Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 April	4 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Unbreakable Bond[edit]

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

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

An Unbreakable Bond is an article about a book. The original author of the article is clearly self-identified as the author of the book, so there is a big conflict of interests. The article does not address the notability of the book at all. It simply provides a plot synopsis. The referencing mainly covers for the factual events that the book is based on. It does seem to have a little local news coverage but this does not seem sufficient. Prod was removed by an user who I suspect to be an alternative account of the original author and who has also written an (auto)biography of him at Pat Farabaugh.

Pat Farabaugh is a biography of the author. I my took BLPPROD off that myself as references were added. However, even with the references, I don't see notability here and, unless I am mistaken, the same COI issues apply. DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obvious case of WP:ADMASQ self-promotion by a new, inexperienced editor (and his equally obvious sockpuppet). Pax 22:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tormar Associates[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. There's a bit of coverage about a recent lawsuit but that's it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; see also John Tormondsen. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Article has been updated to meet WP:CORP. Added reference to New York Times study indicating that each Tormar partner owned a significant portion of Goldman Sachs (over $107M each) at time of IPO, as well as reference to New York Times article about partner's departure from Goldman Sachs, as well as feature story in Institutional Investor's Alpha about his next project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradYard (talk • contribs)

See WP:NOTINHERIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Not suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, insufficient sources. - Mailer Diablo 23:28, 11 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) 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Tormondsen[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO - No substantial coverage in secondary sources. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fullest coverage he's received is as the defendant in a recent suit filed by Citibank, and that's WP:NOTNEWS. Also note that the article's creator is adding this subject to multiple article lists [1]. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. The sources offered, and all I could find in my own searches, are just simple news coverage of WP:ONEEVENT. None of it is really about the subject, it's just reporting that he had a particular job, he left and now he's being sued. I don't think that's just not enough to satisfy WP:GNG as substantial coverage. Msnicki (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except for this short piece, the coverage has been too thin to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 5 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 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Java Institute for Advance Technology[edit]

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

This article was tagged by the author for speedy deletion, which I declined. The rationale given was "There is a request from the organisation to remove this from the Wiki", which is not a valid reason, and it is not eligible for G7 because the author is not the sole editor. But I have worked on the article for a while and I'm not sure what to make of it. If it is a diploma-granting institution it would be presumed notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But if I am reading it correctly, they grant a certificate in Java technology rather than a diploma. If that is the case it needs to meet WP:GNG, which it clearly doesn't. I could find no outside references at all, just the institution's webpage. Unless someone can find more sources, or evidence that they qualify under SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I recommend deletion. If kept, the title should be moved to Java Institute for Advanced Technology. MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - software training organization article of unclear notability, lacking significant, independent RS coverage. No evidence this organization is accredited - the certifications mentioned are not equivalent to accreditation. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:36, 8 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. - 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

New Ananda English School[edit]

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

No references. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. ubiquity (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not entirely sure if this is a hoax? - The only results on google are this article and some blokes CV, It is on GMaps but anyone can register any business on Maps so still not entirely sure... Anyway obviously no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's probably not a hoax but if it can't conclusively be proven to exist as a maistream school of some kind then it can't be redirected either. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Masson (medical student)[edit]

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

A vanity bio of a medical student, with no independent references. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What is most appalling in this act of unsatiable vanity is this edit, which moved an existing article about a notable priest to make space for their own (or their boyfriend, whatever) glory. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion rationale is without merit and violates WP:AGF as well. The subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG. We don't automatically delete articles on notable subjects because we suspect a COI. If the article contains promotional language then it should be cleaned up. AfD is not cleanup. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please explain how did you figure out it satisfies WP:GNG. Namely, which rules of it are satisfied. How is that nomination for deletion of a vanity page violates WP:AGF? How much GF you A if I move the page Stanislaw Lem to Stanislaw Lem (writer) and put my bio in the place? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm also quite concerned that the person who submitted this is also deleting referenced material from the article in question with misleading edit summaries [2]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So not notable, I'm surprised someone didn't CSD it. Risker (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to the correct title, which is Maxime Masson (medical student). I'll get around to the disambiguation page shortly. Risker (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to respect WP's notability guidelines, although more secondary sources would be welcome... I guess those will come eventually. For the moment, article satisfies WP:ALIVE as per WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR. Initial authors were in accordance with WP:BOLD and WP:RELY; on my part as per WP:IPHUMAN. Perhaps WP:COI with initial author User:BScMScMD, yet further investigation required. --74.58.19.13 (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — 74.58.19.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How does this article meet WP:GNG? The overwhelming number of references are to the article subject's own work. Getting a letter published in a journal isn't notable. Certainly getting published in a school paper isn't notable. There's nothing about him that differentiates him from hundreds of thousands of medical school students around the world. Risker (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far it has been shown that the subject of this article has written letters that have been published in a few places, including a couple in a newspaper and a handful in medical journals. As well as these comment and opinion pieces, the subject of this article has also written some essays that were accepted by online magazines articles that specifically invite contributions from students. For a healthcare professional this pattern of correspondence and creative output is not currently enough to meet WP:GNG in my estimation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drchriswilliams. I can't locate any independent, significant coverage of this subject. The subject's own writing doesn't come close to meeting even the relatively easy standard of WP:AUTHOR. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main claim of importance is rather dubious IMHO: "writing to (notable?) journals and got posted" seems rather unremarkable, like a slight step-up to letters to newspapers. WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR ask for the subject's work to receive critical attention, like being highly cited or received thorough peer review in the field. There is none provided in the article or here in AfD so far. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a vanity bio, or autobio, without any significant references other than those created by the subject of the article. Getting letters published, even in very respectable journals, does not generate notability. No obvious difference here from many other medical students worldwide. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear vanity article of a non-notable medical student. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline speedyable; how does writing a letter make one notable? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is being a medical student, who got published for english writing in the college blog with less than 100 hits per month notable? We're going to be really busy with every english student in the country being added to the wiki! Also, first 3 links belong on the French version...if this isn't deleted - we're going to have to remove them. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails wp:prof for academics in the medical field. The subject is a far cry from an expert in the field, and even further from being a full professor. BakerStMD 00:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the place for a tirade about priests of the same name being notable, but THIS is not notable per criteria. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:30, 7 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 Page layout#Design elements and choices. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floating block[edit]

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

Was thinking of just putting a prod for this but was not sure. This comes across as a dictionary term more then a article for here. Has been unreferenced for over 8 years now as well! Wgolf (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Page layout – Design elements and choices, which presently does not mention the floating block. The topic is verifiable, but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article as per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge as above. As a definition of a 'thing' rather than a word it isn't a dictionary definition. GBooks has several sources discussing it (you looked there, right?), mainly regarding web design, but if it can be covered in another article that may be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree with Northamerica that Page layout is probably the most appropriate place for it. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 21:03, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon S. Jackson[edit]

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

WP:1E at best; no evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG, mentioned in coverage, but not significant. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my standards for lawyers. He seems to be appointed counsel, that's it. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 03:59, 9 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 08:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for MH-17[edit]

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

I suggest deleting this article per WP:N and WP:INHERIT, since the notability of the tragedy does not automatically make the poem notable. The article is mostly retelling the content of the poem (in violation of WP:PLOT), and the second- and third-party coverage is marginal at best. It was already proposed for deletion for exactly the same reasons about a year ago (the result was "no consensus"), and nothing seems to have changed since then (there was no new media coverage). Buzz105 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely worth a mention in the reactions section of the main article, let alone having its own page. Fails WP:N and WP:INHERIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree, not notable. Might bear a very brief mention in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17‎. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. Closing user's note: had I participated in the article earlier, I would have !voted "keep" due to the existence of coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Luna (band)[edit]

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

~~I put a prod on this but apparently it was already afd the band seems to be unotable with only 2 albums (only 1 page exists while the other is up for a prod) Wgolf (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums on Warners, sufficient coverage, passes WP:NBAND: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-okay they have 2 albums by a major label but from what I can tell it is there only albums. Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many albums do you think they need? --Michig (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that notable bands needed to have more then 2 at least, I guess the layout of this article just made me think they may not be notable. Wgolf (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the website is no longer there. I'm going to keep this afd up though to see other opinions. Wgolf (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Michig. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND criteria #1. Source examples include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw-oaky yeah notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shukurbek Beyshenaliev[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he does not appear in Russian WikipediaCoolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of he WorldCat entries. He's in the national encycopedia. the books were translated to English in the 1950s. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to DGG's points above Google books yields 81 results. ^[1] @Rob talk 20:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Google Books for Shukurbek Beyshenaliev". Retrieved 2015-04-03.

Comment/Queries which encyclopaedia? - was it this one?[17] being in encyclopaedia does not necessarily mean wikinotability, world cat brings up a total of 6 occurences [18], books translated into english do not mean the author is notable, the google book search of 81 or 23? results brings up trivial (only listing his name) or irrelevant entries - [19], [20], [21]. having carried out a general google search (again:))[22] and searched the first 140 entries[23] it brings up nothing relevant (except the Open KG - Tourism Information portal (encyclopaedia?)info cited above), only bookseller/publisher sites, library listings, sites that just list his name and or his books, sites with info from wikipedia. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Hyser[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 15:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She was the star of a well-known 80s comedy, Just One of the Guys. Much of her other work is admittedly minor, but the one starring role should certainly be enough to confirm her notability. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to Just One of the Guys, a major role, there's also supporting roles in stuff like Spinal Tap and L.A. Law. And she's still active in acting, and there are enough interviews and stuff out there to convince me it passes WP:ENT. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the many supporting roles in cinema and TV. Also, her role in This is Spinal Tap was small yet memorable. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Self IAR close following withdrawn nomination with confirmation by the only other person supporting deletion, no need to keep this open any longer than necessary. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bird[edit]

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

This seems almost deletable as {{db-band}} per a lack of importance asserted, however given the amount of sources thought AfD was a better venue. Having said that, as all the sources are local to New England, this doesn't seem like enough to make the band meet the general notability guidelines, and it doesn't look like they meet WP:NMUSIC. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; the sources are not strong enough on their own to prove notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITSLOCAL and the fact that most of the sources in the article seem to be reliable. Besides those sources, there is more RS coverage of this band and their albums: [24] [25] [26] This seems to be enough to meet WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 15:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BAND @Rob talk 17:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources already in the article and those identified above, there is also: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is effectively a notice of death by NPR does it for me, happy to withdraw and early close provided Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi feels the same way. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kelapstick- you go ahead. Can't fight progress, eh! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:29, 3 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 03:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Theatre (Berkeley, California)[edit]

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

Seemingly NN theater in the basement of a Pizza shop. Findsources turns up not much. This is the only serious coverage which probably isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also This — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellahellion (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Delete. I'd really like to save this article, and I looked to see if I could find a second source comparable to the Chronicle writeup - which is significant coverage from a regionally significant paper. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything else even close, and we require multiple (as in, at least two) such sources. Maybe it will become more notable later. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources, probably fails WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 23:37, 11 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 03:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comodo Korugan[edit]

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

No evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~software~~ 'hardware' article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are a forum and a company site, not WP:RS, and a search turned up no significant independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain; - Its a hardware resource and it is new product from trusted brand, I am surprised to see that the article is under consideration for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamahendric (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so the brand does not in itself establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Hope you might consider dailysabah Turkish magazine Ekonomist has a trusted source. I recommend to remove AFD request on this article. (Williamahendric (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Williamahendric, you may make multiple comments on afd discussions, but are only allowed one vote. You have voted twice on this afd. Please change one of the votes to a comment.Dialectric (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already deleted a half-dozen spammy articles about individual Comodo products. CorporateM (Talk) 05:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author shared the article in stub and it has base references & details, why should we delete instead of edit? It is not necessary to know what it is brand or anything. Wiki help people in providing details through trusted citation, Improve it instead of delete Mathewherz (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Mathewherz (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 keep. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis (online journal)[edit]

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

This is an article which has never had a single independent source, on a project of no evident importance. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does look like a dead issue. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article about an important tool for a specific academic field. It is listed by universities as a recommended search engine. St Johns Colin Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonpatterns (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 March 2015‎

Keep Don't know how relevant it is now, and the article as it exists currently could certainly be better, but it's an Internet open access scholarship pioneer. It's recommended in the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy (brief mention, indeed), here's a paper about it -- a primary source published in secondary publication, site reviewed in Reference Reviews, article about it in Campus Technology. Here are some sources of unknown quality (I don't have access at the moment): Serials Review, Philosophy of religion: a critical survey of Internet resources, another from Reference Reviews, and the several primary and secondary sources collected on the Noesis information page. It's not a slam dunk, but it passes GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the look of it, this is a bibliographic database, not an academic journal. Correct? --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A database, search engine, curated directory of sorts, etc. A reference site rather than a journal, yes, but one with an editorial board. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most databases have a oard under one name or another, which determines what to include in the database and what not. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm just pointing it out because, to me anyway, when looking at the aesthetics of the site through a 2015 lens, it could be taken for one of the many thoughtless directories or custom Google searches that spring up to make a few AdSense bucks (rather than a scholarly endeavor). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources cited above by Rhododendrites are fully sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I am hearing for the first time, above sources are conclusive. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:20, 7 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 Evryware. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dude[edit]

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

Non-notable, no good sourcing found. Previously kept in 2006 due to notability of developer but I'm not finding anything useful. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when your parent article ( in this case the game developer ) is a stub, it's unlikely that the child article (the game) is going to be notable. put the content into the developer article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to developer (Evryware) as valid search term, though that isn't to say that the company's own article would pass an AfD. The game's article on its own lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me if more (non-English, especially Japanese, and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 05:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Czar. Not adequately notable, but a somewhat likely search term that could lead to a notable article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:52, 5 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 08:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1-Phenylethylpiperidylidene-2-(4-chlorophenyl)sulfonamide[edit]

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

WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Pharmacology require chemical compounds to meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Beyond the one reference in the article (which is a patent, not a peer reviewed publication, and therefore may contain unsupported claims), there are no reliable medical sources mentioning this chemical compound - nothing on PubMed, etc. Most of the article content is original research and pure speculation. The article should be deleted due to concerns about WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. ChemNerd (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, chemical with no independent notability. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has then been searched for in Chemical Abstracts,which is the only proper way of seeing if there are other publication? DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: According to Chemical Abstracts, this chemical compound is mentioned in (but is not the sole subject of) only a single >25-year old scientific publication (Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry, 1987, 1413-1416). That article is just a duplicate description of the research reported in the patent from the same author that is already cited in the Wikipedia article. ChemNerd (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most chemcial compounds are indeed reported only once, and are not notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 3 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 Sophia Abrahão discography. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

É Você[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. A protected redirect to Sophia Abrahão, post-deletion, is acceptable; simple redirection, as evidenced by the page history, will be insufficient. —Cryptic 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; I'd say it barely passes WP:NSONGS, but wouldn't complain about a merge with Sophia Abrahão discography. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 15:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sophia Abrahão discography. Doesn't seem overly notable on its own, but definitely enough to be a part of that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sophia Abrahão discography. Eeekster (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 3 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 08:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Njiva[edit]

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

A magazine that published a single issue. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, importance not asserted. No sources. External link is an article that mentions magazine just in one sentence. GregorB (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear notable. 23 editor (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitechek[edit]

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

Little to no coverage from reliable secondary sources. Borderline WP:CSD per criterion A7. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 14:11, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and G11 - I had already tagged the page before. --TL22 (talk) 14:51, 3 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. Discounting the SPAs and personal attacks, there is consensus to delete rather than userfy. Nakon 03:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Women, Ageing and Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage in reliable, non-affiliated sources. All sources are affiliated except for the Zwoll, Karpf, Jones and Whiting refs. However, the Zwoll and Whiting refs are blogs (not an WP:RS), while the Karpf ref doesn't even mention the centre. This leaves the Jones ref, which is quite literally from a tabloid, and doesn't really establish notability due to not being an RS. Therefore, due to the lacking of notability establishing sources, we should delete this article. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I definitely want to give the recreator some credit for writing an original version this time, instead of the "straight repost of its own website" that constituted the first iteration of this article, the nominator is correct that what this version has still failed to do is to be referenced any better. Very nearly every source here is still either primary or blogspotty, with only one reference (#4) which escapes both of those disqualifiers — and while as a non-British editor I can't adequately address whether that reference is to a tabloid or not, it's not about the organization per se, but just briefly namechecks its existence in the process of being fundamentally about something else. Which means that regardless of where we land on the "tabloid" question, the coverage still isn't substantial enough to demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG if it's the only independent and non-bloggy source we've got. I think probably the best approach here would be to sandbox it in user or draft space, to give her the opportunity to seek out better sourcing — but in its current state it still doesn't qualify for inclusion in articlespace. Delete or userfy. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to draw attention to Chess's profile and the problems he seems to have had with a misogynistic impersonation of his account. Coupled with the fact that I found other articles about research centres that are not better referenced than WAM, it's hard to believe in a coincidence. The difference seems to be that these centres are not about women. I still put the article in my sandbox so I can continue to work on it, although I am not sure I will be able to find the kind of references you mentioned. Mainstream media do not talk a lot about research, especially research on women and ageing that is not essentialist or health-related. Also, it wasn't me who wrote the first article about this centre, so I don't need your "credit" for writing an "original" version ;) MaudeG3 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaudeG3: Now what exactly are you implying? I don't see how that is relevant at all. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaudeG3, I'd ask you to please remember to assume good faith whenever possible. It shouldn't be necessary to call Chess's background or character into question here. Let's focus on what we can do to improve or save the article, if possible. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaudeG3:, something else to note: it's not necessary for the sources to be in mainstream media. Academic journals or newsletters are also fine sources. What's important is to find sources that are independent of the Centre or its members, are substantially about the Centre itself (rather than mentioning it in passing), and are reliable due to some level of editorial oversight -- i.e. blogs or personal web pages are not generally considered reliable, but newsletters and journals generally are. Are there any more reliable independent sources that discuss the Centre in any detail? That would be a huge help here. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim Pierce: Can you find them? Look around, because you're trying to find the proverbial oasis in a desert. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been looking. It certainly is difficult to find good sources. Maybe, as you say, there just aren't enough to sustain this article at this time. But I think that we can get there without escalating to emotional rhetoric like "oasis in a desert." —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there's been 15 days to improve this article, and the improvement has not been done. We've pretty much established that this subject fails WP:GNG, and the complete lack of sources to establish notability firmly convince me that this article should be deleted. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this discussion with interest. This entry should not be deleted. It should be expanded! What the original post misses, which addresses the issue of notability but also provides further public references that are in accordance with wiki-policy on citation and referencing, is WAM's contribution to public life and public policy through their Manifesto. This Manifesto, written 2012, instigated the inclusion of two WAM representatives to the public policy document published in 2015 by the Members of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, Chaired by Lord Best. That's pretty notable. Other public policy contributions that include WAM are The Commission on Older Women, 2013 (see page 54).These are independent non-blogspotty references and evidence of the notability of this organization and its members to the lives of older women. I have also looked at other Centres included in Wikipedia, such as the Newman Centres. I note here that with the exception of one source, the evidence of notability and references are affiliated with the Catholic Church. KimberlySawchuk (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that a quick search for "centers" returns a plethora of pages with even fewer references than this one (for example, Centre_for_Studies_in_Social_Sciences, Centre_for_Food_Safety, Center_for_Puppetry_Arts), and I am not quite sure why Chess is so vehement at targeting this particular one. More references are good, obviously, and I hope that if something comes out of this, it is a stronger article. But that doesn't mean that the page should be marked for deletion - there are other notices that could have been put on the page, or other ways to request a better job at referencing. I would also like to note that while the center itself is not necessarily discussed extensively in the press or elsewhere, the article could point at the individual members' work, which is very extensive and regularly cited and commented. I am not even in that particular field, and I know of the work of Ros Jennings, and I assume that other members are also very active in terms of publication and academic work. Why not mention them as a way of establishing the Centre's credibility? Niccoben (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One important thing to understand is that Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards are a lot tougher now than they were five or ten years ago — an article being created today has to conform to a much stricter set of rules than an article that was created in 2004 did. So the fact that you can find a bad, poorly referenced article that's ten years old has no bearing on the standard that you have to meet to get a new article kept today. And I'd also encourage you to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — especially the part about "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it." Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Niccoben: let's quote that you said, "I am not quite sure why Chess is so vehement at targeting this particular one". How is that in any way relevant to this discussion? Please explain how that influences this article's notability. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Chess is right to point out that the article suffers from a lack of reliable third-party sources. But the article is well thought out and researched otherwise, and it may only be a matter of looking for more. It would be unfortunate to delete it prematurely, and I'm disappointed in Chess for moving straight to deletion without asking for improvements first. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for more sources. They're not there. It's a fundamentally non notable subject. Userfying won't change that. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope (Australia band)[edit]

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

Tagged for WP:NOTABILITY by Duffbeerforme seven years ago; time for a resolution. I couldn't establish that they meetb WP:MUSICBIO, and I think it's close but not quite there for WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BAND most of the sources are not third party. Has won no major awards nor produced notable albums. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did support gigs for a few notable acts but don't meet WP:MUSIC themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, just - non-vanity album on Phantom - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient independent references to satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the references are primarily music industry so not really third party. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails BAND and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it meets WP:GNG.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how, the sources in the article are not really third party. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. They warrant an article - an AFD is not a reference check - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a check on the quality of sources available. The sources are almost all music industry related, so not really third party. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple NLA coverage: Governmental sources appears to be sufficiently reliable as an indicator of notability. - Mailer Diablo 23:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blancride[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; spammy, short on notability. I was shocked - shocked! - to discover that the anonymous editor adding lots of links to this article geolocates to Durham College, where Blancride was developed. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain; It's a new product, and non-profit. I was surprised that the article is under consideration for deletion - I wonder how much is due to attack from commercial for-profit services that see this as a competitor. My vote is to not delete.

dmcamp — Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a new product, with only minor local media coverage and "more than 1,000 users" as of February 5, 2015.[39] Every new app wants publicity, but you can't hitch a ride here. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have attained fair notability and is comparable to Uber. Keep for now. Suttungr (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listed sources do not provide significant coverage for subject matter (rather, it is Uber and general issues surrounding it). Lack of reliable sources covering the app, fails WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 23:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBSlink[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but I may be partly prejudiced because it seems like promotion. Was prodded by Ad Orientem, rem by creator. Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. Subject fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Sources fail WP:RS. Google yielded nothing even remotely suggesting encyclopedic notability. I had planned to send this to AfD myself but was holding off for 24 hours on the off chance that the creator could find some RS coverage. That does not appear to have happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 27 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 13:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable sources that cover this Internet-based software, and one would expect that the vast majority of coverage would be on the Internet. This is more applicable to a BBS-related wiki at Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 4 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 03:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk (designer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST with no reliable secondary sources, just a tweet and a Flickr photo. Can't find any press coverage of the artist's Digital Paisley work, and we haven't got much to work with otherwise, for an artist with a common one-word pseudonym and no stated real name. The possible-COI creator User:Hawk Visions has declined to add any reliable sources since opposing a prod a couple of days ago. McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 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 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Citation Source must be from different trusted domains like newspaper, magazines, etc., It seems that there is no proper citations in this article. I recommend to delete this article(Williamahendric (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Carn (2003 film)[edit]

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

Coverage is lacking. There are sources, but I do not believe them to be reliable. Mr. Guye (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not an expert on Indian movies, but it appears that this film was created by notable actors and filmmakers. Perhaps someone with more expertise in the subject can improve the referencing? And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Pop Carn" "Popcarn"

Keep Expanded searches find this topic spoken of in multiple reliable sources. WP:NF is met. IE: Sify, The Hindu, Sify and more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator? Your opinion on the improved article? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:The sourcing is still mediocre but I am satisfied with the WP:NFILMS argument and the WP:INDAFD argument. I'd withdraw, but it is very close to 7 days, so this AfD might as well go in the books as a "keep". --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mr. Guye, sadly, Google does not crawl nor index Indian newspaper articles properly, thus causing issues when using it to search for sources on Indian films. I've found the tools at WP:INDAFD are quite helpful in any WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close as keep, not to relist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister France World[edit]

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

Not a notable pageant as far as I can see, no reliable sources in English or French that seem to cover it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as article is already sourced to The Huffington Post and France 3 Rhône-Alpes. Sourcing could be improved by a motivated editor and that would push this !vote to a solid keep. - Dravecky (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the Huffington article is not about the subject, it's about Mister World, and the Rhône-Alpes one is about Mister National (many of these are kind of spammy and unclear as to who organizes them). And even if they were, they could hardly be considered coverage of the pageant itself. Most of the individual pageants that feed Mister World do not have a standalone article, nor should they. There is zero to none coverage of this pageant in reliable sources, either in English or French. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the reasons and sources mentioned by Dravecky. WordSeventeen (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is one where a full "Keep" per the same reasoning I gave for a "Weak keep" should be unlikely. I'd still need to see a couple of better sources before I changed my !vote to "Keep". - Dravecky (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (WP:A7) needs lack of assertion of notability, not lack of evidence. A couple of articles, even if shaky, destroy that CSD. (No comment on the content of the issue.) Tigraan (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened there but I wasn't supposed to have put "Speedy". –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 27 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 13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As pointed out by FreeRangeFrog, the Huffington and the Rhône-Alpes articles don't appear to discuss the subject of this article; instead, they talk about Mister World and Mister National, and are therefore noncontributory to this pageant's notability. From what I can gather, I am very skeptical that even a highly motivated editor could find adequate sourcing to support a high quality article about this subject. There is very sparse coverage online; I can't find any reliable sources either, let alone coverage that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH. The pageant doesn't even have its own website that I can find—the "official website" link in the article points to the Mister National website, which indicates to me that "Mister France World" may not be significant outside the context of Mister National or Mister World. Mz7 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mz7. Sources have to have significant coverage on the article in question to meet WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 23:55, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape of Baucau Timor-Lorosa'e[edit]

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

Because Baucau already exists. -- haminoon (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hesitated between merge to Baucau, but I see no content with any assertion of notability, and speedy delete under WP:A10, but there is, after all, new content. The need for a redirect is unlikely (long titles usually do not need to be redirected to shorter ones). Tigraan (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 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 13:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge anything useful that can be (but currently isn't) sourced to Baucau. What an odd, misleading title. Since when does "landscape" include the economy, infrastructure, etc.?

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Harvie Barnard[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I've added a link to Wikisource. I hope I'm proved wrong. Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 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 13:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, even given that she was living in earlier times. Who's Who is not a good source. If she had some newspaper clippings, yes, but unfortunately she did not make a splash. Original author of this article stated: "I am a public history student at Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI). For Women's History Month, I am adding information on historic Indiana women to already existing pages or creating stubs. The research was completed by a former public history student. Only one student intern is currently working on the project." Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have reworked the article and found numerous secondary sources. There does not appear to be a separate article on Indiana suffrage, but she was involved as an officer of the Indiana Auxiliary of the National Suffrage Association almost from her arrival in Indianapolis. Her involvement continued for almost a decade as far as I can tell. Indiana granted women the vote in 1917 and she was still treasurer in 1914. An archive of her family papers indicates correspondence with Carrie Chapman Catt. SusunW (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously more than notable enough for Wikipedia. Just look more carefully into the sources.--Ipigott (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable suffragist with major influence on public policy of the time. These articles are slow to develop and ricky to source. More work is needed, but notability is clear from what's there...that said, need to add more in order to connect the dots for the non-historian. For that era, a Who's Who can be a perfectly reliable source; newspapers often did not cover the work of women, even when they were highly public in their times. This is one of the challenges of dong women's history - finding the forgotten people who did some amazing things. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:45, 11 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) 07:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Biodynamics[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP as there are no independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in significant depth. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual evidence of notability. Just press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent media attention of the type needed to pass WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 4 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. Delete All. Nakon 03:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor[edit]

Not a notable award, can't find any reliable sourcing past fan sites. There isn't even a main page for the awards, all of the pages are the individual award or by year. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the rest of these articles for the same reason.

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

Delete per lack of independent sourcing and how "Nevada Film Critics Society" doesn't even have its own page Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Nevada Film Critics Society is already deleted via a separate AfD nomination. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total wipeout gameplay[edit]

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

The lede for the article has numerous problems and is completely unreferenced. The substance of the article is completely duplidated in Total Wipeout. The article is an orphan. I don't believe it serves any purpose and should be deleted.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom forgot to substitute AfD template header. Reinstated by 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom says, this seems to duplicate the parent article. There doesn't seem to be much point in a redirect, but that's also a possibility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout, I mean delete, as a duplication of a better known article. Throw in lack of WP:RS for good measure. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 12 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 Browncoat. Mergers from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Browncoat ball[edit]

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

No indication of WP:Notability. References do not link to WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPA creator removed Animalparty's notability tag and it seems promotional. I could find no reliable sources to suggestion this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement from creator of the page. (Unsigned message copied from Talk:Browncoat_ball).

I carefully read the articles and this group is definitely in grey area. Perhaps the following information will help in decisions?

There is no company, service or product. Nothing is for sale. There are no membership fees. There is no seeking of money in any way.

Wikipedia is not being used for advertising (if that's a concern) because no one would know to search it unless they already knew about it, in which case further advertising isn't required.

There is no physical holdings at all (no meeting hall, no clubhouse, no anything). It exists completely as an intellectual exercise predominantly in cyberspace, hence the desire to substantiate a verifiable internet presence.

While I appreciate concerns that it's perhaps too small an organization to merit inclusion, given it's roving status and lack of product/business model, if the internet were to censor it for not being a mega-corp of some sort, then it would be impossible to grow. The Facebook page was started about 1.5 months ago and nearly has 1000 Likes. Compared to the billions on the planet, this is nothing, but for a month and a half with no product, advertising or business behind it, that number displays the potential reach. These "Likes" span both states and countries and are only growing, so it's more significant than "my brothers band" but less than McDonalds. I don't know how big is big enough. However Wikipedia is looked to as a source of "is this real" and lack of inclusion harms its credibility, especially, again, given it's lack of a physical existence.

The purpose of the page is to affirm that it is a real thing, and to dispel any rumors, misconceptions, explain the roots etc. (And perhaps hopefully re-encourage an age where people meet - at a Ball, local pub, town square, what have you - an actually discuss the news of the day and learn something new. It's focus is as an intellectual society - meeting, learning, talking, like society once did.)

Wikipedia already has entires on several intellectual groups (and fan-groups like comic-con), the difference is that they all have a physical location and mostly look to achieve funding/profit whereas the Ball exists solely in cyberspace and has no dues or financial holdings of any kind. This creates a greater need for verification, not a lesser one. It's can be seen as the latest shift in the information age - clubhouses, dues and physicality are no longer required. But credibility is all the more important. If it's not big enough, then what is the target number for recognition?

Copied and pasted by BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Condense to Browncoat. Wikipedia is not a social network, meetup coordination site, or advocacy platform. An encyclopedia should not encourage readers to do or join anything (see WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NPOV. "It exists" is not a criterion for establishing a devoted article, Notability is. Surely if fans "need to know", there are other outlets for knowledge. Lastly, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Browncoat or delete. Pretty much or the same reasons as Animalparty above. We're an encyclopedia, no an event calender. Wikia can be used for the above purposes, but Wikipedia has inclusion criteria. Comic Con has articles written about it in national newspapers, and that's why it has an article. I don't think there's really anything to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Sporrer[edit]

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

The subject seems to be a non-notable actress and fails WP:NACTOR. The article contains promotional sources but no WP:RS. It has misinformation - her birthday cannot be what is in the article based on a search that shows her competing in Miss Teen USA in 2005 and graduating college in 2009. Prior speedy delete and PRODs were edited out of the article - maybe by WP:COI. Others have pointed out problems with the article. See the article's edit history for more details. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 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 01:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of reliable, significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutrality^talk 00:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming everything is true, she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore LaMattina[edit]

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

Subject of article is an elected local official only and fails to meet the terms of WP:POLITICIAN. Article also contains no third-party independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Boston is certainly large and prominent enough a city that its city councillors would satisfy WP:NPOL #3 if they were substantive and properly sourced, city council is not a level of office that confers an entitlement to keep an article that's this badly sourced and contains no real substance beyond an acknowledgement of his existence — it's a level of government where the substance and quality of sourcing constitutes the difference between a keep and a delete. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 23 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 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We jeep member fthe city council in NYC and Chicago, and Boston is as significant. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples: [40], [41], [42], [43]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 4 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 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalyn Waseka Nandwa[edit]

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

Not notable. No news articles about this person. "Chief of staff" is not very prestigious. No indication in the article of Notability. References are not Reliable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. My searches did not reveal any sources indicating notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:07, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is a Deputy Chief of Staff good enough? A chief of staff does appear to meet WP:NPOL, but this is really poorly written in its current state. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tracy Griffin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC; unable to find "multiple independent sources...to demonstrate notability". A thorough search yielded only this interview and this review of his book. Fails WP:ANYBIO; this author was one of five finalists for a Locus Award. Fails WP:AUTHOR; this author is not widely cited or well known. Aside from creating the Tarzan art book, I located this blog article in the Huffington Post. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says the book was a winner of an award http://www.locusmag.com/News/2013/06/locus-awards-winners/ a winner of a notable award Locus Award -Govindaharihari (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The award winners are in red; the finalists are listed below it. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely lengthy comment collapsed – (per the text, it's essentially a keep !vote.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for the length of this post, but here goes:

First, numerous third-party sources exist, and have been added to the page. I'm not sure how a "thorough" search failed to turn up things like an article on Griffin in the L.A. Times, but Googling this author turns up more than ONE MILLION hits, so there's a lot to wade through.

Second, there is no claim that this book WON a Locus award. It was a FINALIST in the Best Art Books category as clearly noted. This is taken directly from the Locus Website. Please read carefully, if you are deciding whether to delete an article, and don't remove it based on a mistake on the part of the reviewer.

I also found the claim that there weren't many reviews of Griffin's work "Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration" puzzling (a "thorough search"only turned up one review and one interview?!). I provided an Amazon.com link to the book (since deleted, but here it is for those who want to vet this article: Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration), or the list of reviews on Griffin's Website (those are all hyperlinked). This book has received dozens of glowing reviews. I didn't include these in the article, because I'm trying to create a stub, and will leave it to more experienced Wikipedians to add all the reviews and proper cites, if there is a demand for that. Personally, I just want the basics who this is, what he's done, why he's notable, and where he's from--I didn't realize Wikipedia was soliciting reviews to legitimize the subject, but if reviews are needed, here is a sample quote list from a few reviews by notable online sources like aintitcool.com and Huffington Post:

“Regular AICN readers know that Titan usually knocks books of this ilk out of the park. Even taking into account Titan’s lofty pedigree, TARZAN: THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION emerges as magnificently presented, stunningly laid out, and beautifully guided by author Griffin & Co. This may be the company’s best work yet” – aintitcool

"At the century mark, one of the world's most enduring literary franchises is honored with a gallery of art in Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration." – Huffington Post

“The highest compliment a reader can pay to Griffin’s enormous work here is that it would be every bit as entertaining if it were an unillustrated work of black-and-white prose.” – Open Letters Monthly

“The book offers an in-depth history of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ creation courtesy of Scott Tracy Griffin, probably one of the best Burroughs scholars out there. Griffin gets in-depth but stays breezy enough for casual fans to enjoy his text.” – Uproxx

“I really can’t say enough good things about Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration. With so much information, so many great photos and pieces of artwork, backed up by Griffin’s obvious authority and appreciation for the character, this is the definitive book on the legend of the ape man.” – Top Hat Sasquatch

“Published by Titan Books, it is an eye-dazzling, mind-blowing collection of cover art and descriptive essays all about the world’s most famous fictional character. Author Scott Tracy Griffin, a Tarzan expert who is said to live within vine-swinging distance of Tarzana, Calif., has done a magnificent job of putting all this together.” – Amazing Stories

“Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration is a must buy if you ever loved Tarzan. The book is a perfect way to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the jungle man’s first appearance.” – Wired.com

“Griffin not only writes great content for anyone who has ever been a fan and is curious about the history, but he also builds a timeless collection and presents the material in chronological order . . . the quality of this book as a collector’s item is unmatched. It’s a brilliant hard cover.” – ComicHype

“A remarkable piece of work which succeeds in being both a lavish treasury of Tarzan images and a comprehensive guide to the character on his 100th birthday. Worth standing on the top of a waterfall and doing a jungle cry about!” – The Herts Advertiser

“Griffin clearly did his research, but instead of just listing off a litany of information about the book, he provides a deeper understanding of this deeply American literary establishment.” – Geek Mundo

"lovingly detailed artwork and insight." – MTV Geek

"Topped off with a look at collectibles, conventions, authorised sequels and more (not to mention a brilliant foreword from big screen Tarzan Ron Ely), there's no doubting the fact that this is a must-have for any fan of Tarzan." – Comic Book Movie

"this magnificent Tarzan tribute volume makes a compelling case that the Ape Man has as strong a grip on our collective imaginations as he always did." – Open Letters Monthly

Griffin's official bio on http://scotttracygriffin.com/ has an extensive list of his print and film contributions--I only included a small sample, including those that already have Wikipedia stubs.

Also note, Griffin has worked largely in the print media, not online. The copyrighted articles he's written for periodicals over a span of 20 years aren't available online. One of the links provided earlier today (and almost immediately removed) included a sample bibliography of his work. Here is the page with a sample bibliography of his professional canon, which began in 1993: http://www.erbzine.com/mag40/4016.html

I tried to post this stub numerous times today, and every time, my work was immediately torn down--it was obvious, giving the quick turnaround that my work wasn't being properly vetted. I was hoping that by providing a stub, others in the Wikipedia community could collaborate and come up with additional information and sources.

I realize I'm a neophyte to the Wikipedia editorial community, but I had hoped that all my hard work would be put forth to others at large for collaboration, instead of being immediately destroyed. I urge anyone who is considering this author's notability like to actually take the time to do the research by visiting the links provided and wading through some of the one million pages on Google. Please don't rely on the wiki which has been repeatedly adulterated, with chunks of it, including references, removed. (I've tried to restore the text, with additional citations, AGAIN, but who knows how long that will last?) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolann Wright (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the book is more notable than the person? I am not voting anyway, I tried to improve the article and there is no problem with the content as I left it, he is a real person that wrote a book Govindaharihari (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 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, Esquivalience ^t 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I put a call out for more third-party print sources and have added a couple. I'm sure if the article remains (even if flagged), others will find more sources over time. Thanks,Carolann Wright (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have seriously tried to located how Scott Tracy Griffin has covered "the film industry for magazines including Cinefantastique, FilmFax, and Alter Ego." The source cited for this claim is an issue of the Starkville Daily News from November 21, 2012, which is unavailable online. So I tried finding these articles in Cinefantastique, FilmFax, and Alter Ego. No luck. This article seems a house of cards. I've been unable to find any reliable sources which state anything more than that this person occasionally contributes articles about Tarzan to blogs, non-notable publications, and to self-published publications. Also, he published a picture book about Tarzan, which won no awards. I stand firmly behind my original nomination for deletion. This is an encyclopedia, not fansite. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. He may not be a notable writer and actor, but he is definitely Notable for having put together the Tarzan book. It is perfectly OK for a person to be Notable for only one thing. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article improvements and additional sources to support notability urge me to support the article now, thanks to User:BeenAroundAWhile. - . Govindaharihari (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all,for the help. Magnolia, did you do a basic Google search for "Scott Tracy Griffin" + "Cinefantastique"? I got 5,020 hits, with numerous cites. After sorting through those (& "+ Filmfax" & "+ alter ego" etc.--all respected genre publications), perhaps you could haunt used bookstores that specialize in back issues of movie magazines? Not sure why you have such a bias against this Wiki.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goal based Social Network[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. A web search turns up linkagoal.com but no broader notion of goal-based SNs. GScholar and GBooks only find a single patent for the query "goal-based social network" (in quotes). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible content for article Social network, but no way standalone material. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on its own. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 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 Airtel Super Singer Junior#Season 4. Nakon 01:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spoorthi[edit]

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

Subject is a 10 year old kid who won a singing competition for 6-14 year-olds on a reality TV show last month. The show received some relatively minor media coverage including brief mention of her win. The subject does not meet the WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG notability standards, and essentially falls under WP:BLP1E. The page should therefore be redirected to Airtel Super Singer Junior#Season 4 as recommended by policy.

Note that the current version of the article includes lot of extraneous and unsourced details and has been WP:REFBOMBed by the article-creator (an SPA with likely COI), so do check the breadth of coverage in independent reliable sources such as [44], [45] and [46]. Abecedare (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject in this article won the reality show last month after being in the competition for almost a year. The show started one year ago and broadcast on a daily basis at prime time for a full one hour on a popular Tamil TV channel STAR Vijay. Star Vijay channel is part of 21st Century Fox's STAR India network. This TV channel is available all over the world. This show is very popular among Indians and Srilankans living around the world, in India, Srilanka, USA, Canada, Europe, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and many other parts of the world. The subject of this article came through the show unscathed of all eliminations week after week and topped hundreds of participants from around the world starting from the auditions one year ago. It also must be noted that the final winner of the competition is chosen based on scores given by eminent personalities (close to 30 in numbers) who personally sat through the 'grand finale' at the judges panel. Also 50% weightage of the scores was taken from public voting. Public from around the world enthusiastically participated in public voting which was done through a dedicated online website as well as local SMS votes from within India. This show during the course of its run over a year also featured personalities from Indian music and film industry, such as A.R.Rahman, S.P.Balasubramanyam, Dhanush among others as special guests and special judges. Winning the title of this show or even reaching to top 10 in the show is a dream for many aspiring singers as many previous winners such as Diwakar, Alka Ajith as well as many other participants have went on to make a foothold in the field of Indian playback singing for Indian film industry. Therefore, winning the title of this contest by the subject of the article is a major achievement. The grand finale and the title winner was substantially covered in mainline newspapers in India, with pictures of the subject of this article prominently shown, references of which are given in the article. Previous winners of this show such as Diwakar, Alka Ajith also have articles on them created and published in Wikipedia. Merinsan (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also to be noted that as public was involved in choosing the winner, the later stages of the competition generated a highly divided public opinion among viewers and the credentials of the participants were hotly debated on social forums such as Facebook. Even after the grand finale and award of the title to Spoorthi, it is still being debated among fans of other contestants accusing the channel and judges for not choosing one of their favourites. As is the case, major contestants including the winner have also gained fair amount of detractors among the general public. Merinsan (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A select few existing editors repeatedly addressing me as an SPA may note that I am a new comer to Wikipedia, just a week old in here. This the first article I have submitted for creation. I have taken lot of help from many experienced users during the draft stage of this article. I found many of the existing editors very courteous and helpful in welcoming new comers like myself. I have always accepted and incorporated most comments suggested by experienced users during and after creation of the article. As the SPA article clearly states, "existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits". Having developed an interest in Wikipedia now, I also intend to learn more and contribute as much as possible to Wikipedia in the coming days. Thank you. Merinsan (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In my opinion, the person seems to have won a reasonably-notable TV programme, and some of the article is well-sourced. I think it should be kept, but shortened, as the detail in the article seems too much. There isn't a huge amount of media coverage, but I think it's just about enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She may become notable, but I think it is too early at this stage. I therefore recommend a merge and redirect. I know little about talent shows in general and that goes double for an Indian one. I wanted to make sure we treat this the same as we would an American or British equivalent. The winners (and many other contestants) of X factor, Got Talent and Idol all get their own articles. They are more inclusive competitions (not limited by age) so not sure if they are good comparisons. Also the singers/entertainers seem to either have some sort of career before joining or develop one soon after or even during.

The prize money for this competition seems significant (a house to the winner, a kilo of gold to the second place and a car for the third). The coverage is borderline though, I found this[47] the most compelling of those listed as it goes into more detail then most (others just seem to name her as the winner) and it is not a strictly Indian press. My opinion is that there are some kernals of notability there and if other talent reality shows are anything to go by she will most likely become more famous. But I would wait for that to happen. If she releases a song and it does well or there is some more reliable coverage outside the talent show then I would be much more comfortable supporting this article in its own right. As of now though I think it can be redirected to the main article without losing any important information. AIRcorn (talk)

@Aircorn: Just as a side-note: Asian Tribune (not to be confused with this Asian Tribune) is quick a fringe-y publication, and unlike Times of India, Hindu etc not indexed by by any archival services that I know of. I very much doubt that it qualifies as a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking etc. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main article Airtel Super Singer Junior is focusing on all four seasons of the TV show, starting from the year 2007, each season running for a whole year and a Senior Season coming alternately. The main article mainly discusses about the format of the show in detail. It does not include any sections dedicated to the previous winners of the contest. Previous winners of the competition Alka Ajith and Diwakar have standalone articles on them for a long time. Therefore, in my opinion it is no harm to to keep this article about the current winner also as a standalone article. Merinsan (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the prize money is also given in this source 10 albeit with a minor printing error. The winner's prize is indicated as 75-Lakhs villa in this news article whereas the actual value is 70-Lakhs Indian Rupees as advertised during the program. This may be considered as a minor printing error and can be correlated with the other sources. As Aircorn says, this prize money is significant. It is the highest amount for a reality show of this kind in this region, it is even more than what was given for the winners of the Senior Season last time. That may explain the popularity and reach of this show around the world which attracts major sponsors willing to pay such huge prize money. The show is also covered in foreign press because there have been several participants from abroad as well as there is a huge interest among people of Indian and Srilankan origin living around the world. Merinsan (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still making myself familiar with the Wikipedia terms & definitions, I notice that I am also being referred as COI, meaning I may be having a Conflict of Interest in having submitted this article for creation. I would like to absolutely deny that I am having any COI in this regard. Honestly speaking I am a fan of the subject of this article, otherwise I wouldn't have taken trouble to write an article about her. But then, I am also a fan of music, especially Indian classical music. I am also a fan of few other contestants in the show, all of the top 6 finalists and another few from the top 10. These children are exceptionally talented and if at all any difference in quality between them it is only borderline. The subject of this article I have met only a couple of times after she had won the grand finale to congratulate her as a fan. During the period preceding the finale, I had on few occasions talked with her parents over phone as a fan giving tips on improvement in certain areas. Other than this small interaction, I don't have any association with the subject or anyone else from her family. We hail from different parts of India, never knew them before this competition. I would also have taken this task of writing an article, had one of my other favourites won the competition. Please be assured that this article is not intended for personal promotion, rather just an attempt by me to write my first article on a person I genuinely think is exceptionally talented. Merinsan (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, you have met the article subject several times and talked with her parents about her career, you fall within the definition of WP:COISELF and should not be editing this article. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really true. Merely knowing the subject doesn't create a serious COI. It might lead to non-neutral editing, certainly, but doesn't create the kind of problems writing about yourself or being paid to write about someone does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Aircorn and WP:TOOSOON. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or Redirect per CookieMonster755. Additionally, Merinsan needs to be banned from editing in BLP article space. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully we do not ban people based on their AfD comments. Please keep your personal attacks to yourself or raise your concerns in the proper venues for user conduct issues. Incidentally, "X per Y" !votes are pretty much worthless as AfD is not decided on a vote count, and such !votes are discouraged by AfD guidelines. I find it pretty ironic that someone who wants to "ban" another from editing an entire class of articles can't be bothered to follow best practice in their own editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the edits are in compliance with core editing policy, by all means defend it, but if you plan on lecturing me about your failure to enforce policy, it's not going to fly. I've detailed the concerns in enough detail at the article talk page, and various noticeboards. If you want to keep an editor who is clearly lacks competence, then take responsibility for him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, we also don't ban new users for not instantly knowing every policy... An editor of your experience should 1) have more tolerance for newbies; 2) not edit war even if you are "right"; and 3) limit discussion of user conduct to the proper venues instead of trying to use it to influence an AfD outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And unfortunately, we keep losing competent editors because of this type of attitude. You should either be bold and take responsibility for him (like a mentor), or stop preaching. That too, especially when you are unable to practice what it is you are preach. For the avoidance of doubt, if I thought the article needed to be deleted, I wouldn't bother editing it to this extent. The outcome of the AfD isn't what I was interested in when mentioning the conduct issue here; it was with a view that someone would make an effort to address the problematic aspects of the user's editing (which, in all reality, is what actually appears to have prompted this AfD in the first place). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note (mainly to aid the closing admin): I, as nominator, also support a Redirect and not an outright deletion. Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (not just redirect!) to Airtel Super Singer Junior#Season 4. The show does not appear to be popular enough to make a winner notable and thus we are firmly in the BLP1E area. However, coverage at the show page is appropriate and there is information worth merging. Pinging @Onel5969: we accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored full-protection to this article. It has been the subject of severe edit warring between an editor who wants to remove large sections of it, and the author of the article who wants to retain those sections. After protecting it, I reverted to an expanded version of the article to facilitate evaluation and discussion. I have no opinion on the outcome of this AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - article is supported by enough reliable sources (as well as some less than reliable ones), to show notability. This was a borderline accept to me in the first place, but I would still sit on the keep side of the fence. Would not be adverse to a Merge with the Airtel Super Singer Junior#Season 4 article, either. Definitely not a delete or a simple redirect.Onel5969 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To stress the popularity of the show, I would like to mention few things. Even as the show's prize money is huge compared to other similar shows in this region, it can be seen that participants' main objective in the show is not to win the prize, but to get the fame and popularity comes with it as well as future opportunities to get a professional singing career in Indian film and music industry. This can be understood from the fact that Ms. Jessica, the Canadian national who came all the way from Canada and stayed in India for the whole year to participate in the show, finished runner up, one rank below the subject of the article Spoorthi. Jessica declared on the 'grand finale' stage itself that she is donating the entire '1 kg of Gold' that came as a prize, to charity, to Srilankan and Indian orphanages. Jessica also got great reception on her return to Canada at Toronto Airport, for having come to this level on the show, as can be seen in this source. This show is very popular among people of Indian and Srilankan origin living around the world. Getting a photo article about oneself on the highly respected Indian newspapers such as The Hindu and The Times of India is not a minor feat and this cannot be brushed aside as a minor media coverage. Locally, there were also interviews with the toppers of the show broadcast on radio and published on weekly local magazines. My aim in stating these here is just to stress the notability and not intended as 'promotional' Merinsan (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Airtel Super Singer Junior#Season 4. This child is not (yet) individually notable enough for her own article, but notable enough for a mention as a winner of the show. One day, perhaps, but not yet. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LATISM[edit]

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

A social media organization and, no surprises, sources are from the organization's blog or social media. I'm only seeing evidence of brief mentions online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misses the notability mark Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, lacks reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 12 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) 06:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Pointe Golf Course[edit]

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

This has some mentions in local news, and is mentioned at 2 websites I added links to (I think they would count as reliable sources, but not to establish notability). I couldn't find enough to establish notability and there is no obvious potential merge/redirect taget for this orphaned page. Has beent agged for notability for over 3 years. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: HotshotCleaner, William Avery,DGG. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I recommend adding this information in Pasadena, Maryland since it has a section for sports but nothing on golf. i don't see this as stand alone article material, but a mention in Pasadena, Maryland makes sense for a news noted golf course. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We often do keep golf courses. But this is not a notable one--it consists of 4 nine hole golf courses, without any full 2=18-hole courses; the references include only their web site and 2 mere listings. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 5 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) 07:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of The Republic of Serbia, Canberra, ACT[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable, many have been deleted , and this article is purely a directory listing. I attempted to redirect this to Australia-Serbia relations but this was reverted with no explanation. My preference is for deletion not redirect LibStar (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't have anything to write about what a google maps search wouldn't provide. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect not appropriate since it's hardly a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all subsequent contributors. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1633 Chimay[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am seeing a few references for this object on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and the same for all the other asteroid nominations by the nom. We already have a good table and an image in the article, which would be lost if the page was deleted or redirected. Google scholar picks up a few WP:RS that could be used to expand the stub. And WP:Astro practice is to keep all the articles on low-numbered asteroids, which typically have close to a century of observations on them. I'm not sure what these nominations are about, but it seems to be some kind of bizarre WP:POINT. -- 120.23.176.56 (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate list of minor planets. I can't see anything in Google scholar that covers this object in-depth rather than merely as an entry in a table. I agree with the nominator that it does not appear to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1748 Mauderli[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am seeing a few references for this object on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two unusual sourced properties for this object: it has high libration amplitude among the Hilda family, and it is the reddest of the D-type asteroids. That should be enough to make it more than just a name and some orbital elements. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are in fact reliable sources covering the subject, and it has characteristics that makes it unique from every other asteroid. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1702 Kalahari[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am finding a few references to this object on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NASTRO claims that any asteroid that has had sufficient research or notability of it that the majority of asteroids don't have is considered notable. As such, I would consider any asteroid with a Tholen or SMASS spectral classification as notable. This one, for instance, is of the fairly rare L-type asteroid group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that, per WP:NASTRO, only certain catalogues indicate likely notability. Unfortunately, having a Tholen or SMASS spectral classification doesn't appear to indicate notability in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. For example, it doesn't necessarily indicate significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 16:03, 6 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 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Berlin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable, there is also no bilateral article to redirect this to. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails inclusion criteria as a building and as an institution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a whole list of other Colombian embassies that will need to be look at as well. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I know LibStar, he'll get to them. But there's no need to let his to-do-list get in the way of deleting this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would point this out because performing a single bulk nomination is simpler if all the articles are facing the same issue outlined in this nomination. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Georgatos[edit]

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

Non-notable, probably self-promotion. References are tangential: being an occasional rent-a-quote does not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The guy has won multiple awards for his journalism, as per criteria in WP:ANYBIO. In fact he won the top award from the Government of New South Wales. How can he possibly not be notable? And if you really need other reasons why he's notable, here are some more: The Australian media use Georgatos as their go-to man to interview on Indigenous rights, due to his extensive research / PhD work on the subject. So he's popping up in the media continuously. Continuously. To give an example of the hundreds and hundreds of news items that feature Georgatis, here's a quick scan of Australian TV (ABC TV News) and (SBS TV News). And apart from all that, the charity this guy runs, Wheelchairs for Kids, is huge, and gets huge media attention. Sometimes the media focus on the man (e.g Special Broadcasting Service), sometimes they focus on the charity (e.g. ABC) but they always interview Georgatos in the stories. This article needs to be expanded, not deleted, because it hardly covers the human rights work Georgatos does. Everything is diligently referenced by reliable sources. And in answer to the complainant, no I am not Georgatos, I assume he doesn't know about the article and I'm happy if he doesn't know or he might try to edit it! Pigmypossum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm torn on this one. The keep !vote above is full of exaggeration (he is in no way the "go-to man" to interview on indigenous rights - he's had maybe four or five interviews total on the major networks, from what I could make out - and the Wheelchairs for Kids charity does not get "huge media attention"). The article was also pretty selective until I fixed it up a bit, omitting his whole history with the Greens and not referencing the Schapelle Corby conspiracist stuff. On the other hand, he is a fairly prominent spokesman for the Human Rights Alliance, and the media award does give me pause. I don't quite see the independent coverage necessary for me to bump this up to keep yet, but it's close (especially with the Wikileaks spokesmanship as well and his pretty important role in the collapse of that whole enterprise) and I am willing to be convinced. Frickeg (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has enough of a profile to get close to WP:GNG and his awards should meet WP:ANYBIO.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brogrammer[edit]

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

More of a slang word (even though it's in use by Media sources), than a truly encyclopedic topic. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Created deletion discussion for Brogrammer.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale- Delete or secondly Merge (per Borock and others): In my personal opinion I think this term is more worthy of Urban Dictionary than an Encyclopedia. That aside, "Brogrammer" is a combination of "bro" and "programmer", the first of the two being slang itself. Now the sources used for the article use the word in quotes or describe it in some other fashion as not to confuse it with a proper word and to identify it as slang. I question it's notability in the sense that the term may not be widely used or continue to be relevant at all in the future, sort of along the lines of WP:FRINGE. There's No Such Thing as a Brogrammer I tend to agree with this source which is actually used in the article. One of the other sources is sort of a mock up encyclopedia from a computer magazine. The rest seem to be sources about sexism within jobs in computer related industries. These sources use the term in quotes as slang, and there are no mainstream media sources or any source using it as a standalone term without explanation. So while this term may be warrant a mention in a feminism article about sexism or perhaps a short description in computer related article, I do not think it's valid enough to require it's own article. At the very least this article title should be followed with "(slang)" such as Cornhole (slang) and Redskin (slang) have. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep "even though it's in use by Media sources" Anyone see the problem with this as a nomination? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: A bit late with my full rationale, sorry. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep -- I think the article clearly seem to be more than a dictionary definition, but it needs to be expanded to be truly worth including. Monni (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our sole concern at AfD is notability. Everything else is a content issue for discussion elsewhere. In the case at hand, notability is clearly established by numerous reliable independent secondary sources, including entire articles devoted to the topic in BusinessWeek, CNN and The Atlantic. Msnicki (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the sole concern by any means. The article also has to be encyclopedic, and pass WP:NOT. Also, some things are notable, but are deserving of their own article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough RS to have this existing. Does need some padding though. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women in computing which already has a section titled "Brogrammer culture". The connection to a hostile work environment for women in programming seems to be the main concern of the sources. Borock (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But given the clear notability established by multiple reliable sources devoting whole articles to the topic, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the article and add a {{main|...}} tag to that section in Women in computing? Msnicki (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Brogrammer" isn't a topic. It's a cutesy neologism discussed in articles about the actual topic, which is the male-dominated culture of the (U.S.) technology industry. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree though the word is used in the general media, it is used specifically for the purpose of derogatorily describing sexism in a specific industry, so it only really belongs in those places. The term is not used by or to describe literal beings (it is used to describe an idea or culture of sexism), nor would a group choose to identify as this except maybe in a humorous fashion, given the negative connotation. You might be able to argue this is a label/descriptor, but it's way too new and only used practically in writing (and always in quotes or italics, as it is not in a dictionary) to be a notable topic for an encyclopedia. This term is the very a definition of a neologism, a newly coined word or expression, and that itself could warrant deletion without even considering the other points mentioned in this discussion.
—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator that this is not a knowledge article suitable for an encyclopaedia. It isn't clear to me that a "brogrammer" describes anything real in the technology industries or that there is such a thing as "brogrammer culture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.18.221 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Women in computing#Brogrammer culture as suggested by Borock. There's a real article in here somewhere (Sexism in the technology industry is remarkably underdeveloped), but not at this title. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. This is a neologism—something explicitly mentioned as a reason for deletion at WP:DEL-REASON, unless there are RSs. Yes, this "word" has been seen in general media, but those are not RS's for neologisms; we need dictionary entries for that. I agree that some of this could be merged to Women in computing or Sexism in the technology industry, and a redirect left from here to there. btw, refs 5, 6, 7, and 8 do not mention this term (but those refs would make complete sense in the Women in computing or Sexism in the technology industry articles, if they're not already there). Jeh (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some very good points, stated in a nicer fashion and with better backing than my nomination.—Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: I could only repeat what Jeh already wrote above. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the thought that The Atlantic might not be an RS for a neologism to be bizarre. Google News is drowning with hits for this term, and they describe it in detail, such as this article from CNN. Whether this culture actually exists or not is immaterial. What matters is whether the media has reported on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather than focusing on the cool aspects of being a brogrammer, including beer, weights, and brotein, the article is an excuse to whine about sexism. --IO Device (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. Msnicki (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article to mischaracterize brogramming as being sexist. If this changes, so will I. A man can be macho without being sexist. In its current form, the article is a platform for feminist claptrap. --IO Device (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I respect your opinion of the content. But all we consider at AfD is notability, not content. If there are multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject, even if they're not cited in the article, the subject is considered notable under WP:GNG and we keep the article. Content is a matter for other discussions, usually on the article talk page, not at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that deletion is solely about notability. I have had numerous articles on notable topics Speedy Deleted on the grounds that their content was too poor. As an aside, also consider the recent AfD discussion of pseudoginsenoside F11 where I changed my response from Delete to Keep after the article was rewritten; its notability was never in question. --IO Device (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: While notability is certainly a big consideration, it isn't the only viable reason for deletion nor is it the sole concern per WP:DEL-REASONS. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this thread I thought sure "beer, weights, and brotein" was meant ironically. Maybe not? In any case, the term is almost exclusively used in the context of sexism in computer science and in the technology industry. This is sort of like objecting to mansplaining on the basis that sometimes men really do need to explain things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the term sullied to promote a feminist agenda.
Maybe the food industry and science writers can catch on to writing about brotein and broscience in a similar context of sexism. And what about bromance - it's soo sexist! Now this, is meant ironically. --IO Device (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article in The Atlantic makes it for me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jeh and Lightgodsy summed it up pretty well. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor neologism. The first paragraph is a single example of its usage by a single company at a single university's career fair. The second paragraph is not about the 'term'. It's about the computer science industry. Violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). @Tomwsulcer: the article in The Atlantic only mentions 'brogrammer' in the title and the final paragraph. The article is about the industry, not the term. All of the sources are. So it's also a WP:COATRACK. I would support merging it to the women in computing or sexism in tech articles (someone may also want to propose merging those two also if it hasn't already been done), but can we please change the heading name to something more encyclopedic than 'Brogrammer Culture'. That heading name needs serious work... ― Padenton |☎ 02:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not just in The Atlantic but used in many places, such as all these sources, plus it is a term in pop culture causing much interest, related to its being part of the sex wars and the dynamic field of computing; the extent of usage suggests it is way beyond the neologism stage and is indeed an encyclopedic topic, much more than a dictionary definition. How well the current Wikipedia article covers the term, currently, suggests need for improvement, but I feel the term belongs in Wikipedia regardless, to reply to @Padenton:.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Per WP:NOTNEO it's not enough if the term is used by media sources, it's what the sources say about the term. Besides using it as a fancy article title or derogatorily it isn't rigidly defined or actually used to describe real world people/things, it's thrown around as a combination of two independent words to drive a idea/point or "culture" about/of sexism in tech industries. It may have a place in one of those type articles in it's own section (with a redirect even), but not its own standalone article. It isn't used in practice really outside of that stereotype (which may not even be very accurate or describe this industry as a whole). Very limited usage, I would have to disagree with you on it causing much interest in pop culture or in other words the mainstream. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy:, when NPR prominently discusses brogrammer culture, along with many many other sources, it means the term is notable. NPR talked about a "running conversation about how to constructively change the systemic, entrenched issues" talking about how the tech industry has a sexist leaning, and they used the term brogrammer to sum this up. USA Today described brogrammers as "computer programmers with frat house sensibilities" and suggested it was a hot subject in the news. That's two reliable sources but there are many more. Issues, such as whether the term is derogatory or rigidly defined or used to describe "real world" things, are irrelevant. QED notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QED Fails WP:NOTDICT. ― Padenton |☎ 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT says "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. (I bolded the term concept). Brogrammer is a concept, easily fits within the realm of an encyclopedia entry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: And all of that 'concept' is unrelated to the term itself, therefore, it doesn't belong in an article for said term, leaving the only possible content in the article the term's definition and the story about how some company used it on a sign at a college career fair. ― Padenton |☎ 23:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Those sources further my point that anyone searching for that word will be looking for the concept of sexism in the industry, not the idea of a actual macho programmer. That's why my stance is that it should be put in one of the articles above listed for a potential merge (with redirect) if someone cares to do so OR simply have brogrammer redirect to sexism in the technology industry (which is being considered for a merge with the other potential article mentioned above), while this here is deleted. It isn't used in any other context, hence no need for its own article. By WP:NOTEWORTHY the criteria for article content is less scrupulous, and I think another article on the subject it relates to is where it belongs. Per WP:NOPAGE it really needs those other concepts (in the suggested merged places above) with it to be notable, if we go by it being defined how it generally is defined as a macho programmer by this source here at pc mag encyclopedia it would clearly fall under WP:NOTDICT. So either way this article should go. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the subject of sexism in the technology industry as being different conceptually from the subject of Brogrammer. Sexism can take many forms, including women being sexist as well as men, and in many industries; brogrammer, in contrast, is limited to the computer industry, describes a certain type of male programmer, and is ["tongue-in-cheek slang for a high-tech geek who works out a lot in the gym, is popular with the opposite sex, likes to party and is admired by his buddies for his flair and super coolness...". That PC Magazine thinks it is important enough to supply a definition of the term suggests there is (1) a need to know about the term (2) insufficient clarity that the term needs defining. In short, it is an encyclopedic topic worthy of being in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While they do define it, I take it as more of a joke than anything, the picture and caption is most certainly humor. Just because they include a neologism in their criteria for a self titled "Encyclopedia" type entry, doesn't mean it fits our criteria or belongs here in Wikipedia. It's more of a reference for the articles in that specific magazine, rather than a reputable source or standard. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: All that's nice and dandy, but if you look at the article, you'll notice it's entirely focused on sexism targeting women. It may need a bit of work on that front, but nothing that would prevent brogrammer from being merged into it. As for PC Magazine, I think in your haste you neglected to check what else is in their dictionary, which is surprising seeing as how there's a nice navigation bar to go to words that start with any letter. Let's look at a few, shall we? Should we make sure that each of these has its own article in Wikipedia or add them to AfC? [48] How about these? [49] Do I need to continue or do you see what I am saying? Merge/Delete. ― Padenton |☎ 23:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed meant to mention that myself, they don't have a high standard (in other words they are not very picky) with which they decide what they will include in their "Encyclopedia". We have a much higher standard. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. Since Padenton questioned the usefulness of terms in PC Magazine here, we can compare their list to Wikipedia's. If we take the first 10 PC Magazine encyclopedia entries, we get Q R Code, Q Switch, Q&A, Q-bus, Q-server, Q.7xx, Q10, QA, QA Analyst, QAM. Seven are covered in Wikipedia; three are not; this shows a clear correlation between PC Magazine and Wikipedia. So I fail to see your point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A high percentage of the entries there may be notable and also have a corresponding article here, but they aren't notable here per se because they are included there. We don't know the criteria they use to determine inclusion therefore I'd question whether we can draw a correlation from that. A better word than "encyclopedia" could be used to describe their collection of information. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Tomwsulcer: again it seems you've made the mistake (unintentional, I'm sure) of taking a shortcut. Your vote, as I understand it, is in favor of giving 'Brogrammer' its own article, not merging the content to another article nor deleting it outright. Of the 10 existing articles you listed (which you claim are articles for the terms in the PC mag encyclopedia):

Q Switch is a red link. Q switch doesn't exist on wikipedia.
Q R Code is actually here: QR code, its own article, but a far more substantial topic than 'brogrammer', obviously. Q&A, as listed in that encyclopedia is actually listed here Q&A (Symantec), again, a much more substantial article. Q-bus has a full article. Q10 has a full article, BlackBerry Q10. Yet again, much more content. QA's article is here Quality assurance again, blahblahblah. QAM is a redirect to here: Quadrature amplitude modulation, again, blahblahblah.
Q-server doesn't have an article. It's a term for a long-defunct protocol by Novell. It comes up as blue because it's a redirect to print server, which actually makes no mention of q-server. Q.7xx also doesn't have an article, it's a redirect to Signalling System No. 7, where Q.7xx is mentioned a single time. QA Analyst is actually on WP as a redirect, Quality assurance analyst, redirects to Quality control.

So there we are, the truth at last. All the articles that actually exist of the 10 you looked at, 4 terms don't exist on wikipedia at all, and the 6 that do are far more substantial than Brogrammer. Also, unlike Brogrammer, they are not invented neologisms. None of these are actually terms. They are products, technologies, scientific concepts, or career fields, and that is why they are notable, not because someone made it up one day and it was mentioned in a few news articles. ― Padenton |☎ 01:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you say six, I say seven, that does not really matter, we're dickering over details. About Wikipedia and neologisms: pretty much all new terms were neologisms at one point, created by combining terms, applying a metaphor, using a portmanteau, etc. Terms like Fixer-upper and Cityscape were once neologisms but they are included in Wikipedia now, properly so. What Wikipedia does not want is to foist new terms on the public, to avoid popularizing terms invented here in workshop Wikipedia, terms which were not in the popular media, not in common parlance, but terms which Wikipedia hammered together out of thin air. To so foist would be original research. But when neologisms are born in common parlance, popularized in the media, such as brogrammer, then it is perfectly fine for Wikipedia to include it here provided it meets notability requirements (and it does). The term brogrammer is clearly out there, in use, Wikipedia can properly chronicle what it means; for further clarification, see neologism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, If you're not going to read, I'm not going to continue wasting my time indulging you. The subjects that had articles are not terms and were never neologisms.― Padenton |☎ 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Looking at WP:NEOLOGISM, which you just brought up- Articles that use the term rather than are about the term are insufficient to support articles on neologisms. No one is talking about macho programmers, it's used to convey an idea of sexism in the industry and as such it belongs solely in one of those type articles, not in it's own. Per WP:NOPAGE, "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." it should be merged if it were to be included. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap redirect the word to a sexism in computing article, it has no use or value on it's own page (article) without a broader context. WP:NOTADICT, Wikipedia is not the place to chronicle what it means, that may be appropriate for wikitionary whose inclusion criteria differs and may allow it. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:16, 25 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to sexism in the technology industry. Brogrammer culture was an identifiable phenomenon before the portmanteau was coined, but might be best described in a article devoted to the broader topic. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:25, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge it somewhere. Either way, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and looks like the term is used in relation to another situation. The word is not the subject, it's just related to the subject. PhantomTech (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a definition, and Wiktionary has a article for it already. I don't see the notability beyond being a definition. put a section in another article, not a stand alone article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as failing DICDEF at present, but it's also a topic that deserves expansion way beyond that, to cover the cultural aspects of the male-dominated "brogrammer culture". It's a topic that's getting plenty of outside discussion in the trade press and general media. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a section "brogrammer culture" in Women in computing that doesn't even link to this article. it's not notable within wikipedia let alone in the real world. section yes, article no. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Topic is covered by multiple reliable independent secondary sources, including articles by BusinessWeek and CNN. If there is enough potential for a separate article or if it's better a redirecting/merging (to Women in computing or Sexism in the technology industry), I have no strong opinion on this. Cavarrone 09:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator's rationale. WordSeventeen (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources given are thin, which might mean that it should be merged instead (I haven't gone digging to find more, though, so I can't say for sure), but they discuss the concept in some detail and address it more directly than what I would consider to be a mere dictionary word. It could however use some work so that it reflects what the sources say; it doesn't quite do that right now. ekips39 (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Women in computing#Brogrammer culture as suggested by Borock, for reasons already enumerated above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed in more than just passing in a number of academic works: [50], [51], [52]. The term seems notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 8 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 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Place[edit]

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

Article's existence defies WP:ORGSIG. To play devil's advocate, there is coverage in the area in local magazines of a few functions this organization has been involved with, but is almost entirely non-notable outside of the region. Buffaboy (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a news search only gives me one references about a restoration project. misses the mark for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:15, 3 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 Renaissance (band). Sandstein 08:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissant[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Not to be confused with Renaissance (band), Renaissant were a short-lived band which apparently didn't release much material or do anything of note. An internet search reveals nothing except brief entries in databases. BenLinus 1214^talk 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth redirecting to Renaissance (band), as they are briefly mentioned there. P. S. Burton (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Patuano[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Being CEO of a notable company does not make Mr. Patuano notable by itself. The one reference is about TIM. ubiquity (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I was thinking of delete-but the Italian wiki seems to have quite a bit of info I believe. Wgolf (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patuano is well known person of the Italian buisness community.The article needs to be improved.User:Lucifero4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added more info about Marco Patuano in order to improve the article (disclaimer: I am an employee of Telecom Italia and Marco Patuano is the CEO of Telecom Italia). --Aski72 (talk) 17:26, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:19, 3 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 03:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue and The Grey Band[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, appears to be WP:PROMO. Meets none of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO ― Padenton |☎ 20:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep as a target for merging other stubs into this one. There are plenty of precedents. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any shred of notability anywhere!, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 02:47, 25 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:12, 3 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 03:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juliane Codd[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, appears to be WP:PROMO. Both bands listed fail to meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Blue_and_The_Grey_Band and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Harmony ― Padenton |☎ 20:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any shred of notability anywhere!, No point redirecting to the band as that's listed here too!, Both her and the band have no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per past practice to her band, The Blue and The Grey. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bearian: The band doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG either.― Padenton |☎ 02:27, 24 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that sometimes we merge a bunch a stubs into one decent article, from what I recall at WP:OUTCOMES. I suggested the same here, but there is no rule that requires us to do so. I won't oppose deletion in this case. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:12, 3 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 03:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ICrossing[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Company is wholly unremarkable. Only sources (very few reliable ones) available discuss its acquisition and its new CEO, nothing more. Sources cited are not extensive and are of poor reliability. Article was created bypassing several AfC declines. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 20 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was surprised to see an AFD for a firm with 900 employees. There's plenty of source material in respected publications, like AdAge[53][54][55] CorporateM (Talk) 05:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact it reads like a promo, IMHO it needs WP:BLOWNUP and rewritten. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to see better than the sources given above, per WP:CORPDEPTH. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Coven (film)[edit]

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

Author contested PROD, but concern is still seem to be noticeable ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following explains why additional material has been added and why this film should have an article on Wikipedia. The authors of the article are not linked to the film makers but are Wiccans. The Coven is an important film within the Wiccan community as it accurately reflects real events. Additionally as it presents Cochranianism as the normative form of Wicca it is likely to be the subject of debate for the foreseeable future. This debate has commenced with two significant groups posting reviews. The first is the Pagan Federation, a group with many Gardnerian members and the UKs largest pagan organisation. The second is the Order of the Horse and the Moon, the most active Cochranian group in the UK. The links to the reviews are below.

http://london.paganfed.org/the-coven/

https://ootham.wordpress.com/reading/the-coven-2015/

The film is likely to be reviewed negatively by the Gardnerian Wiccan community and positively by Cochranian Wiccans. This Wikipedia page attempts to provide unbiased detail. This page has been produced Wiccan insiders. It has no connection to the film’s producers or promoters who are unknown to the Wiccan community and appear to be very small scale. This page was, however, produced by Cochranian Wiccans so bias may occur. None the less this is an important film that merits detail on Wikipedia. Additional details will be added to the page to provide information on the key issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochranefaithful (talk • contribs)

Delete: Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Does not appear to be significant enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability. IMDb's page for the film [56] indicates it has 242 ratings, as of right now, a little over a month since release (No, IMDb is generally not a WP:RS with regard to film information because it relies on user edits (much like wikipedia does), but the low number of ratings does suggest a very small release).

In response to the claim brought up by Cochranefaithful that it is an important film within the Wiccan community, I admit I am not too familiar with either of the groups mentioned, nor the topic of Wicca. If the film is as controversial as stated, and there is wider coverage from sites other than blogs, I would likely be swayed in support of the article, but as of right now, I'm unable to find anything in publications of any kind. IMDb did list these 2 external reviews (one not in English) which may or may not be helpful [57] [58] ― Padenton |☎ 21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The film was release direct to DVD just last month. There don't appear any reliable sources to document its production or its reception. Claims that the film is important among the Cochranist community are problematic for two reasons:
1. We have no reliable sources to verify that.
2. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so topics need to be generally notable, not just notable among a small community.

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: See my response below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, we need significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article. We can't create articles with the expectation that some day in the future they will eventually attract controversy or cultural significance. It's a flawed method, but it's the best we've currently got. Unfortunately, blogs and subjective views of importance aren't really applicable to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or guideline on notability for films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just plain fails the GNG. NRP is dead on in saying that we don't create articles because someone believes the subject might be controversial. We also don't create articles so that certain parties can have an "unbiased" take on things. Wikipedia is not a web host. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue cleaning it up. The poor keep argument by Cochranefaithful aside, it does seem the topic is getting coverage to meet WP:NF. I actually researched and it had some back in 2013 with release of its trailer, and has newer sources and reviews now that it has its DVD release. I agree it does need some serious trimming, but it serves the project and readers by remaining. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per sources) ~~Delete~~ - I'm not a "Gardnerian Wiccan" or a "Cochranian Wiccan" (or even a "Wiccan" really) but I understand both schools of thought quite well; certainly well enough to confidently dismiss the suggestion that this is an important work that should be considered notable for its impact in its field. I, personally, find it interesting but that isn't the same as something being notable. I perhaps not as convinced as Schmidt by the passing mentions upon release and I'm not seeing the "reviews" that might qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps he could point us in the right direction. Obviously happy to be convinced. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: I avoided any questionable Wiccan sources, and so far found... for the trailer in 2013: Indie Wire [59], Bloody-Disgusting [60], Dread Central [61], Shock Til You Drop [62], 28 Days Later Analysis[63] and Horror-Asylum[64]... and for the 2015 release: Cinemagazine (Dutch) and 01FilmPlot Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, righto. I'm not convinced the 01FilmPlot one meets WP:RS but some of the others clearly do (like the Dutch one). That's enough for me. Thanks for coming back and providing those. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can someone take action already? It's been 7 days since I created this deletion discussion page. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you still think it should be deleted, you might want to address the sources provided. A few people have asserted that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, though Schmidt has neatly rebutted those assertions. Those participants haven't been back to address the new sources provided but you are welcome to do so. Otherwise this will probably be closed as "keep" given GNG-sufficient sources have been provided and nobody has refuted that claim. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete~~ I really want to say keep. I want to help @Cochranefaithful: develop this article further. However, I'm extremely concerned about the amount of original research still remaining in the article. Given Cochranefaithful's stated reasons for the article, I'm not convinced s/he will ever be willing to see the article entierly free of OR. Also, I'm not convinced the references sufficiently establish notability. Most of them seem to be Capsule reviews, which are specifically cited as "coverage insufficient to fully establish notability" in the film notability guidelines. Of the remaining references, two of them are used in the part of the article that is OR to support claims about Cochrane Wicca in general. That leaves one source, Pagan Federation London's review, which rises above the level of a capsule review and includes some substantial criticism of the movie from the point of view of Wiccan practitioners. One source is simply not enough to establish notability for any article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn, any particular concerns about the Cinemagazine source? Doesn't fit the criteria of a capsule review. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting that one as a capsule review. It's about 300 words, gives a brief plot synopsis, and then a criticism of the film as boring and not worth watching. It compares it to Charmed and The Craft, but doesn't go into much depth of criticism or analysis. It does go into more detail and analysis than most of the sources cited in the article, but imo is still a capsule review (although barely - and I can see the argument that it is more, especially when compared to other sources in the article). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a 3rd longer than the criteria provided and the fact that the reviewer thought the film was boring is neither here nor there - something can be notably boring. But I get where you're coming from and I appreciate your explanation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional coverage at another site. Might be seen as a pagan site, but not widely known by Wiccans as far as I am aware. A lengthy review from January. http://hidden-highgate.org/coven-jurys-still/ User: Cochranefaithful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.233.124 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was interesting and an enjoyable read. Unfortunately the problem with that site is that it seems to be a personal blog, which isn't considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. See WP:BLOGS.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more I think Stalwart111 might be right about the Cinemagazine source, that it's just too long and detailed to be a capsule review. I'm changing my vote to keep. I think this movie just barely meets WP:NOTFILM. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with ONUicorn's point that there is too much original research and that this needs to be removed. The OR relates to the themes section as there is none elsewhere in the article. The original research does not belong in this article and is not necessary for the article to be coherent. The 'Themes' section can therefore been removed and I have taken this action. On the issue of notability I believe that Schmidt and Stalwart have given good arguments and would recommend that the article is kept with the modifications made. CochraneFaithful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochranefaithful (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to relist yet again. As earlier !voters have not returned and their arguments refuted. its time to close as keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep: I hadn't thought it necessary to voice a new opinion as my own delete vote had been loudly trounced (and justly so), but just to be clear, agree that sufficient sources have been found to keep the article. Kudos once again to MichaelQSchmidt WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esther V. Yanai[edit]

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

local figure. Only 3rd party ref. is one obit. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a good source describes her as "a giant in New Jersey’s conservation movement." Bearian (talk) 20:14, 23 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 3 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 is a mess. To the extent this confusing discussion is supposed to be about the redirect now at Kirby Delauter, it belongs at WP:RFD. To the extent it is supposed to be about the page now at Draft:Kirby Delauter, it belongs at WP:MFD if deletion is desired, or at WP:DRV if restoration is desired. (This is "articles for deletion", not "articles for recreation"). In other words, nothing about this belongs in an AfD. And to top it off, even if I would be certain everybody on this page was talking about the same content, and understood "keep" etc. to mean the same thing, I still couldn't find a consensus on the merits here. In other words, there's nothing to do as a result of whatever this discussion was. Sandstein 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Delauter[edit]

Please consult Draft:Kirby Delauter as the article version subject to this AFD discussion.

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

Note: To AFD "voters", please focus your attention on Draft:Kirby Delauter and express your vote to Keep, Delete, Redirect, etc., in terms of that version. There was an article in mainspace, but currently Kirby Delauter redirects to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government. A vote of "Keep" means to adopt the draft; "Redirect" means to keep the redirect in place (or to redirect to a different target); and "Delete" means to remove even the redirect in place now. --do ncr am 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is where AFD discussion about Kirby Delauter is happening. Before this AFD was opened, there was an "informal" discussion about this topic at Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard, which is still available (has not been archived) as of now. No further comments were posted there after editor Cunard's first posted here (in the first post after this page was started by NE Ent, and after Cunard suggested there that AFD should be done here. I'm boldly asserting this is indeed where AFD discussion is going on, and striking out suggestion to discuss there instead. Please do discuss here! --do ncr am 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When posting the above notes, I ~~struck out~~ the following request by NE Ent. NE Ent has objected and unstruck it, okay... --doncram

Please see Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard. It is requested all comments be made there. NE Ent 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, but the AFD discussion really is going on here, not at the "informal AFD". There has been no more discussion there, and there is new discussion and new !votes below, including by NE Ent. So anyone arriving here, please join discussion below. --do ncr am 04:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the draft article: Draft:Kirby Delauter.

Link to the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter.

Link to the WP:AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter.

This AfD should be closed on or after 24 March 2015 since it was not formally started until 17 March 2015.

Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why this Wikipedia article does not harm Kirby Delauter. I reviewed the first ten pages of a Google search for "Kirby Delauter". Roughly 97 out of the 100 results were about Delauter's January 2015 incident. Only three of the results (all past the first five results) did not discuss the incident. Those three results were published by the subject himself (his Twitter page, his Facebook page, and his county biography).
As Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) wrote:
when you search for Kirby Delauter you get [65] as the first thing in the search which intentionally and unabashedly puts him in the stocks. No Wikipedia article does that.
As NE Ent (talk · contribs) wrote:
When Delauter gets googled, the choice is not whether his stupid comes up, but whether it comes up here, we were can at least attempt to provide a low drama, low snark description of the event, or some other site, which is likely to be less kind.
I add that we can also put the event in context by providing a neutral, balanced overview of Kirby Delauter's life as a businessman and a politician.
Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is what I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter about why WP:BLP1E is not applicable:
The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council.
WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies "[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:
1. "Setting boundaries in Frederick". The Baltimore Sun. 2012-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
2. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-10-21). "Delauter says he will bid on county contracts if elected commissioner". The Gazette. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
3. Marshall, Ryan (2012-05-23). "Delauter defends comment on moving business". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
4. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-07-29). "Delauter wants to bring changes to county board". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
5. Rodgers, Bethany (2014-12-26). "Political Notes: Delauter says he reimbursed county for inauguration". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
6. Gill, Thomas (2014-10-28). "It pays to be a county commissioner". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, says:
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. After this incident, he clearly does.
I have created a draft article at Draft:Kirby Delauter to discuss the three aspects of his life. I included the incident in the "Frederick County Council" section because it happened while he was (and still is) a county council member.. Because the event takes up a small part of the article, I do not believe the draft violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects.
Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is notable as a county official for having received significant biographical coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in his state (link to the article). Most county officials do not receive significant coverage from the largest newspaper in their state. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Please put an AfD tag on Kirby Delauter. I cannot do so because it is fully protected. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Kirby Delauter" is a redirect, the AfD notice would likely be better served by placing it on the draft IMO. — Ched : ? 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Kirby Delauter I put an {{Admin help}} request for the AFD notice to be put on the redirect, and I put a facsimile AFD notice on the Draft:Kirby Delauter page (it can't be a regular AFD tag because that causes errors, for not being in mainspace). And at the wp:AN discussion (still unarchived), I put notice of this AFD also. So notice is out there. --do ncr am 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The opening comment I believe refers to WP:NOHARM, in which it also states: As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. ...
Therefore I must regretfully maintain my keep redirect and delete draft !vote per WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL and IMO it fails WP:GNG. I do applaud Cunard for his research writing, and efforts; and I acknowledge that he was able to find information regarding W.F. Delauter & Son, and Delauter's personal life. Still - I just don't see it as being notable by our standards on wiki. Sorry. — Ched : ? 18:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using WP:NOHARM as the basis for keeping the article. I am responding to this comment:
I don't like to close as "keep salted", since there's interest among non-admins in reading it and taking stock of it first, per Diogenes above. Also I don't like to close it as "unsalt" (=recreate in some form), since that would mean the article was in mainspace for probably at least a week, and we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid (not heinous, not illegal, but stupid) thing. As most of you know, the wikipedia bio is normally the first google hit on a person, and being a politician (albeit a low-profile one, without notability outside the one event), Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks.
There is no "shaming" here. Wikipedia is not being the "village stocks" here.
Why do you believe that a subject who has received significant biographical coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in his state (link to the article), prior to the January 2015 incident fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL, and WP:GNG? The guidelines do not say what you think or want them to say.
Cunard (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah .. ok, gotcha on the "noharm" thing. Well, I just don't see anything that makes him notable is all. At best, that ill-considered remark may have given him his 15 minutes of fame, but I don't see anything beyond that (BLP1E) which makes the article encyclopedic. Lots of people have their own business - but the guy who owns the local hardware store isn't going to get an article here. To me, no matter how much lipstick you put on it, in the end, it's still just the other white meat that goes great with eggs at breakfast. Sure, maybe the "Draft" isn't vandalized right now, but once it's in mainspace - I think it will be a magnet for it. I could find plenty of articles that use the term "Lewinsky" as a term for oral sex - but it would never stand up as an article. (although that Santorum one managed - but I digress). The bottom line for me is that he just doesn't pass muster on the notability end. Hey - if it gets kept - more power to you, but I can't support a "keep" vote in my own mind. Sorry. — Ched : ? 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability is a term of art on Wikipedia that is defined as whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". What definition of "notability" are you using when you write "I just don't see anything that makes him notable is all"? Are you using the definition in Wikipedia:Notability or your own personal definition?

Sure, maybe the "Draft" isn't vandalized right now, but once it's in mainspace - I think it will be a magnet for it. – articles are not deleted just because they could be magnets for vandalism. If editors vandalize the article, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. In this case, I would support preemptive protection if an admin is willing to add it. Cunard (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep [changed from Keep] (i.e. move the Draft version to replace the redirect now in mainspace). The draft seems well-sourced although a bit longer than an article about a local councilman deserves. Length and other faults, if any, in the draft can be addressed by editing. The subject is of note mostly because of his statement that he did not wish to be named by the local newspaper, but that's a pretty big story and it seems to be presented fairly in this draft, and there's other information about him too, so I don't see it as a one-event BLP violation. Seems okay to have this article, and it's a service to readers. I think it should be shorter, but kept in mainspace. --do ncr am 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I looked into this issue just now, after the councilman has apologized for his comments/request. The closer of this AFD, and !voters here, may want to consider comments given in the wp:AN discussion and in the wp:DRV discussion linked from near the top here, but some/all of those might have been stated before the councilman apologized and/or without consideration of anything like the current draft article. --do ncr am 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if there could be an event article or coverage of the event within some other article, maybe that would be better than an article about the person. Redirecting to the government article seems incorrect. There would have to be some appropriate discussion about the councilman and the editorial and the wide coverage. Some other arguments below are pretty good, too. (However, I am not completely clear which policy, out of the list of policies suggested, 209.211.131.181 thinks is most relevant. :) ). Could the event here be covered within some other article, like perhaps a list-article about First Amendment-related dramas? --do ncr am 03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect, delete draft, and protect both per longstanding content policies such as WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLP1E - not to mention WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP1E. Boy, that guy really put his foot in it one time, didn't he? That newspaper editorial was hilarious! However, Wikipedia has longstanding rules against "biographical" articles that only commemorate transient Internet mockery - for very good reasons. Mr. Delauter is notorious only for the one screwup that everyone knows about, and the list of incidental facts in the current draft doesn't change that. If the padding in the draft were posted with someone else's name as the title, it would end up deleted as a resume. Using it to pad this particular article doesn't save it from being a WP:BLP1E violation; only independent coverage of other things Mr/ Delauter would be notable for can do that.

Incidentally, I cannot help but observe that the very people who have kept this issue alive by objecting to a supposed "out-of-process" speedy deletion of the original article, a supposed "out-of-process" closure of a deletion review, and a supposed "out-of-process" closure of a discussion about the closure of the deletion review sought to avoid deletion of the reposted draft by pointing the deletion page to an out-of-process discussion under their control. Such actions can have no good effect, but only serve to turn the topic into a running sore. If this discussion fails to support recreation of an article - as I hope that it does - then that should be that, and the filibustering should end. If Mr. Delauter does something independently notable, then there will be a reason to reconsider, but not now. Let it end. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frederick News-Post

Kirby Delauter is not notable because of a facebook post. They're notable because that facebook post has been discussed on NPR, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, Gawker, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Business Insider, Newsweek, NBC, MSNBC, Slate, Politico, Jezebel, Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail, Fox News etc. etc. and so on.
While the rogue / IAR admin's thought process: we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid ... Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks. is laudable, the ship has sailed / horse is out of the barn / insert favorite cliche. When Delauter gets googled, the choice is not whether his stupid comes up, but whether it comes up here, we were can at least attempt to provide a low drama, low snark description of the event, or some other site, which is likely to be less kind. It is not our mission to create the world of knowledge, but to reflect it, and that includes folks whom become notable because of stupid; they are not our first priority: As User talk:Alan Liefting rightly illustrates: It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia. We currently provide coverage for folks who are notable for one stupid event: e.g. Rosie Ruiz, Mathias Rust, Mary Kay Letourneau, Margaret Mary Ray.
Therefore Kirby Delauter should exist as either an article or as a redirect to an article that documents why is notable. I suggest Frederick News-Post, the employer of the reporter Kirby threatened to sue and the publisher of the editorial reply that "went viral" [66]. NE Ent 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore Kirby Delauter should exist as either an article or as a redirect to an article that documents why is notable. – NE Ent, would it be better to reframe this article to be about the event (like Streisand effect)? Cunard (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, just add a small section to the News-Post article noting the interaction between their reporter and Delauter and note the coverage of the event went national. NE Ent 23:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. I would prefer a separate article about Kirby Delauter so that his January 2015 incident isn't all that readers see when they search for him. That is more harmful to him than an article that puts the event in the context of Delauter's life as a businessman and politician. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Addendum: WP:BLP1E. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It actually says: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article, not that we omit coverage of notable for one event people entirely. See also Madeleine Pulver, Paul Douglas Peters NE Ent 18:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Brian Douglas Wells, Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong NE Ent 01:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or "keep merged" or whatever the hell passed for a !article vote in this morass. The subject is only notable for one brief blip of an event. Nothing notable happened with or to this individual beforehand, despite the valiant blood-squeezing of sources used to cobble a semblance of a history/biography. When the community says "that's it" to a subject, then barring legitimate 11-hour new information, the "that's it" should stand. Enough of the endless tinkering by wiki-gnomes out to Right the Great Wrongs of the evil deletionists. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a redirect, it's not particularly useful; there have potentially been hundreds of county councilmen in the county's history, having one of them as a redirect (but not the rest) is unhelpful when the county article doesn't mention him significantly, and neither having redirects for the rest nor covering him significantly would be appropriate. As an article, it's inappropriate because everything's either trivial coverage or primary sources from the time of the events discussed in the article. Give me anything that analyses the news stories and other primary sources, and I'll change my mind, but as primary sources, news stories cannot provide the historical perspective that we need to rely on for encyclopedia articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nyttend, are you arguing that news stories aren't reasonable sources for an article? So a NYT news story isn't a solid source for an article? That certainly contradicts how we normally do things here. And in any case, would an editorial of a major news paper (which is by definition an analysis of primary sources) not count as analysis? If it doesn't, what would? Hobit (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep draft The draft clearly meets WP:N in spades. There is no BLP1E issue as there are good sources (including an editorial written by the editorial board of the largest paper in the state...) that predate the event. Hobit (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Apparently this book from NYU Press published in 2014 (before the January 2015 coverage) mentions the subject of the draft article [[67]], and indicates the subject was also discussed in another scholarly publication. I have not looked for any other books but I just clicked on the search books and this is the first thing I saw. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local politician who experienced his Warhol moment before returning to normal life. Delete redirect, delete draft per BLP1E (yes, I know it was covered by everybody for roughly 3000 minutes, but largely because it was a a good laugh at Delauter's expense that appealed to journalists) WP:1E and general BLP provisions against using WP as a means to shame otherwise non-notable individuals who have experienced a lapse in judgment.While I appreciate the tenacity of several editors in arguing their point, this appears to be a fine example of a biography that shouldn't be included in a global encyclopedia, with the claim to notability quite literally based on 48 hours of social media coverage and denunciation of a single clueless Facebook post. Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Salt, and Sow the ground with plutonium just to be sure. Absolutely clearcut case of WP:ONEEVENT, and Wikipedia should not be used to smear individuals as part of a political campaign. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- You do agree there were significant, non-local sources, well before the event? Hobit (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, a smattering of pure WP:DOGBITESMAN stuff that would be considered laughable sourcing for an article if not for "the event". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    - I'm starting to suspect you didn't read the draft or look at the sources. I never thought of an editorial board editorial in a major newspaper as something run of the mill, and I find it hard to believe anyone would. And yes, that was from before the event. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - [68]] is not WP:DOGBITESMAN, nor is [69], so it does appear you have not read the sources, nor BEFORE. Such cites are most certainly not "sensational". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(courtesy pings to those who have voiced an opinion in this topic) @SarekOfVulcan:, @Spartaz:, @SmokeyJoe:, @RoySmith:, @Stalwart111:, @WilyD:, @28bytes:, @Alanscottwalker:, @Thincat:, @Courcelles:, @Black Kite:, @JzG:, @HiDrNick:, @Bangabandhu: , @NE Ent:@S Marshall:@Bangabandhu:. Sorry if I hit people who are already commenting here. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There would be no article were it not for his fatuous attempt to assert personality rights. He does not hold national or State political office. He probably never will (and that's arguably not a bad thing). WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Perhaps the article was prompted by one event, but it does not give undue weight to that event. As it stands right now, it would probably pass article review based on the merits of the seven citations. There are entries of far less notable individuals than Delauter. Why exclude this page just because of one event? If he were to run for higher office, would he then be notable? Or does the one event permanently exclude this entry? I don't understand why editors would want to deny his thousands of constituents from learning about their representative and other interested readers from learning about his background and business interests. Also, I sense that many editors are not reading the draft and are just writing knee jerk responses based on the one event policy. Please read the draft impartially, as if it were just an article that had not yet been reviewed. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I am most unimpressed by the reverence given to BLP1E. BLP1E doesn't belong in WP:BLP, because BLP proper is sufficient to handle BLP issues. BLP issues are cut or deleted or toned whether or not the event was multiple. BLP1E sounds like a weightier version of BIO1E, with which it is redundant. If any version of 1E applies, then a merge is the proper outcome. The question is whether the event is notable. It achieved a lot of independent secondary source coverage, but now that time has moved on, the sources now are better labelled as a "short burst of newspaper reports". The secondary source nature of the sources collectively is greatly diminished by them all dating within days of the event. There is no evidence of long term significance. My original opinions on the topic were made without appreciation that this is not a significant politician whose article was missing and the he failed WP:NPOL. I note that the "short term" period of publication of the source said to meet the WP:GNG is not mentioned directly at WP:N, and am thinking that this is an error of omission. We have long recognised that a short burst of sources is not sufficient to make something Wikipedia-notable, something needs to be of interest for more than a week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is coverage going back years before the event, including the editorial in the Baltimore Sun. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the question is whether the event is notable, the question is whether the subject is notable. And as the abundance of external references demonstrates - his life has been extensively documented in impartial, reliable sources well before the one event. (forgot to login, corrected) Bangabandhu (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Hobit[70]. I am aware of these responses to my !vote, and I don't wish to speak again against them. The responses are reasonable. My concern, tilting me to lean, has to do with the question of thresholds of notability, and whether all politicians are notable. I am howevre strongly against the argument that having this article is a BLP issue, against the argument that this article does the subject any harm. In fact, I agree with Cunard that this article relieves the subject somewhat from the harm of bias coverage provided by google. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, I really apprecciate the fact that the article was created in good faith, does not focus on the incident and it is written in a neutral way. About notability and BLP1E, while I understand some concerns, I found the in depht analysis by Cunard above quite convincing. Cavarrone 07:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a case where our notability guidelines don't serve us well: when press publicity for silly reasons is given too much weight. However, the article clearly shows WP:GNG has been met with substantial, etc. coverage. Also, prior coverage demonstrates the topic does not fail under "1E" considerations. Our documented requirements for having articles should be improved. I was tempted to !vote delete on the basis that our guidelines do not lead to a sensible result in this case. However, I think for politicians especially we should stick to the "rules" to avoid any appearance of political bias and so we ought to keep the article. Thincat (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick (biased) summary of the split !vote:

While a couple of people have claimed he doesn't meet WP:N no one has explained why the sources in the draft aren't significant independent coverage. And there is certainly a LOT more coverage than is found in the article (though largely about the event). Instead they seem to focus on if he's "important", which is not part of WP:N. I honestly can't see how a WP:N argument can be formed for deletion.
Arguments based on BLP1E are more reasonable, but haven't really addressed the significant coverage before the "event". While some of it is fairly routine coverage of a local paper, there is one extremely solid source in a major newspaper that predates the event by years and the local coverage addresses some significant issues. He met the letter (and I'd claim the spirit) of WP:N before the event. That is enough to negate a BLP1E argument. Someone notable before an event doesn't become less notable for afterwards--quite the opposite in fact.
Claims of NOHARM issues are dealt with quite well by the draft. If anything, the draft is biased in his favor compared to the sources (even without the event...). This issue was addressed quite well above.

Given the split !vote and relative strength of arguments, I'd say we are at a keep or (maybe) a NC outcome. My 2 cents. Back to work. Hobit (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Cunard notes, there is coverage that predates the Facebook gaffe, but I don't believe the case has been convincingly made that it's significant and sustained enough coverage to qualify Delauter for a standalone article. In general, county officials don't rate an article unless they've done something more significant (typically running for statewide office) despite the fact that run-of-the-mill coverage for their county activities can usually be found. WP:GNG notes, correctly, that such coverage is no guarantee that a standalone article is appropriate, and that in-depth discussions, such as this one, may conclude that they are not. So I don't think he qualifies for a bio on the basis of his activities as a county official, and I therefore think WP:BLP1E still applies with regards to his fifteen-minute Internet fame for his Facebook remarks. 28bytes (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I agree with Nyttend that a redirect isn't particularly useful, as it obscures the more useful search function, which would display a list of the article(s) (if any) that Delauter may be mentioned in. 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you are saying that there is coverage out there but because his job is minor, we shouldn't have an article? Also, I'm curious why you are discounting coverage in a major newspaper well before the event. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should indeed consider the importance of an article subject and not just the fact that they were mentioned in a newspaper. Otherwise, every time The Baltimore Sun happened to discuss the actions of a teacher, store owner, cop, or dog catcher, we'd be obligated to host an article on that person regardless of whether they have any true encyclopedic significance. 28bytes (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bartman is a redirect. The name is easily searchable on-wiki wiki search and was as off google search. NE Ent 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, there are many County Councilmembers with pages on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to search for all of them, but for one example, here are the bios for the entire King County Council - some of those members have fewer references and far less notability than Delauter, even before the one event. Unfortunately, there isn't a category of county councilmembers, not at least one that I could find - though it would be a well-populated list, I'm sure. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:48, 25 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References continue to be made: March 21st In Maryland, Frederick County Councilman Kirby Delauter went so far as threatening to sue if his name was printed in the newspaper.
March 25th Following a trail blazed by Maryland councilman Kirby DelauterNE Ent 09:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: About categories and notability standard for county-level councillors World-wide county councilmember-equivalents fall within Category:Subnational legislators. That includes sub-categories Category:County commissioners in the United States. That has a sub-category for each U.S. state, with variation in naming that mixes & matches "county commissioners" and "county supervisors" and "county council members". Maryland's is Category:County commissioners in Maryland, which holds just 8 articles. Washington state's category has 25: 12 articles about individual persons in Category:King County Councillors and 13 about non-King County persons. Category:County freeholders in New Jersey has 222. Virginia has 33 (with 21 in one county), California has about 250 (with about 160 in just 5 counties), etc. Bangabandhu is correct: in the U.S. there lots of such articles. A specific notability standard could be argued for, that might be emerging, is that all county-level council-members and equivalents deserve articles, while not yet town-level councillors (like high schools are all deemed notable but primary schools are not). --do ncr am 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the political unit. In some places e.g. Connecticut counties have little governmental function. NE Ent 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Right: In a specific notability standard, what a "county-level council-member equivalent" means would have to be spelled out for each state, and category names/organization could differ. For Connecticut though there is now one member of Category:County commissioners in Connecticut: a man who was county commissioner of Tolland County, Connecticut during 1921–1932. --do ncr am 22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for researching this more thoroughly. I bet most of the categories are underpopulated. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and another. Was reminded by this current book review [71] about Justine Sacco, yet another example of BLP1E meaning what it says -- "no article" ≠ "no coverage". NE Ent 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a public figure, even if a minor public figure, and the principle of do no harm applies--it's the news stories on which this is based which might do him harm, not the WP article. County commissioners are not necessarily notable, but this is a very substantial county, and in any case, there's been sufficient publicity. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's an editorial posted today that mentions the subject in detail but doesn't mention the one event. Here's an article in the last week; no mention of not mentioning. Another editorial. Here's a column from Ed Newton which tries to put the incident in perspective; reprinted widely, if 93 times seems "widely". Here's an article about coverage in Publisher Auxiliary, a pretty well-known paper about newspapers. I haven't started listing the 479 articles (according to the "news" search link in the AFD template above) directly detailing the incident. If an event, the event seems to meet most of the criteria of WP:EVENT. As the editor points out directly above, this is a public figure, an elected official in a county of a quarter million people. He has gotten continued coverage since first elected. Based on his history, he may get lots more. If again deleted, salting is premature. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 5 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.

Postscript[edit]

I history-merged Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter (see the background at Talk:Kirby Delauter#article status and any next steps as of April 19 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter); the original old edits of Kirby Delauter, which were a short article only about the name use and complaint, are now at Talk:Kirby Delauter/old short article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese people[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Should be a category, there is no content beyond a list of names, and it's unlikely there ever will be. The few sections that have anything more than a list of names (List of Emperors, List of Prime Ministers) are nothing more than copy and pasted from their respective articles. Many of the people in the list are also not notable. Categories exist for a reason. You don't need to worry about someone's wikipedia page being AfD'd and then it's still on here as a red link. This list serves no purpose whatsoever. ― Padenton|✉ 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NLIST. If we want to delete all "List of nationality people" lists then a centralized discussion should be held. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For a list that "serves no purpose whatsoever", it sure gets a lot of page views: 3,530 in March 2015. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn per NeilN. There's no reason to delete this and not the hundreds of others, so this is the wrong forum for it. I think they're pointless compared to categories per the reasons above, but I don't really feel strongly enough to open that can of worms. ― Padenton|✉ 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per criterion #1. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Biasi[edit]

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

The article here is obviously inadequate, but the Portuguese version is longer. Machine translated, it still has only affiliated coverage. Failure of WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and WP:NPERSON. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wgolf should see this. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-yeah I thought it was interesting you said hoax when the foreign wiki has a long page, now I can't comment if it should be deleted or not, but I might make my mind. Wgolf (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject of the article was indeed a national-level minister, then he's likely to be notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone must have edited this because the article looks like it passes WP:GNG. Also, WP:POLITICIAN as Nick-D says.
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former government minister and a former member of the Brazil House of Representatives.[72] • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl WP:HEY. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW as a "Federal deputy", i.e. national legislator. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising/promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tillman[edit]

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

This article is effectively an unsourced BLP, as external links are no sources. But more worrying is the fact that his Wiki-page and IMDb-page are nearly identical Duplication Detector, making it a possible copyright violation. The Banner talk 01:53, 3 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 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shridhar Tilve[edit]

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

Tried reading all this but it just got too much. A article that has basically been tagged for original research for over 5 years with no refs at all. Not sure about notability or not! Wgolf (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the present state of the article it might also qualify for G11, BLPPROD, or TNT, but we don't need to even get to that point because I don't see enough reliable secondary sources to establish notability out there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 4 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. Because of the relatively poor quality of the discussion, I can't find a useful consensus either way. Most opinions are broad generalizations, assertions or guesses, but nobody has actually discussed the quality of the sources cited in the article in any detail. We'd probably need to hear from experts in the fields that can assess the quality of these sources. Until then, it's back to square one. Sandstein 08:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi[edit]

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

The article is entirely an original research and all the references of it are primary sources. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator has opened 4 AfDs. They are all article created by User:Mhhossein. The nom has voiced intention to open more AfDs for articles created by Mhhossein - they will be added to this list if so.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Which That Orphan Saw
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

--GreenC 04:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom :)Ladsgroup^overleg 11:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unrelated discussion. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related ANI discussion that involves this AfD. -- GreenC 15:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not an expert, but it would appear from the article that the sources used are sources discussing this hadith. Thaey may be traditional, not modern, sources, but they're still secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which source is secondary? ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG's comments above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ism schism: And I would like to repeat the question I asked him then, which source is secondary? ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep?~~, Delete ~~appears to be a notable subject, but~~ the references are not that helpful, most state each narrative or is from Quran (primaries?), two of them which may be useful - The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century[73] and A Shi'ite Encyclopedia[74] takes the reader to the front pages not the relevant bits (i had a quick look thru them but as a wikikit was unable to find them:), could the article originator please assist here so editors can discern relevance. thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are thousands (or perhaps millions) Hadiths in Islam, we can have a Wikipedia with thousands and millions of Hadith article. Some of them like Hadith of the two weighty things might be notable as there are lots of secondary sources available for them. Regarding this Hadith, I expand the contents of each reference. The first one which cites the sentence "A total of 29 Hadiths relate the return of Jesus, and his prayer with Mahdi's lead.", talks about the whole Hadaths about Jesus and Mahdi, while this article is talking about one specific Hadith. It is not clear if the sentence "Jesus and Mahdi will be both present at the same time and it is said that the leaders who take commands are from Quraysh, then Jesus will be the Vizier of Mahdi. That's why he will perform the prayer behind Mahdi and follow him." (which is cited by the same source) talks about this specific Hadith too. The sentences cited by this source, are general sentences that tell us "... proven strongly via numerous authentic traditions from the Messenger of Allah, who is the most truthful", there is no sign of any Hadith in that. IMO these references has been added to the article irrelevantly and we cannot prove the notability of this Hadith with them. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to User:Mehran for telling us about the above refs, so they are irrelevant/trivial;- following comment not necessarily useful but... the article has not had any additional edits to assist in making it possibly notable since afd notice placed. ps. if the thousands or millions(?) of other Hadiths are notable they are very welcome:) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found in fact it is around 700,000 Hadiths in Islam. :) ●Mehran ^Debate● 05:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Hadith task force has a lot of work to do.... now thats enough off topic

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Raj`a , Original research with primary references, It is not enough notable to have an independent article> There is no interwiki-link to Arabic Wikipedia --Sahehco (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~probable~~ delete - the parallel would be what? an article about King David sourced to the Gospels? An article about Matthew or Peter sourced to Ignatius of Antioch? An article about John the Baptist sourced to the Apocrypha? reads like Dawah. iVoters for keep, please explain to me what I'm missing here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment lacks reliable secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Two users changed their viewpoints after relisting: [75] and [76] ●Mehran ^Debate● 05:46, 10 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. I have no choice but to close as no consensus. The Anome's argument actually seems to suggest that this is a kind of wavetable synthesis, and linking to Google searches (rather than actual sources) hinders its effectiveness, and the recognition that there is OR here (but not removed, so it's impossible to judge what's what) is also damning. BD2412's argument is refuted, sources and all. Clusternote refutes Arthur Rubin's suggestion. In the end the solution is (as often) to follow DGG's advice, except that Anome's keep argument is problematic, and DGG's is more procedural than contentual: no consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table-lookup synthesis[edit]

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

An IP user has repeatedly nominated this for A11 speedy deletion but the article easily passes that test. The IP and the article's creator are edit warring over the CSD tag; I am nominating for deletion on behalf of the IP in order to stop this. I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about a month old and has just been discovered by me. It is both totally unnecessary and displays (and attempts to canonize in Wikipedia) the ignorance of the inventor of the article. Nowhere is the term "Table-lookup synthesis" used by anyone in the field. Googling "table lookup synthesis" gets pages with "Wavetable synthesis", "Fixed waveform synthesis", "Sound Synthesis Theory/Oscillators and Wavetables", etc. The closest page title was "Table Lookup Oscillators Using Generic Integrated Wavetables ..." but that is still not called "Table-lookup synthesis". It is a component part of Wavetable synthesis.

The use of LUTs for oscillators in music synthesis has nothing to do with Karplus–Strong string synthesis nor digital waveguide synthesis. Nothing at all, except they're all music synthesis techniques. And it needn't be forked from either lookup table nor numerically-controlled oscillator nor direct digital synthesis, which have other, not necessarily musical, applications in electrical engineering and signal processing.

It is clearly a creation of User:Clusternote's personal vision of reality, not what reality is. Wikipedia articles should be about verifiable reality, not one editor's made-up redefinition of terminology. The editor does not want to discuss the merits of the case and does whatever he can to quash the discussion. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to @65.183.156.110: ⇑ Above claims by this IP user (65.183.156.110) have been already disproved on article's Talk page in Yesterday. Following is a copy of my post:

Table-lookup synthesis is described as "the core of most synthesis algorithm" by Curtis Roads on his book "The Computer Music Tutorial" published in 1996, page 87.
Karplus-Strong string synthesis is described as "One standard synthesis technique is the wavetable synthesis algorithm. ... All the algorithms described in this paper produce the variation in sound by modifying the wavetable itself." by Kevin Karplus in section "Wavetable synthesis" on their paper "Digital Synthesis of Plucked-String and Drum Timbres published in 1983.
Digital waveguide synthesis is described as "a set of extensions in the direction of accurate physical modeling while maintaining the computational simplicity reminiscent of the Karplus-Strong algorithm." by Julius O. Smith III on "Viewpoints on the History of Digital Synthesis" first published in 1991, then reviced with Curtis Roads in 1992.

As you can see, the first claims (on Talk page) by this IP user (65.183.156.110) are proven to be the falsehoods contrary to the reliable sources, at now ! --Clusternote (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wavetable synthesis is certainly a real thing [77], and a lot of people have used the term "table-lookup synthesis" or similar [78], so it's not an invalid title. This article looks like it contains a certain amount of original research via synthesis, but as far as I can see, the main topics it covers are valid. I can't see anything which can't be resolved by content editing and/or article renaming/merging. -- The Anome (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Anome, since the article is OR and SYN and has no other author of content other than the inventor of the article, and since the terminology presented both in the title and within the article reflects no other person's usage, why keep it? I am not saying that the article should be renamed or even edited. It should be deleted. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. The article clearly contains meaningful content that is not original research, and cites numerous resources to demonstrate that the topic meets our notability and verifiability criteria. Speedy deletion is not a way to solve article content disputes. Please consider merging the content of this article into wavetable synthesis. -- The Anome (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that what I am saying is not what you're saying. I did point out that you are saying that "this article looks like it contains a certain amount of original research via synthesis" (and yet you want to "Keep" it) and what I am saying is that the article contains nothing more. And I am saying that terminology is being conflated with the existence of and in the content of the article. The term "Wavetable synthesis" has been used for a few different but related techniques. Most of that confusion centers around confusing it with simple sample-based synthesis which is what samplers and [cards] mostly do (sometimes sound cards generate sound using a real synthesis, like Frequency modulation synthesis, but most of the time these computer sound chips simply blap out a short (or long) buffer (or file) of samples. But, back in the 90s, Creative Labs was using the term "wavetable synthesis" to describe this (in the Sound Blaster, which started some of the confusion back then.

What Clusternote is doing is unilaterally muddying the terminology waters again. He doesn't understand any of this and wants to legitimize his lack of understanding with a Wikipedia article he can point to. Note that no one else has contributed content to it. It's a novel that Clusternote solely is writing. And he's writing it using Wikipedia as a platform.

Lot's of audio processing and synthesis algorithms read numbers from an array in memory. E.g. reverb algorithms do that, they lookup numbers in an array (or "table"). But we don't call them "Table-lookup synthesis". Like digital reverberators, Karplus–Strong string synthesis, physical modelling synthesis, digital waveguide synthesis all have delay lines. In a delay line, numbers are written to an array and later read from the same array. None of these algorithms are, in any manner, wavetable synthesis and Clusternote is trying to use Wikipedia to make that false connection. Wavetable synthesis has some relationship with samplers|sample-playback "synthesis" but is not the same and it has a closer relationship with numerically-controlled oscillator and direct digital synthesis (which are not even music synthesis topics) but is not quite the same (except in a degenerate, static case). 65.183.156.110 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A more refined Google search confirms that this has long been a specific topic, under this specific name (see [79], [80], [81]). bd2412 T 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pollefeys is totally unrelated. Has nothing to do with the topic here. Maher and PC Mag are examples of the conflation of terms in the 90's that Clusternote is trying to perpetuate, using Wikipedia. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wavetable synthesis. The name is legitimate, but the non-OR content is already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to @Arthur Rubin: The current content of article "Wavetable synthesis" is clearly too narrow, thus redirection is inappropriate. That article explain about a subclass of "Multiple wavetable synthesis" (Horner, Beauchamp & Haken 1993) which is a subclass of generic wavetable synthesis explained on this article. Unfortunately, the generic wavetable synthesis invented in the late-1950s (Table-lookup synthesis) and its sub-subclass invented in the late-1970s (Wavetable synthesis) are sometimes called in the same or very-similar name for a few decades, thus often confused. However, the coverages of these are completely different, as written on Curtis Roads 1996, p. 87. --Clusternote (talk) 12:34, 27 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, and let the experts discuss whether to merge. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 3 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 Ogre You Asshole. Nakon 02:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre You Asshole (album)[edit]

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

Contested prod by the creator-unotable music album Wgolf (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JAWP does not have a separate article for the album, but ja:OGRE YOU ASSHOLE (band) has a list of interviews at the end that interested keepers might find useful. Baseline is redirect to Ogre You Asshole (band). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Ogre You Asshole. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 27 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that related AfDs closed as merge to Ogre You Asshole: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinhole (song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukarete iru hito. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content of the article could fit inside the content of the band. Spin off once something grows too big not keeping a stub farm. Our readers aren't impressed by stub after stub just combine the 5 articles ( all albums and the band ) into a great article about the band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:53, 3 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 Brian Charles Lara. Consensus exists that there shouldn't be a separate article, nor was there a valid argument against a redirect. I don't think we have much consensus on if, and if how much, content to merge, but that is a question best handled through the usual editorial process. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lara's 375[edit]

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

Unnecessary article. Lara's 375 can be covered in his main article, this article doesn't particularly do a very good job of covering the subject it is about. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an effort to start a new set of pages covering top innings in cricket. The page does refer to quotes and information about the innings. Trying to develop a Infobox for Cricket Innings. Would continue to add more information here. Please do not delete shankariima (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable? Yes. Worth its own article? No. Merge info into the legend that is Brian Charles Lara. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be covered in the main article. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an anchor point in Brian Lara. I think it's worth talking more broadly about Shankariima's effort to make pages to cover top innings. I saw in his Contributions list that one of the next articles he intends to make is for VVS Laxman's 281 at Eden Gardens. I think this highlights that there will be two types of innings which could theoretically have articles about them:
- Innings which famously turn around a Test match, such as Laxman's 281.
- Innings which break records simply through high scores, such as Lara's 375, or perhaps Rohit Sharma's ODI 264.

Of the first of those, the innings is notable only in the context of the Test match, so the article should be about the Test match, not the innings. In Laxman's case, the Second Test, 2000–01 Border–Gavaskar Trophy already has an article, and any attempts to make a separate article for Laxman's 281 would surely be merged into it. That would be a suitable location for discussion and plaudits about the innings.

For the second of those, including Lara's 375, it is the innings which is notable, not the Test Match. However, I don't think we have content to fill a useful article about an innings with no otherwise notable match context. The article as it stands now describes the innings in cursory detail (e.g. Lara scored 375 from x balls in y minutes with z boundaries) followed by some quotes and historical context – which is better served as a paragraph in Brian Lara. To expand the content to something which could stand alone as an article, we'd probably need to provide the ball-by-ball Cricinfo commentary; and then it just becomes a stats dump without a lot of encyclopedic value. As such, I think redirection to an anchor point is the most suitable course of action. Aspirex (talk) 23:19, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brian Lara, possibly merge some content too. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 6 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 Education in Nicaragua. Nakon 02:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academic grading in Nicaragua[edit]

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

How does this meet WP:NOTABILITY? Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Userfy - in theory, this should be one in a series on grading around the globe. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sourcing, plus any sourced content could be adequately addressed at education in Nicaragua, academic grading, etc. Neutrality^talk 23:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as Keep as there was a "Withdrawn !vote" and it looked like it was on the top of this afd..... Turns out it wasn't so apologies for that. –Davey2010^Talk 16:07, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd go along with a merger to education in Nicaragua, as suggested by Neutrality. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Free[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not known outside of The Slow Mo Guys, so merge with that. Otterathome (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - Really? He's one of the most well-known members if not the most well-known member of Rooster Teeth. Falls under #2 of WP:ENT IMO. Connormah (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Falls under #2 of wp:ENT.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:00, 27 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty sizable contribution to machinima, several webseries, Achievement Hunter, slow motion cinematography — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0T0 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pop culture icon for slow motion, yes, but also for achievement hunter - also appeared on TV shows such as @midnight, and other youtube channels such as freddiew. 203.116.31.112 (talk) 04:20, 6 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) 07:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Maek[edit]

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

Non notable singer with only 2 releases so far Wgolf (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, couldn't find anything to reference from verifiable 3rd parties. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 23:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the top reply, could only find a few promotional articles, but nothing of note. AlbinoFerret 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The singer may have only 2 releases, but when you look at the article carefully, the reviews, the artist itself makes it look professional. We should keep it with the Notability tag [82] and wait till it improve, which it will judging for the vibe he is getting lately [83], [84]. I suggest to all contributors to not WP:MAJORITY]. Please explain the why. I know that WP:NOTNEWS but c'mon, we can give it a shot to an upcoming artist. Having "2 releases so far" is not a reason, which he started and gained recognition in 2014. Maek Pandamonium Visual Album got accepted, Maek also got accepted, which both directly relate to Jason. A tag is more than enough and give it time to do more research. --CarlosWagners (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per some of the above - No evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:06, 3 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. Sourced added, Nominator blocked, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Hai Mohabbatein[edit]

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

does not meet notability guideline and very few sources A.A.Wasif | Talk 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep the current version has multiple pieces of coverage from the largest newspaper in the country and has documented several major award wins. easily meets WP:GNG-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 2 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — Source is not always necessary for claim notability, (for e.g. cricketers, footballers articles). The show has won too many awards, and it's enough for claim notability, there is no sense for deletion. Ch an der 18:40, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]

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

The article duplicates in whole or parts of other articles including List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film) and Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Accolades amongst many others. Furthermore, with over 20 films released or scheduled for release the list will grow too large to be useful. These accolades are better suited to be listed as they were in the their respective articles. TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 2 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scope is too broad, and the individual articles can cover the topic well enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 4 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 and redirect to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. After the merge is performed, a redirect is typically, and should be put in place. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Tigers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:16, 26 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, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - as above. Neutrality^talk 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Google Books for Shukurbek Beyshenaliev". Retrieved 2015-04-03.

[1]