony, person who nominated it last time Puffin and person who commented last time Dharmadhyaksha, Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this, using help from Google Translate, I can find वसंत प्रभू (Vasant Prabhu) within Marathi articles but has no article of its own. Since his name also translates to "lord spring", it's difficult to get a good read. I have no doubt that he has participated in all that is claimed, but proving notability is still next to impossible without a Marathi language helper. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep about a memorial program in his honour in 2008 Maharashtra Times. Notes the following 4 popular songs ' तुझ्या गळा माझ्या गळा', 'आली हासत पहिली रात', 'लेक लाडकी या घरची', 'प्रेमा काय देऊ तुला?' are his best-known compositions. [25] talks about his partnership with notable Marathi lyricist P. Savalaram (article on Savalaram). [26] talks about Lata Mangeshkar prominently singing his songs, among a list of 4 Marathi music composers. [27] (snippet available) as a notable music director and lists his films and partnership with P. Savalaram. "Vasant Prabhu was another music director of this period. His music in PATLACHA POR, TARAKA, VADAL, SHIKLELI BAYAKO, GRUHA- DEVATA, PUTRA WHAVA AISA proved very popular. Like the Mudgulkar-Phadke pair, Vasant Prabhu-P.Savlaram pair earned renown". The problem in finding references for this article via google is that in English, Visa CFO Vasant M. Prabhu and in Marathi, a news photographer called Vasant Prabhu is showing up (WP:RECENTISM). However, various music sites iTunes, Gaana.com have playlists of Vasant Prabhu. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:50, 12 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 if it doesn't attract further comments? Boleyn (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete- none of the source cited is a reliable source. Educationtemple (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Nakon 01:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:50, 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. Can be userfied if desired, but it's all unsourced, so of limited usefulness. Sandstein 12:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tram controls[edit]

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

Tram controls are irrelevant. Why isn't there such a thing as train controls or bus controls? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the nomination is a poor mix of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:USELESS, the article is a poor organisation of content. Since none of those controls are specific to trams, a quick mention in Tram#Tramway_operation as "modern trams are controlled by the means of power supply switches, brakes, (etc)" would probably be better. I am not brave enough to check all the articles to link and compare for mergeable material but ideally it should be done. Tigraan (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete look like a technical guide + uncited. Transasia07 (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cornol. Additionally merge from history as may be required. Sandstein 09:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etang de la Montoie[edit]

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

I don't see that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. It's possibly worth a merge to Cornol, where it is not currently mentioned. Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cornol, retaining title as a redirect. A pond of 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres) is a fair size, although probably not big enough to justify a stand-alone article per WP:GEOLAND. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 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, Nakon 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge into Cornol#Geography per above. I hope my recent edits to Cornol are enough that the closer can simply delete the article. On a pedantic note, it is not "Etang de la Montoie" but "Étang de la Montoie" since the word étang is accentuated and proper French typography has accentuated capital letters (even if it is hardly ever done nowadays because the dominant keyboard layout is a very poor adaptation of qwerty). Tigraan (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course redirects are cheap. Tigraan (talk) 13:10, 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 merge to Andrea Casiraghi. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Andrea Stefano[edit]

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

notability is not inherited and wikipedia is not a repository for every information. The two years old boy is an heir of the Monegasque not yet a king (who may probably have a page here). Anyone can be an heir to a thrown and that has not make that person notable. When the baby becomes an adult and assumed his father's thrown, we may consider an article but certainly not now. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deletion, we normally merge minor royals into their most notable parent's article. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 21 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 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on one of his father, Andrea Casiraghi, who he inherits his royal blood from. It's likely he will be notable in the future, but we can't consider that. Boleyn (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Prince George of Cambridge is one young heir that has a wiki article of their own. To use Wikicology's logic, this article and probably a huge percentage of other royal heirs would need to be deleted. To be consistent Wikicology, please seek them out and nominate them for deletion. Keep them all or delete them all. Please do not cherry pick whic heirs should be kept and which shouldn't. Why would Prince George be any more notable than this heir, other than press coverage? Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your comments, Postcard Cathy. However, I may not really find it necessary to nominate bulk of similar articles for deletion but may probably initiate a discussion on one of the article's talk page. Why I nominated this particular one is that, there seemed to be no coverages outside his birth and I have no idea of why the editors above felt it should be merged, simply because of a press coverage of the birth event. I don't think such coverage should warrant an encyclopedic article and I only expected the father's article to be updated to that effect (I mean the newborn). But let's wait to see the outcome of this particular discussion. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with his father's article. Until Albert's children were born, Alexandre was seen as a likely successor to the Monegasque throne. However, now that Albert has two children and Caroline is no longer first in line, Alexandre's importance has greatly diminished. He is a great-nephew to a reigning Prince, yes, but he has no title himself and no real notability. In the future, he might gain similar notability to his father, aunt and uncle, but for now, he's just an untitled baby with a royal grandmother. Morhange (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Optical Transport Network. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G.798[edit]

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

I looked at this as it has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Wheelchair Epidemic), and I hoped to be able to resolve it, one way or the other. Unfortunately, it's goobledegook to me. I would tag it for expert help, but it has already been tagged for that for 6 years, without help coming. My investigations showed I couldn't verify notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'I would like to suggest that this article is kept on wikipedia as it is something which does exist. I have limited knowledge of it as I have only read about it in various manuals and books, never implemented it as it is not my field. If it has been nominated as something which doesn't exist I can inform you that it does exist, however it is just a standard and therefore a niche thing which is just definition at best. Even if you ask an expert he will be able to give you small paragraphs here and there which define the term(Just as it has been already defined in the article). The basic purport is that it is a term meant for people who have advanced knowledge so the books which mention this will not explain it at length as they think that the guy reading them already knows about an ONE and OTN. If what I wrote is confusing, do forgive me and leave a msg on my TP, i'll try to explain further but basically if you are looking for a book which describes this standard with a definition spanning more than one paragraph, I am not sure that if such a book exists . Have a good day, I just saw the nomination and came to give my two centsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG received significant coverage from secondary sources. This of course is something that exists. but the requirement for having an article isn't existence but instead notability. This is not notable. however, content inside notable topics only needs to be reliable and verifiable. so this content could find a home in an notable article on the topic. but the topic is not notable in and of itself. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FreeatlastChitchat, this isn't nominated on the grounds of not existing, but of not meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kk ty for mentioning that, I was just giving my two cents. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 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, Nakon 01:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly merge to Optical Transport Network. No indication of separate notability. Sandstein 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Graham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Last AfD had a delete, an on the fence and a keep. Hopefull, with greater participation, we can resolve this. Pinging those involved in looking at its notability previously: Tomwsulcer, Раціональне анархіст, Diagear. Boleyn (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer Can I ask that this is relisted once or twice more, as otherwise it will be swiftly sent back to AfD, and that would be a waste of time. I'd really like to get a consensus this time - either way. Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Nakon 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Some coverage, but not enough to be significant under WP:BASIC:
- [28] - one sentence on the subject
- [29] - two sentences on the subject.
- and many passing mentions, most of them focusing on the "Johanna Graham Quartet" instead of the subject.

- Esquivalience ^t 02:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG do not think there is significant coverage and are the references only passing mentions and further do no think the awards are notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Faruk Khatri[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage for notability. ← scribbleink ^talk 06:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 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, Nakon 01:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage to satisfy WP:GNG . One article is about his family.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - info in article does not indicate any notability, no additional sources can be found either Kraxler (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double Smile[edit]

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

The duo is not notable as they only competed in the Ukrainian national selection for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and only came in eighth place. The article relies on one source and is poorly organised. Fails WP:GNG { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 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, Nakon 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reaching the final for Ukranian selection for what is a fairly minor contest is nowhere near sufficient reason to include them in an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Turner[edit]

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

None of the companies that this individual has been associated with are notable; only sources that looks like it would pass WP:RS is an article by a local Utah paper focusing on a Utah company he is president of. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 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, Nakon 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be a proficient self-publicist but lacks coverage in reliable independent sources. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Michig lacks coverage in reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:44, 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 redirect to Audrey Horne (band). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions & Alcohol[edit]

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

Album I can't find any notability or refs for. Of course looking up Confessions and Alcohol I seem to only get the obvious stuff like Alcohol anonymous groups. Wgolf (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Audrey Horne. I Googled 'Confessions & Alcohol Audrey Horne' to avoid the irrelevant stuff, and added a couple of links, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Redirect per WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 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, Nakon 01:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Audrey Horne: No evidence it meets any of the WP:NALBUM criteria, nor does it seem to be notable on it's own per WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Audrey Horne (band). Nothing here to suggest a standalone article is justified but worth a redirect (to the correct article). --Michig (talk) 08:47, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Orienteering Federation[edit]

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

Non-notable orienteering organization. Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundling the following pages as non-notable orienteering organizations:

Belarus Orienteering Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croatian Orienteering Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Český svaz orientačních sportů (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dansk Orienterings-Forbund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eesti Orienteerumisliit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finnish Orienteering Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pakistan Orienteering Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fédération Française de Course d'Orientation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deutscher Turner Bund, Abteilung Sport Orientierungslauf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Magyar Tájékozódási Futó Szövetség (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Federazione Italiana Sport Orientamento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These are the national sports governing bodies for orienteering in the respective countries, and clearly notable. Most of the articles have interwiki links to other wikis, with more sources. To be specific, for the Belarus Federation, see ru:, for the Czech, se cs:, for the Danish, see da: and de:, for the Estonian see et: and de:, for the Finnish see fi: and de:, for the French see fr: and de:, for the German see de:, and for the Italian, see it:. I added "History" sections to two of the articles yesterday, the Finnish Orienteering Federation and Hungarian Orienteering Federation. Oceanh (talk) 18:23, 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, Nakon 01:07, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Grippo[edit]

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

Prod that was removed-now while he does have refs it seems he is more of a local celebrity-yes Chicago is a huge city, but still does not seem to make it here. Wgolf (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Charles Grippo has had his plays produced in Chicago, Illinois, New York, and California and is not just local. Somebody doesn't have to be a celebrity to be important on the earth. Also, his publications have been used by many in the American theater community who are starting or maintaining their own theater companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganave2002 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I am in Brooklyn, New York, and I have seen Charles Grippo's plays here in NYC, so he is not simply local to Chicago, as you suggest. When I went to research his works to find more references to cite, I was struck by the number of national, reputable publications that have written about his works, as well as the books by major publishers that have cited him. The publishers Thompson Gale thought he was notable enough for a biography in their Contemporary Authors Series. Even Wikipedia thought one his plays WHEN ANGELS WEPT was notable enough to give it its own page. And Wikipedia cites him in several other articles. He is not simply local to Chicago. (I hope I am doing this correctly. I am new to Wikipedia and not sure how to add to deletion discussions. Chrislatoya (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)chrislatoya.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 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, Nakon 01:07, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Taylor (Family Affairs)[edit]

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

Fictional character that also basically seems to have a in universe style of writing. Not sure about notability either (There are tons of these from this British soap opera it appears-if I could I would just merge them into a AFD for several of these) Wgolf (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 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, Nakon 01:05, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Trip[edit]

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

Another character from some soap opera with no notability mentioned and basically all universe. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Taylor (Family Affairs) Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 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, Nakon 01:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, unless someone brings up sources before the end of the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DASH-IF[edit]

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

Prod was removed by a ip (it was about to be deleted today the page it appears) anyway the article comes across as a advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 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, Nakon 01:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Really quite clear from the discussion that that this is an OR/SYNTH cruftfest; the only "keep" opinion makes as little sense as the article. Editorially redirected to Prospective memory. Sandstein 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memory for the future[edit]

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

The topic of this article , "Memory for the future", is not a phrase which is anywhere discernible in any of the sources cited. Nor does it seem to exist as a term on a Google search (except in the present WP article), and the topic therefore cannot qualify under WP:NOTABILITY, being not verifiable. See also WP:ARTN - Article content does not determine notability. The article itself is long and rambling, extending to a variety of issues including evolution, burial of goods by the ancient Egyptians, and extensive other irrelevant matter, and reads more like an essay of the sort ruled out by WP standards. It would seem that this is a non-topic or fraudulent topic invented by the original editor, and it is indeed difficult to discern from the article exactly what the topic may even mean. Insofar as it means anything, it contains in some parts speculations about the nature of forecasting (which is nowhere referred to by the sources cited as 'memory for the future'). Very little or anything seems to link to the article save via the Human Memory template in which the topic is included. Therefore delete as non-notable, pseudo-scientific rambling or hoax. Smerus (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: To the extent that the article has any meaning at all, it duplicates the properly constructed and referenced and WP:NOTABLE article Prospective memory.So maybe delete and redirect to Prospective memory.--Smerus (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay chock-full of OR and SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 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, Nakon 01:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator, that is a poor fork or duplicate of Prospective memory that is not supported by sources. Maybe not original research in a strict sense, but certainly synthesis. I do not quite see anything worth merging. Tigraan (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a good and interesting article not found anywhere else, important facts abound. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that you realize that !votes that are not policy-based (like yours: see WP:ILIKEIT) are bound to be ignored by the closing admin... --Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - btw, Hash Tag 444 has attempted to 'assist' this debate by removing the AfD template from the article (now restored thanks to bot).--Smerus (talk) 04:24, 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 keep. Most of the keep arguments were non-policy (i.e. being on primetime isn't enough to establish notability by our rules), but the two refs cited by Richfife seem sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blood of the Irish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced mainly to the network. Shown only once, with no long-term significance indicated. Of the sources which might be independent, one doesn't work and one is not even about the show but about a "previously claimed notion" that was mentioned in it. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The show does look notable enough. (now trying to find Blood of the Irish does seem tough since I'm getting mostly family tree sites) Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I didn't find much and now, six weeks through this and the previous AfD, you say you can't find much either. --Greykit (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:57, 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, Nakon 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - primetime programme on main Irish TV channel.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't prove notability or verifiability. --Greykit (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Yes it does. - Richfife (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High profile reviews here (link blocked. Changed exxaminer to examiner) and here for instance. - Richfife (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Won the 7TH annual Irish Film and Television award for Best Documentary Series in 2010: [30] - Richfife (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoleta Dara[edit]

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

No sources indicate notability under WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. We have a blog post; a couple of interviews in dubious magazines; another interview in a less dubious outlet, but still one that presents no particular claims of notability; and something that attests her participation in the Eurovision selection, something that has never been held to constitute notability by itself (as opposed to actually being selected). In short, there's no credible reason to ascribe notability to this figure. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 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, Nakon 01:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is Adevărul a "less dubious" outlet? Keep per multiple coverage, this is sufficient for a non-english singer as the level of coverage is not the same as an english language, even if the sources are "left wing" to label them dubious is unfair. Big interviews in national newspapers is a sign of notability GuzzyG (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- GuzzyG, that is literally a true statement: Adevărul is, in fact, less dubious than the other sources cited. Indeed, it's an eminently respectable newspaper. However, no, one interview does not establish notability, especially as there's very little quotable material therein. ("I want to perform Balkan-influenced songs", "I adore extreme sports", "I find it very difficult to fall in love", "My friends say they've never seen a more honest person" - that's the level of the interview, and that sort of material is, as I say, unquotable.)
- As for "multiple coverage" - where? Where, pray tell, do any other reliable sources cover this subject?
- Finally, as for "this is sufficient for a non-english singer" - that's special pleading. We are dealing with someone from Moldova and by extension Romania, both of which are highly literate societies with ample press outlets. Given that these seem barely to have bothered covering her, there is no reason we should, either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 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. Nakon 22:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windermere Community[edit]

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

Non-notable suburban neighborhood, with no independent sources on the article. Conifer (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Jlfarm03, the creator of Windermere Community. I have provided very limited evidence for this page because I currently LIVE in Windermere Community. I have lived here since this community has first opened and I feel that my article has enough factual evidence that I feel this article should not be in deletion. Thanks, Jlfarm03, The Creator of Windermere Community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlfarm03 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlfarm03: Wikipedia cannot use personal experiences or knowledge as sources for articles: see the policy on no original research. Instead, there must be reliable sources about the community, that are not published by the community association or developer. Conifer (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ID Two[edit]

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

Non-notable stub sourced only to the network for more than 10 years. That link is no longer working. Google gives unrelated links to Apple. Greykit (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The Den (Ireland) which it was split off from? -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was never split off from The Den (Ireland). The page has been in existence since 2004 and states that it aired "following The Den." Both seem to have included occasional astronomy reports by the group Astronomy Ireland. "The Den (Ireland)" does not offer any details. That seems to be all they have in common (at least based on the available sources and what Wikipedia is currently claiming). --Greykit (talk) 23:04, 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, Nakon 00:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Inother (talk) 19:26, 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 Westwood One (current). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Country (radio network)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for seven years. A previous AfD ended with 1 keep, 1 delete, 1 merge. I think a thorough discussion is needed, with hopefully more than 3 people, to finally resolve this. Pinging those who were involved in looking at its notability before: Mrschimpf, DGG, Levdr1lostpassword, Erechtheus. Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Westwood One (current). Wgolf (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't oppose a merge to Westwood One, where it is not currently mentioned. Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Nakon 00:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see much value. Renata (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Westwood One (current).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 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. Michig (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bajo las riendas del amor[edit]

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

I couldn't find the reliable sources to back up that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Bradv). It has articles in several other languages, so there may be something I'm missing. Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unfortunately the original official site at esmas.com has disappeared. The DVD link at Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Bajo-Las-Riendas-Del-Amor/dp/B007RMQ4YA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427640394&sr=8-1&keywords=bajo+las+riendas+del+amor - is all I can find. However, deleting this page would lead to red links for a lot of telenovela actors, so it would be good to keep it. - Ttwaring (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ttwaring - Us Twinkle users can unlink everything at the click of a button so nope there wouldn't be any red links if someone unlinks them all. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, can I ask that it is relisted until we can gain consensus/sufficient number of responses? Boleyn (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Nakon 00:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, I can't find anything and Amazon isn't a reliable source, As for redlinks - If deleted I'd unlink everything so no problems there, Anyway Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this probably qualifies as a reliable source (I did not have much time to look up sources, this was the first one which qualified).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RISE Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neither of these two entities shows evidence of passing WP:ORG. Let's look at the sources to see why, although you'll forgive me if I don't bother analyzing links from riseproject.ro or rise.md. For RISE Project, we have:

YouTube video
No mention of RISE, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention, no mention
Passing mention in a non-independent source, passing mention in a non-independent source
Passing mention, passing mention, passing mention
Article by RISE, Article by RISE

For RISE Moldova, there's this:

Some video
No mention, no mention, no mention, no mention
Press release, press release, press release, press release, press release, press release
Passing mention, passing mention, passing mention
Directory entry in a non-independent source, Directory entry in a non-independent source, mirror of RISE's site

I think the level of coverage pretty much speaks for itself. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same as before as WP:GNG. I randomly picked one of the non-RISE refs. It turned out to be a great deal more than a passing mention. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as in the previous AfD, VMS Mosaic, you've mentioned references that establish notability, but failed to provide any specific examples of such. In the interests of ensuring a thorough discussion, would you care to do that this time around? To which "randomly picked.... non-RISE ref" do you refer?
- And let it also be noted that this user pretty much always votes to keep; while it's certainly his right to do so, one does wonder about his impartiality. His last delete vote came nine months ago—ironically, that article was kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I normally only !vote on articles which should be kept. There are more than enough other !voters for articles which should be deleted (a 60+% success rate). Of my 276 keep votes, only 25 have been deleted plus 13 merge/redirect. That is a high rate of being on the correct side. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it elsewhere. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, VMS Mosaic, let's try again. Just as in the previous AfD, you've mentioned references that establish notability, but failed to provide any specific examples of such. In the interests of ensuring a thorough discussion, would you care to do that this time around? To which "randomly picked.... non-RISE ref" do you refer? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) - Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) VMS Mosaic (talk) 15:25, 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, Nakon 00:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Venus Palermo. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Palermo[edit]

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

Note: This is not harassment, it is merely a statement of truth, in order to keep Wikipedia up with required notability within the rules. Note: Wikipedia article "Margaret Palermo" was created by herself, Margaret Palermo" (check article history for alias, matched with her D.O.B.) Please also note that most of the text is written about another character (daughter of Margaret, Venus Palermo) than the article's subject, as well as the resources on the bottom are not relevant to the article's character at all They are, in fact, about her daughter, who also helped create this article. All resources on the bottom is irrelevant to the character, and most of it is hosted on unofficial domains (i.e. Facebook photos). A lot of it is deemed non-qualified for sources, in forms of being random photos and links to YouTube videos that has no show for the subject in the article. A source needs to be a direct source, not hosted on a secondary domain.

Article does not contain any "independent of the subject". There are no press releases or advertisement about Margaret herself. Anything to do with her daughter is not appropriate for this article, as her daughter Venus Palermo has her own Wikipedia page. This article, Margaret Palermo, is not an independent article. ALL sources on the bottom point to Venus, and not Margaret. It is merely a secondary-article about Venus Palermo. Unlike Venus Palermo's article, this article does not hold ground for being credible, notable or relevant. Wikipedia article is nothing but a unambiguous advertising or promotional page for her daughter Venus Palermo (please see the bottom sources of the main article.) Dekikaki (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user and hope I'm doing the talk correctly on the right place. I would like to report repeated abuse by Dekikai user. The person plans to put the article up for deletion as long the article stays on Wikipedia, merely from the reason of being a hater. Please check a certain webpage "prettyuglylittleliar" which is a BLACKLISTED hater page according Wikipedia. The same user is bragging on 85 pages about Margaret Palermo, spreading hate, libel and other forms of personal attacks.

The user brags about how she tries to delete the Wikipedia article about Margaret Palermo, also giving her and her minor daughter nasty names. The person writes this or agrees with other about writing this

"She calls people's deletion request "harassment", wtf? Pointing out how irrelevant and non-noticeable her mother is because the article is all about Venus anyway, is not harassment.

Fuck off, Venus. You're the one ruining the purpose of Wikipedia.

Edit: Her article was put on the "articles for deletion page", meaning it's up to other editors/users (that are not Venus/Margo) to decide whether it stays or goes. I read about page requirements and it doesn't meet criteria at all of staying.

And if it gets ignored/chosen to stay, it's pretty easy to put it back for a new review."

Also the user and her friends come back to edit libel into the article. That is against Wikipedia rules and such user should be stopped from editing articles.

After responding here, also noticed that my IP address was reported by the same haters. As I am a new Wikipedia user and was only trying to edit the mentioned article, it is obvious that reporting my IP address is a personal attack against Margaret palermo, as I only removed libel against her.Kissa3b (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kissa3b, please keep your points based around Wikipedia policy especially notability and biographies of living persons. Comments about the motives of other editors are not helpful and will not be considered when deciding on the outcome of the discussion. What is written off-wiki is irrelevant, whther there is an article about Margaret wil be decided solely in line with Wikipedia policy. The content of the article needs to meet Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view and any editor who tries to push the content either pro or for the subject can be sanctioned by editing restrictions and/or being blocked from editing. Nthep (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell who's bashing who above, so I would instruct anything above "Comment" to be ignored. The relevant policy is WP:NOTINHERITED, and as the creator of Venus Palermo, I would suggest that Venus does not meet the notability requirements for her YouTube career. She meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2 in her capacity as a singer. Margaret is not even close to meeting either criterion. Therefore, delete. --Laun chba ller 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Venus Palermo - unless a stronger case can be made to support independent notability (WP:GNG, WP:BLP), especially once the spam and NPOV fails in the article are stripped away. Seems to be attracting strongly WP:OWN-based edit warring, and if the above comments hold valid, it seems to run afoul of WP:SPIP. Dl2000 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the page be merged with the Venus Palermo page. The only fix that could possibly make this page more relevant is if there is more information based specifically on Margaret Palermo such as her early life and education. As the current information is all about Venus Palermo, whom already has a separate page, and it is not giving any further information as a page than the Venus Palermo page. The references are not particularly solid with most of them pertaining to be hearsay as opposed to solid research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittykat28 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 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, Nakon 00:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Venus Palermo - 90% of the article is about Venus rather than Margaret, who in any case fails WP:BIO in her own right. Neiltonks (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Venus Palermo per Neiltonks. Mostly referenced by gossip rags and tabloids; no indication of notability per WP:BIO outside of being the mother of someone temporarily famous. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete - can't find anything worth merging here, and almost zero coverage online in WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with you in regards to Margaret, Venus meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2.--Laun chba ller 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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