Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 February >

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avey Noble[edit]

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

Some child actor being promoted by his father. The link to an article at variety.com does not even mention him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avey Noble is a child actor that has been in several films and broadcast television shows. ^[1] He is a legimite SAG actor and should have a page as the thousands of other child actors on Wikipedia do. I am his father, and a former Miramax executive but that should not make his page any less or more legimate. The Variety article is reference to the show he was on winning a Golden Globe, which is very clear from the description. I have went in and added additional references to prove validity.

I went reviewed the Wikimedia Foundation's recent resolution regarding the biographies of Living Persons and went back in and went in again making sure the article is neutrally written, accurate and as well-sourced as possible. ^[2]

References

^ "Avey Noble". IMDB.
^ "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons". Wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possibly a marginal G11 speedy delete. Not only does the kid not satisfy WP:ACTOR with two television episode credits, it's blatant WP:COI by User:Nobleeth. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's sources are trivial or unreliable. There do not seem to be any reliable sources available that cover the subject in any depth. Fails WP:NACTOR. Actors are not automatically notable, any more than plumbers, teachers, or Wikipedia editors.- Mr X 03:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. He might be a notable actor in the future, but for now it is far to early. JT_dale^Talk~ 05:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a lack of independent (non-trivial) sources that would support his notability. --damiens.rf 14:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree WP:TOOSOON aplies here, not currently notable under WP:BIO or WP:ENT. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an actor or model. Effectively self-promotion. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Hampson[edit]

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

Self-published artist and filmmaker who fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I also suspect a strong conflict of interest. Valfontis (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aram Hampson is clearly notable. He has shown up multiple times on The Alex Jones Show and David Pakman Show, and won an award by the History Channel and congressman Greg Walden for his work in the media. He also did a iReport which was revised and approved by CNN. Clearly the subject is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookieMonster755 (talk • contribs)
Keep per CookieMonster755's comment. Delete per WP:BLP1E. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find much coverage in reliable sources. The incident involving his daughter is WP:BLP1E. -- 120.23.95.177 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those relatively new to the AfD process, please note that arguments not only need to "tell" how things are notable ("I think this is notable"), they need to "show" how thing are notable by providing multiple, independent, reliable, 3rd-party sources that discuss the topic of the article being debated, in this case these sources should prove how the article passes WP:GNG, and more specifically WP:BIO, and more specifically WP:ARTIST and/or WP:JOURNALIST. Please click through the blue links and read the information there. It's good information and will help you. Valfontis (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He is notable for more than one event 120.23.95.177. Please do some more research on the subject. Like I said, he won a award from the History Channel and congressman Greg Walden. He also got an award from a popular T.V. show, Intervention. Not notable enough for you Valfontis? And he has appeared multiple times on the Alex Jones show, not just about his daughter, but about his films, which is in the references. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He also won state championships in the U.S. State of Oregon in 1990 and 1991.^[1] I also found some more refernces to the journalistic work he did for the Alex Jones Show a.k.a Infowars.

Delete per WP:BLP1E and lack of sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC.- Mr X 03:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:, he is more notable than for just "One Event", do some research. Some Wikipedians...

@CookieMonster755: Please remember to keep it civil, thanks. Valfontis (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will try my best to be civil, thanks for your comment.CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aram is also noted for his photography, earning several local and regional awards from 1988 to 2013. Noted by whom? Where? Which awards? What are the sources for this assertion? -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He won multiple awards from Pixoto, which one of his photographs was in the "Best of 2012" Category for Photograph. .... added at 05:29, 2 February 2015‎ by CookieMonster755

Well then, add the specifics of two or three of the most notable among these awards to the article, with reliable sourcing. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fine, since all of you Wikipedians are VERY NAIVE, delete it. Once he gets "more" famous, and I can find more "reliable" sources I will recreate it. Never liked the people on Wikipedia, very.. harsh I would say. No, calling you Wikipedians Naive or harash is not a threat, just a comment. Yes I am keeping my thoughts civil just for youValfontis... I think the article should be deleted, and I now understand why. So I am sorry for letting my opinion get in the way of the facts. Delete it per WP:BLP1E. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, as long as you keep it civil (the comment you crossed out didn't seem very civil). --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I crossed it out, because it was very rude of me to say that. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a comment. Its been 7 days, and usually a deletion discussions is closed with in 7 days and action is taken. Everybody voted for delete, so can we get an administrator to delete the page and close the discussion? Thanks! CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ [1], OSAA.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Incoming links is not a valid AfD argument (and was successfully refuted by Randykitty in her comment), and no sources were provided to assert the "widely sited [sic]" fact that he is the author/creator. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Harper[edit]

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

Very clearly non-notable author--it's been here since 2009, so I'm being cautious and bringing it for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. He is widely sited as the author/creator of Online Etymology Dictionary. Deunanknute (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Pages that link to "Douglas Harper" show hundreds of references to this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Online Etymology Dictionary. Yes, there are quotes out there and references to him w/r/t the online dictionary, but where is the substantial coverage of this subject to evidence that this subject is independently notable of the online dictionary? None provided in the article, by the keep voters, or from what I could see in Google. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - per WP:JOURNALIST "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.", and "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The person does not need to have significant coverage of himself, if the work has substantial coverage. See Online Etymology Dictionary for examples. Deunanknute (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any evidence of "widely sited (sic)" or "played a major role...". If you have links, Deunanknute, please provide them. The online dictionary is a one-man web site, without editorial oversight. I actually have doubts about its inclusion in Wikipedia. His books were published by a local historical society. While I'm sure that local civil war research has great value, the requirements for a Wikipedia entry are not met. LaMona (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While having many articles linked to this bio might be an indication of notability (it might also indicate a diligent effort to make it seem so), I don't think that's the case here. Just take the very first article that links to this bio, Americium, and search for "Harper". That "reference" shouldn't even be there... No other evidence of notability found. --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most links to Douglas Harper come from this template created by Andrwsc: {{OEtymD}}. Looking at that template, I'm not sure it would not be better to have all instances of its use go to Wiktionary. --Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- It seems to me that his notability must depend on whether being author of Online Etymology Dictionary makes him notable. That seems to be derivative work. The fact that one Ohio academic thinks it worthwhile is marginal for the site's notability. I certainly think that hardly transfers notability to its author. His local history writing is certainly not significant enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has changed significantly since it was nominated, having checked the 1 Feb version I cannot fault the original nomination one bit. Credit to those who have improved the article. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Back Store[edit]

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

Advertising for a non notable company. Local refs only, which are not discriminating enough to show notability DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually prepared to G11 this. I couldn't find any significant news mentions that would have shown notability, and it reads like advertisement. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails ~~WP:NPLACE~~ WP:ORG. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that isn't remotely relevant as this discussion is about a business, not a place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least now you point to the correct guideline, but its still an exceptionally weak argument without explanation (see WP:JUSTA) and the fact you quoted the wrong guideline doesn't exactly instill confidence that you made a real attempt to determine notability here. Deletion discussions are serious matters and you shouldn't "vote" without careful consideration. (This reflects a general pattern in you AfD activity, I noticed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could be improved, certainly, but the company does appear to be notable. There is plenty of RS coverage in books and newspapers to warrant an article. Pinging @MatthewVanitas: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe my Advert-radar is off from doing hundreds of Declines of AFC drafts that are blatant "our product is amazing, buy it!" schlock. This article however could only marginally be construed as advertising, in that it mentions the founder's cited "legend" and the number of branches, which is nothing like blatant spam. I think the "local refs" judgment is also a bit harsh; the Washington Post is one of the most prominent newspapers in all of the USA, not just a hometown rag that only covers the immediate area. In any case, to balance it out I put in a few more footnotes to US News, Entrepeneur, and a couple other sources, moved around some content to focus on the historical interest of the business development, etc. That should satisfy concerns. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It originally had a product list that I removed. I suppose that is where the idea it was ad-like came from. I agree, though, that it is nothing at all like a G11 case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The article has been improved since it was nominated for deletion. It really does not read an advertisement any longer. To evidence notability, I have flooded in there few more sources from HighBeam. Subject meets WP:NCORP standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leland Grant[edit]

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

Notability. Only refs are the subject, IMDB and links to other Wikipedia articles. EBY (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

More sources have been found and the article is now standalone. millerkatiej(talk) 13:42, 16 January 2015 (CT)

Here's the issue - except for a blurb in the Songwriter magazine that states he was a finalist in something, there isn't any notability factors for this subject: his music hasn't been reviewed, he hasn't been critiqued, neither the subject or his music has been considered by a separate reliable source to have made a notable impact. Pointing to original sources like Amazon, or crowd-sourced like IMDB, or pointing to articles about OTHER people or projects and making the original research statement that "hey he was involved in this project and the PROJECT is notable, even if he isn't mentioned" does not meet WP:GNG. He worked with famous people, that does not make him notable unless what he DID with that person was notable - background singers, assistant producers, dancers all meet and work with famous people but they do not meet Wikipedia guidelines.EBY (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contestant (not winner) on The Voice, and got a part on an attempted reboot of the Partridge Family that didn't make it beyond a pilot. I don't see significant coverage about him that would meet the either the general inclusion criteria, or the ones specific to music. -- Whpq (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has been linked to performance of a movie's (Mostly Ghostly) title track, performance on Jay Leno with his own band, and a member of numerous famous bands (see A Fine Frenzy, Mitchel Musso, Tiffany) -- millerkatie (talk)j

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a permanent member of a famous band does meet WP:NMUSIC but there aren't any WP:RS that I could find. Could you provide? EBY (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being a member of a famous band does not meet the music notability guidelines. With respect to membership in bands, the criterion is "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".(emphasis added) A Fine Frenzy, Mitchel Musso, Tiffany are all individual musicians. A reading to the Leland Grant article only notes one band, The LiNE. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 22 January 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, czar ⨹ 19:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild society[edit]

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

perhaps WP:G11 or WP:A7, but if notable it needs a dose of WP:TNT and start from scratch. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G12 may also apply. The first half of the article is copied from the group's press kit. I'm searching for the origin of the second half. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure advertising with no objective claim of notability per WP:MUSIC. No RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be an advertisement. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Art Academy[edit]

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

promotional article for non-notable local group, with only local references DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are a few mentions in reliable sources, they are all brief and local - not what I would call extensive coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is passing coverage in The Stanford Daily and San Jose Mercury News but all they do is mention the academy and nothing else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The Palo Alto Online sources are OK and provide some evidence of notability. Everything else in the article and that I could find in RS is a passing mention. That not quite enough for notability, IMO. Pinging @Kvng: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current sources don't clearly establish notability. I'm now unable to find any other reliable sources. I don't remember what compelled me not to reject this AfC submission. ~KvnG 05:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 15:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Smith (academic)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, she has a PhD, well done, but parapsychology is an area of research of dubious scientific value. Unfortunately, it appears that the author has created other similar pages. Le petit fromage (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I am not sure of any Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, subject would be able satisfy at this time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One marginal WP:RS from a local tabloid, but no real assertion of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It's a WP:FRINGE subject, so we need extra care about making sure we have mainstream sources rather than ones that take a fringe point of view. In that respect, the quote from her in the one independent source we have (a local newspaper story) saying that she considers herself a skeptic is reassuring. And assuming that she does take that point of view, I don't see why the "dubious scientific value" of her research should be relevant — she appears to be more a historian of local folklore than a scientist. Nevertheless, we have no evidence of passing WP:PROF and a local newspaper story doesn't go very far towards passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dragon 2013 1st World Tour[edit]

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

Again, a non-notable tour. Per WP:NTOUR, substantial coverage of the tour as a tour is required, beyond individual reviews. This has none of that--the "background" section, for instance, is no background: it just rehashes, step by step, the promotional campaign of the record company. The rest is calendar information and a setlist. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sermonise) @ 13:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 13:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 13:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TOUR. I just removed a bunch of unrelated info about a G-Dragon song and album. All that's left is the blow-by-blow of what was announced when, PR-style, plus a set list and list of dates. No information about the tour as a tour. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:34, 26 January 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 19:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Daniel (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Virginia Slims Championships[edit]

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

Disambution page (March and November), already have that two articles. 333 -blue 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 18 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 13:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into a disambiguation page rather than having a combined article for both tournaments. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 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 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dutchin[edit]

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

Multiple issues have been listed for years, with no attempt to improve them. Largely unreferenced article. Subject of the article appears to have a handful of songs, no awards to speak of, and a MySpace page. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:49, 19 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 13:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not fit notability requirements for musicians. Inadequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 31 January 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 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cenk Aydin[edit]

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

This biography was prodded by AliAstar123 with a rationale of "multiple issues have not been addressed. Person not notable and sources not good enough." I agree with that assessment; not a single one of the references represents third-party coverage; they're all by organizations he's affiliated with. Since the article had been prodded before, I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 18 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquise) @ 13:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definately. I cannot see one decent source on this page. Most of the said sources don't even talk about the person himself. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 14:37, 24 January 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 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found, there's an interview at [2], but it's not independent coverage, and I wasn't able to find signficant, independent coverage which would meet WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better sources were added. This person was named one of the 100 leaders of the World in 2010 by the World Economic Forum This is maybe one of the most credible sources in the world. It is commonly known as DAVOS. Founder of Wikipedia is also a Young Global Leader like Cenk Aydin. Please help adding sources, rather then for easy delete recommendation. I am adding further notability notes. he is additionally the Managing Director of JPMorgan, Armstrong Investment Managers and COO of Bank of America and CEO Of Citigroup Energy Division.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Phillips (soccer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user. Claiming that there's no point deleting an article when a player has signed for a fully pro club shortly before the start of the season. For the hundredth time, that argument is unacceptable. The player has not received significant coverage nor has he played a fully pro league match, so the concern that the article fails GNG and NFOOTY remains valid. – Michael (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace It's an unacceptable waste of everyone's time proposing the deletion of the an article that we all know will be recreated in a few weeks. I have no comprehension why anyone would have such a desire to waste everyone's times with these ridiculous nominations, which while technically correct, will merely be reversed when the season starts. Simply move the article to draftspace - none of this red tape is necessary. It's not like there are any verifiablity issues, or doubt that he's going to be making appearances on this 3rd tier team. Nfitz (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's we? Do you have any evidence that "he'll be notable in the future"? No. So that's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:NOR. Also, Wikipedia never operates on "It's a waste of everyone's time, keep". – Michael (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing if the article is deleted and the player becomes notable in the future, we can always ask the person who deleted the article to put the page back up rather than having to recreate the entire article ourselves. – Michael (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that precludes the use of draftspace instead of deleting the article. Perhaps you should spend more of your time understanding policy, rather than wasting everyone's time unnecesssarily deleting articles! Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there IS something in WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL that disallows keeping the article just because he will be notable in the future. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:CRYSTAL says. It's not a rule. But why raise that, as not one person has voted to keep the article? Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I have no objection to moving it to draft, but clearly this does not belong in the article namespace yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. We wait until something or someone is notable, then we create an article. Not the other way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy – While not yet meeting WP:NFOOTY, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:GNG, he has signed to play for a new club in a WP:FPL and is very likely to see time on the pitch this season. Allow the creator of the article to hold it in userspace until NFOOTY is met, then it can be moved back to mainspace with the history still intact. My second choice is delete because notability requirements haven't been met yet. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Achievements also fall well short of WP:NCOLLATH. Could be notable in the near future but I am against usefying because we have to deal with articles all the time that people have created for players whom they assure us will be notable soon. I would not want userfy arguments to establish a consensus where all these such articles are userfyed by default which could create a situation where we have hundreds of stale non-notable players in a for of shadow-WP. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2006#Green_Party. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Skrbina[edit]

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

Subject is an academic and sometime politician but notability has not been established in either field. He was the running mate on an unsuccessful third-party gubernatorial ticket in Michigan in 2006. His contributions in academia don't appear to have attracted enough attention to pass WP:ACADEMIC. There's a long-form Chronicle of Higher Education piece linked in his article, but it's more about Ted Kaczynski's views and Skrbina's engagement with them then it is about Skrbina himself. The book discussed in the article, Technological Slavery, hasn't attracted much attention either. I prodded this article but the prod was rejected, so here we are. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a second reference to Skrbina's publication of Kaczynski's book, this time a major UK paper which highlights Skrbina's role in the publication. As for his contribution, well he is one of the major writers about Panpsychism, and indeed is cited in teh WIkitionary entry of the same. The WP:ACADEMIC page is actually worth reading carefully, as it points out that teh criteria must be applied more loosely when dealing with the humanities. Try googling Panpsychism, and you will see how often he comes up, although I must admit that I cannot read all the article as they are written in such languages as French, German, Norwergian, Finnish, Italian and what I take to be Japanese. "David Skrbina" gets 12,500 in google. So in light of all this I think the case for ntability has been established. Leutha (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You lose at least a thousand of those hits if you exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors. Per WP:CIRCULAR an entry in Wiktionary cannot support an entry here. Skrbina's views on Panpsychism are barely discussed in that article, and only quote from his own works. What's really need are sources by third parties which discuss Skrbina and his views and attest his impact. Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 20 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 13:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006#Green Party, where he is already mentioned. This is commonly done with articles about unsuccessful candidates for office. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 29 January 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 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems sensible under the circumstances. "Number of hits" is rarely a good rationale for keeping an article but it might indicate that there are more sources to be found. No objection to future recreation via WP:DRV on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus - original close vacated, and AfD re-closed as "no consensus" per DRV ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liisa Ladouceur[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, which states that she wrote two books and sources that to the directory pages for her two books on WorldCat, while providing exactly none of the reliable source coverage that it takes to get a writer over either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. And after those two WorldCat citations, the entire rest of the article contains biographical and career detail that cites no sources at all for any of it. (Her own website confirms it all, but that's a primary source which cannot count toward the notability test.) The fact that her books are listed in a directory that aspires to list all books that have ever been published doesn't satisfy our inclusion criteria in and of itself — media coverage about her is what it takes to get a writer into Wikipedia. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up significantly, and no prejudice against recreation in the future if a better version can be written at that time — but this version, as written, does not meet our inclusion standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 18 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 13:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THe subject appears to have had some media exposure, but neither that nor her writing seems to have attracted the level of independent coverage necessary to meet our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Important to the 80s-90s Toronto scene, founded Ninth Wave, everyone knew her. More recently she's been on DNTO and Stromboulopoulos. Article is crappy as is, but subject is notable as far as Canadians/Torontonians go, dunno why you assert you can't source an article on her. PS Bearcat, please tag your AfD nom edits. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple assertions of importance are not a notability freebie if reliable source coverage can't be located to support it. It's not as though this is somebody I've never heard of — I've lived in Toronto since the 1990s, and read both Chart and Eye Weekly for years — but a person doesn't get to keep an unsourced article on Wikipedia just because I've personally heard of her. And I did a news database search on her to see if the sourcing could be beefed up before nominating this, and found exactly zero hits in which she was the subject of coverage. She was either the bylined author of an article about something else, or a briefly-namechecked quote provider about something else, in every single search result that came up — and this wasn't a limited or localized database, either, but one that includes every single major or medium market newspaper across all of Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 30 January 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 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes I googled her name with both Stroumboulopoulos and DNTO and sure enough she was on both, as the helpful hint from AllGloryToTheHypnotoad suggests. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was able to find lots of mentions here and there, she's obviously quite active on social media and the Internet generally. But nothing that was substantially about her from a source that we'd consider reliable. Don't see that she meets WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 15:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalisco State Highway 225[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research article on a 10 kilometer stretch of road from a pueblito in Jalisco, Mexico. Prod was removed citing WP:ROADOUTCOMES, which is an essay not a policy, and I assume the spirit of it is that a state road is a significant piece of infrastructure, which this road is not. I'm having trouble finding a source outside of Wikipedia that confirms this road is actually referred to as a Jalisco estatal, never mind whether it is notable. Google maps calls it Avenida Higinio Ruvalcaba. Vrac (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ only because of difficulties in verifying that this road is a state highway. However, on Wikipedia state highways are considered notable because they have been selected by the state as the most important highways, and generally have several reliable sources on them. --Rs chen 7754 04:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that sources have been found. --Rs chen 7754 04:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - I agree with Rschen that this highway is impossible to verify (I could find no trace of signage of the route on Google Street View) and that state highways are notable. However, this state highway may actually exist with this number, but better sources may need to be found. It would help if we could find someone more familiar with Mexican resources and the Spanish language that could verify if this route actually exists. Dough 48 72 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep now that there is verification that the route exists. Dough 48 72 02:51, 7 February 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 19:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Rschen7754 and Dough4872: found it (at the JAL 238 intersection). Here's the supposedly confusing spur (this type of same-numbered spur is very common in Mexico). A Google search for Huisquilco Yahualica 225 found some sources (many of which label the El Durazno spur as 241). Perhaps it would be better merged into a list, but it is verifiable. --NE2 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yaesu (brand). Daniel (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-290R[edit]

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

This is a stub article, but I can’t see that there is anything notable about this product, despite the claim it was one of the first models to feature both SSB and FM modes in a portable unit. A notability tag has been attached since 2008; there was PROD in 2011 because of this but this was challenged and it didn’t progress to a discussion at that time. There are no primary sources used but the improvement tag that had been placed on the page in 2011 was mis-spelled. There hasn’t been any further substantial work on the page. Suggest delete or perhaps merge to Yaesu (brand) article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Amateur radio has been notified about this debate. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yaesu (brand), as there does not seem to be notable enough for an individual article. If the description of the product could be verified, then including it in the company's article could be useful. I also note that there is a current AFD for another Yaesu product at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaesu FT-901. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 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 19:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lamprecht[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources per WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are links to what appear to be the subject's own posts to various blog pages and a link to his home page, all obviously WP:PRIMARY, a link to the subject's prison record and two trivial mentions, one on the Kaspersky timeline page and another in the Wired article about whether to give prisoners access to computers. Googling turned up two books that might be sources Hacker Culture and Hackers: Crime and the Digital Sublime but these sources seem to be less about the subject and more about the crime. Based on the evidence, I believe this is a case of an individual known only for a single criminal event and, per WP:1E, should probably not the subject of an article. Msnicki (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per being the first to get this verdict.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable for being banned from internets by District Judge in TX, authoring phrack articles [3] (and being "prophiled" in it [4]), ToneLoc,[5][6][7][8] - which he presented a talk for at the SummerCon '93 conference, appearing in BBS: The Documentary by Jason Scott [9], Indeed.com. I found an entire 5 page spread on him[10] in Swing Magazine(a print publication of the 90s[11]) and coverage in Wired[12] Some stuff on LexisNexis[13]. Martin has stuff over at Attrition[14]. ZDNet (Kevin Poulsen) wrote a piece on him. [15] -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:17, 1 February 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 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dsprc's analysis and sources demonstrate notability. Cavarrone 07:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, the archived copy of paranoia.com/~mthreat [16] contains a wealth of sources from the time, including publications such as the Annenberg Journalism Review [17] and various television appearances. I'm sure WP:WIKILIB could dig up more with their privileged access to publications as well. The article needs work but the subject is definitely notable. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for this article's retention do not correlate to our policies on articles of this nature; any information on his death should be in the biographical article itself, as mentioned by some of the editors in the below discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad[edit]

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

Until 17th January,[18] it looked like some attack page based on unreliable hate sites. Almost nothing has been inserted in the section Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Death. This page is not really required, even if his death notable there is generally no need of this page as it could be written in the death section of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. His death is not even debated. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time the article does not source itself as required. The only thing which appears to be even remotely non POV is the Ian Adamson book. We should just move Adamson's material to the death section and remove this page. Some might say "oh its a notable event" but something being notable is no justification for making a poorly sourced, unreliable , non neutral POV hate page for the said event. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources certainly don't support a spinout page and may not support coverage of a "controversy" at all if it can't be better substantiated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 28 January 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 17:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move anything salvageable to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Death per OP, though I suspect that will be very little if anything. Reliable sourcing is almost nil. I concur with Roscelese above. C 1 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His death was notable event in the subcontinent for his followers and his critics. The article should be kept separately on Wikipedia. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is notable and there is no doubt about it. If it is poorly sourced it can be modified by experts but should not be deleted. Wikipedia is edited by experts and non experts. Experts will try to modify and keep the article as it is notable and the editors which are not experts will try to delete it because they have negligible capability to modify it, that is the bottom line. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 07:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I agree with the comment that "experts" are needed to modify this article. And until such an expert is found the article should be deleted. I am quite sure that if an expert recreates this article and removes the concerns which the article has at this moment then he will be making a good contribution and his article will be accepted. However the current article is more of an attack page than an "article". I think we should delete this article asap and then put a comment in the talkpage of the parent article saying that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Death was once an article but it was deleted due to grave concerns about sourcing and integrity of information. This way if an expert in the subject comes along he will be able to create the page while keeping in mind the concerns which have risen now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we can left the messages on the talks of Autopatrolled users that are expert in biographical articles and other stuff related to it. Instead of recreation it is east to modify the article. Here it is not the case we lack experts but we have to inform them about the matter.

Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article is about a notable event in the history of Islam in South Asia. However sourcing should be improved. Egopearl (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a subset of "Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" and thus should be deleted if the latter was correctly decided to be deleted. Much of what exists currently was written by me, so I'm going to keep a copy of it.--Peace world 11:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourced info that isn't in the death section of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, then redirect to that page. If I wanted to know about him, I would read that page and expect all this information, including information about any controversies surrounding his death, to be there. If there's enough for a stand-alone article there should be a link to it at the top of the death section. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Khalifa[edit]

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

Promotional article fails WP:NMUSIC Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG ([19], [20]). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as per nomination. Athachil (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And There Was Light[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK; and besides, this article doesn't even discuss the book that is its topic (outside of some praise), but covers the book's topic instead. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Article exists solely to promote. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The book doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an entry and this is so unambiguously promotional and so filled with peacock phrasing that it would be speedyable on that criteria alone. I just can't find any in-depth coverage of this book. It's listed as a resource in a handful of books, but nowhere near enough to where it'd pass NBOOK. At the most this could probably be listed in a "further reading" section in the main article for Atlantic Union College, but there's no real need for this to be otherwise mentioned in that article and it makes little sense for this to re-direct. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added for to a new FR section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined to speedy delete it via G11. It is not promotional for the book. To some extent it is promotional for the college, but removing a few words would fix that. But the book is not notable. It is not even in WorldCat, which is a minimum requirement for a US publication. The author, has written no other books: world cat shows only a short journal article and a phd thesis DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athan Grace[edit]

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

Not significant coverage in secondary sources. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two uncredited roles as an extra in minor films and maybe something coming up. WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:BIO/. -- Sam ^Sing! 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources.The article has new sources posted.Weeknd112 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources do not assert Grace's notability. Most don't even mention him at all. Articles about him are what are needed. Interviews with him. Just because someone has appeared in some movies does not necessarily merit them having a Wikipedia article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not add a semi-protected tag to the article, since it is not semi-protected. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he has ever been in a notable production. No sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Athan Grace article should not be deleted. Marydaniels8 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 To the Youth in Europe and North America. Clear consensus against keeping. Verified as a related search term. Nothing to merge. czar ⨹ 14:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Letter4u[edit]

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

Non-notable hashtag, definitely not a Je suis Charlie or I Can't Breathe. Article is more based on the letter itself, which already has an article '''tAD''' (talk) 15:29, 1 February 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 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Needs to be merged with main article To the Youth in Europe and North America. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to To the Youth in Europe and North America. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable source seems to be a singular, passing mention in the NYT article.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes.non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MSC Cruises[edit]

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

Advertising with two IPs editwarring to get the promo in The Banner talk 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - AfD is not for sorting out issues that can be fixed in the course of normal editing. If there is a problem with IP editors, the solution is semi-protection WP:RFPP is thataway. Problems with promotional tones or advertising can be dealt with in the normal course of editing.
- If have tried but the promo was always put back in. The Banner talk 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not really seeing any reason to delete, The article isn't promotional at all?.... –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The section "Summer 2015 Itineraries" is the list of tourist destinations available, ready to book. The Banner talk 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not really seeing any reason to delete, as Davey2010 said, and this article doesn't seem promotional to me. Keep this article as it is now! Kefalonitis94 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all of the above reasons I vote to keep this article as it is! 62.1.132.114 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget to tell that you are the one putting al the tourist-destinations in the article. The Banner talk 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I appreciate the desire to keep these neat and tidy, the first paragraph gives a couple of good reasons this should be kept. MSC is one of the largest shipping companies in the world and this is a notable division of it. That said, it might be worth a visit to WP:RFPP if IPs are edit-warring over it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just notice that admin Mjroots has done exactly that. I think that should take care of the nominator's most immediate concerns. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That it was a serious concern can be seen here: IP mass reverting all my edits and getting himself blocked. The Banner talk 18:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me be nice and friendly. I have removed the tourist again. Hope it stays out. And just saying "Problems with promotional tones or advertising can be dealt with in the normal course of editing." is not going to work without doing something. That will just protect the spammers and leaves the spam in the articles, jeopardising the neutral status of Wikipedia. For now: speedy close as keep and I expect action from other when the spam returns. The Banner talk 18:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping a weather eye on the article. Semi-protection can be enabled for as long as is necessary, even permanently if needs be. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelino Bautista Sifuentes[edit]

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

Poorly sourced self-promo piece. Blatant advertising with IP putting removed promo back in. The Banner talk 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as Wikipedia defines it. There is a long list of supposed "references" at the article, but of the half-dozen I checked, not one even mentions him. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Autobiography - self promotion. Wikipedia is not a personal web site. If Siguentes is truly notable someone else unconnected with him will write the article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 14:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to build a home[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Article previously PRODded but the author removed the tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wanted to Db it as essay but wasn't sure what code to use. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G6/NOTHOWTO - I too wasn't sure what to use so figured G6 would be okay, It'll probably be declined!,Anyway we're not an Instruction manual. –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Speedy was declined and it nearly ended up redirected to House-building [21] - What the hell happened to IAR on this place? .... Common sense clearly lacking here!.... –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a manual. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTESSAY. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Speedy Delete per the above. It's quite obvious where this is headed to. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IAR/SNOW. Even being extremely charitable I can see no policy-based way to give what is essentially a How-To guide a proper encyclopedic treatment. Crow^Caw 21:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I'm not quite sure how this unsourced original essay made it this far. Almost a test article, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What speedy deletion criterion applies? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTHOWTO. Definitely not deletable by WP:G6 IMO, but a probable WP:A7 or WP:G2? Or just wait a bit more for WP:SNOW here. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect like yourself I had no idea what criteria I should do it under hence G6 .... If you do NPP you'd realize how picky some admins really can be!. –Davey2010^Talk 13:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Even if Wikipedia is an instruction manual, this isn't even a set of instructions. MicroPaLeo (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and close per Wikipedia:CSD G11 and Wikipedia:CSD G6 Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.Snowager (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forever,always[edit]

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

No indication of notability. My search utilizing the Google search engine, found only the wikipedia article and some social media stuff. There is not any information about this story from reliable, independent sources. VViking_TalkEdits 12:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible vanity project by an SPA. I encountered zero info on the net about it. Something about the plot rings a bell - by that I mean I think I've seen those names in another AFD sometime in the last year - I could be mixing them up though. MarnetteD|Talk 22:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NF. While the article provides us a plot, we do not have release year, cast, writer, director, producer, or any other content that could lead to proper sourcing (should it exist). Heck... it may not even be an English language film, and the point here is we do not have enough to allow any expansion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup. Fails WP:MOVIE. Faizan (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MOVIE.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sobuj Barta (Children News Portal)[edit]

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

non notable, there is not anything about it besides its website online Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable web content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable secondary sources which would establish the notability of this web site under GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Iroh. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iroh[edit]

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

A recurring character from a TV series. I doubt that he meets WP:GNG. All sources cited are primary sources (episodes of the TV series) or occasionally sources associated with the TV network. It is not inconceivable that some degree of third-party coverage exists in the form of reviews, but I think that it is more likely that there isn't enough to build an article on and convey notability. In this form, the article is more something to be expected from a fan wiki, as it is mostly plot summary and in-universe description, including original research. Sandstein 22:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to respectable articles. Tutelary (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters unless independent sourcing is found talking about him specifically. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mako Iwamatsu's page should get some expanded Iroh commentary, because... wow, what a role to end on. He was brilliant. Solarbird (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as separate article Iroh was an important enough character in the series to have a separate page. He was directly involved in Zuko's maturation process and was an integral part of the series plot. Many who watched the series would agree with this. Also Iroh was basically one of the last roles that Mako Iwamatsu played before he passed. That's also pretty notable. I'm afraid we're going a bit overboard with the "wiki-lawyering" here and I also believe there's a callous disregard for the work that was put into this article...an article by the way that was once a "Good Articles" nominee. It seems very bizarre that a former GA nominee is now being nominated for deletion. I believe that folks are being a little overzealous here...which can be to the detriment of Wikipedia.G. Capo (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Iroh is a major character (appearing in a majority of episodes) in the highest-acclaimed and most-watched animated series of the 2000s. Upon rethought, merge/redirect as per others. Pax 03:48, 9 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is Iroh a major character, many other articles on the main characters exist in their own right. For example, Aang, Sokka, and even Asami Sato. Iroh was in both The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra and deserves a place on the wiki as a major character in one of the most popular animated shows of the past decade. And continues to be popular. And I agree with G. Capo, this is a well written article. After looking at the article again, Merge and redirectSamWilson989 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was poking around for other things and found this article at Animation Anamoly which might help anyone considering improving the article. Solarbird (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. The article is basically a plot summary. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but none is asserted. The arguments for keeping do not convince. Being a character on a successful show does not make one notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Being played by a talented actor does not make one notable (again, see WP:NOTINHERITED), nor does being one of the last (or first, for that matter) characters such an actor played. That there are articles for other characters from the series does not matter (WP:OTHERSTUFF), and if some/all of the other articles have similarly tenuous claims of notability, the solution would be to bring those other ones to AfD too, not give this one a pass. And it really should (but apparently does not) go without saying that what "[m]any who watched the series would agree with" is not what we should be basing decisions of character notability on. If we did, we'd be flooded by articles on every fictional character from everything that has its own article - every show, every movie, every book, every game. How is that a good thing? Isn't that what wikia is for? Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to apply these standards, then you might as well start deleting about 1/3 to a 1/2 of Wikipedia articles. What is the notability of a number of comic book characters in the real-world or TV show characters that have their own wiki articles? What is the notability of the large numbers of athletes who are not famous but have their own separate Wikipedia article? Please define "does not matter"? What may not matter to you may matter quite a lot to someone else. Wiki is important in that it has become "The People's Encyclopedia". It's become the first "go-to" site to get info quickly. I'll agree that a number of articles probably shouldn't be on wiki. However, when we start deciding which article is not important because we don't feel it's important, you're detracting from what makes Wikipedia special. If you don't believe the subject matter that is being discussed is important, feel free to ignore the article and read something that's important or relevant to you. Someone else will likely gladly read the article in question. G. Capo (talk) 23:51, 19 January 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, Michig (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I'd agree that if consensus led to this article being merged, then we should have discussions on the rest of the articles on Avatar characters too. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, and it reminds me of the abominably WP:Coatracked Asami Sato article which recently survived AfD on a no-consensus. I've changed my vote above. Pax 14:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this article could be improved. There's been some work on it which has improved it somewhat. It needs quite a bit more - right now, I am not willing to vote to retain - but still, it's a start. Given how extensively quoted Iroh's dialogue continues to be, I wonder if there might be notability from that, and urge the article's supporters be given more time while this discussion continues. Relatedly, I strongly disagree with the idea that a consensus to delete and redirect this article should be used as a springboard to systematically RfD other pages, and I further suggest that comments made above about coatracking w.r.t. Asami Sato are both inaccurate and inappropriate to this discussion. Solarbird (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying the other articles should have an instant nomination for deletion, but I just feel that it's a discussion that will have to be had. That should not in any way influence anyone's decision on what they think should happen to this article in particular, that would be inappropriate. I think I'd agree with you on that the article needs more time, as at this point I'm leaning towards merging and redirecting towards the main list of characters article despite believing that Iroh himself is too notable as a character of the show, and in his own right. SamWilson989 (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Let us try the last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge ~~Keep~~ – Here is a page from a book that is rather interesting, because it is the creators of the series discussing how Iroh became a major character in the series. Mainly I'm !voting keep because neither the nom nor any of the delete votes have given any indication that they have made the minimal effort to find sources required by WP:BEFORE. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Margin1522: That's a book by the creators of the series and therefore not the sort of independent source we look for. As to sources, I'm very familiar with the sources that exist about the second series and much about the first - it was I who wrote most of the main article The Legend of Korra and the season articles - and I've not come across any sources that would help here. Sandstein 19:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: OK, then I will !vote merge as well, because my own search of Google turned up nothing but fan sites. List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters looks like the natural destination. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I've changed my mind, there are not enough sources that show Iroh is worth his own article. Merge to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters is definitely a better solution. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few more secondary sources on Iroh. This may adequately demonstrate the character's notability. G. Capo (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article's subject fails to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NCHAR and should be redirected to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Iroh. I don't think the standalone article has anything that would be worth merging into the list, but I'm in favor of leaving its page history intact just in case. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G2. A7 might also be valid, but the text in the page itself made it clear this was a test or joke. Reso lute 23:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Coyotes @ Montreal Canadiens[edit]

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

This is a non-notable regular season NHL game. The fact that it is scheduled to be played on Super Bowl Sunday does not confer notability. It is very doubtful that this game will receive significant coverage from reliable sources beyond routine coverage. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Under both A7, as a article with no assertion of notability, and G3 as a vandalism article: such bits as "Completely pointless sub-section" and its "Conclusion" section as supporting. The creator, User:Clarktricia86, deserves a good trout-slapping. Ravenswing 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ravenswing. Regular-season games that haven't even been played aren't close to notable, and there's plenty of nonsense in the article too. ansh 666 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 843[edit]

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

Coverage of this incident does not the general notability guidelines. I actually expected to find references to this event without any trouble, but apart from the usual air crash database entries, some forum discussions and several sites hosting the same video, I can't. YSSYguy (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to present just ASN and a YouTube video as refs, but I couldn't find much else. Anyway, considering the circumstances (the engine exploded AND part of the wing broke off), it's pretty amazing that the pilots of this flight were able to make it even another mile from where the explosion happened and land safely with no one getting hurt whatsoever.--STH235SilverLover (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the lack of references is due to the fact the the event took place in 1965. Let me see if I can find another reference...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the incident is fairly significant. It did get a brief mention in The Times. The NTSB investigated, and a synopsis is available online. Presumably there would have been coverage in the American Press, just a question of finding the stuff. Anyone know of any accessible online archives of American newspapers? Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Comment~~ Keep - additional info: Newspaper clippings 1, 2, and 3, NTSB brief data summary 4, and CAB original report 5.--Godot13 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Godot13: - the newspaper clippings require subscrition. Whilst not optimal, they are admissable. The CAB report is very useful. I would add that ASN, used as a ref in the article, mentions an issue of Life magazine that can also be used as a source. As I said, its just a question of finding stuff, rather than the accident not being notable. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - ""Miracle" Saves Airliner As Part of Wing Falls". The Salina Journal. 29 June 1965. p. 1. Retrieved 2 February 2015 – via Newspapers.com.
    - "19 Minutes of Terror: Crippled Plane Lands". Statesville Record And Landmark. 29 June 1965. p. 1. Retrieved 2 February 2015 – via Newspapers.com.
    - ""Mayday!" The Pilot Radioed. A Crowed Plane was in Trouble". The Bristol Daily Courier. 6 July 1965. p. 7. Retrieved 2 February 2015 – via Newspapers.com.
    - The clippings should be useable as refs now (I think). I'll try to have a look for the Life article...--Godot13 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG - the lack of video may have more to do with recentism and the ubiquity of video cameras. I do think that we need to do our utmost to counteract that inherent bias in our sources, but here we don't need to break a sweat in finding reliable sources describing the incident. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentally as WP:NOTNEWS. Yes it happened, yes it was reported in newspapers when it happened but this is essentially a non-notable incident: no fatalities and caused by sloppy maintenance, so no changes to aircraft design &c.TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is notable per WP:EVENT, as Wikipedia:Notability (fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents) is not a notability guideline, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, and meets WP:PERSISTENCE due to (among others) in-depth coverage as recently as 2012.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was thinking delete until I saw the 8mm film on Youtube. This incident is notable and will be even better w/some improvements. Samf4u (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Wightman[edit]

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

Lots of BLP concerns here, especially since the sources are all either terrible or broken and I haven't been able to find sufficient sources to even pass WP:BIO. A few sources about practicing without a license, a couple blurbs in bodybuilding magazines -- a little here a little there but not enough overall, especially given our standards for sourcing for BLPs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 January 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) 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few reliable sources in the article already, and combined with sources I was able to find, such as the following, [22] [23] [24] that seems to be enough to meet WP:BIO. Of note is the second source I linked to, which said that she "may be the most famous exotic dancer ever to emerge from the Boston area." Everymorning talk 13:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some decent publications in there, like People and Boston Herald, but I don't think they amount to WP:BIO, especially a WP:BLP, given the focal point is her crime. That most of the links are broken doesn't help. There are sources about her crime, and it sounds like there might be a couple local sources about her being a stripper in Boston. Other than that we have an article about some relationship with Cat Stevens and images of her modeling in a couple magazines. The number of sources does indeed seem to be decent, but the majority of it is about a crime (including those you link above), and per WP:CRIME we don't typically include articles about people whose notability is primarily tied to a crime. It's not a miserable failure of WP:BIO, but I don't think the article passes it. The bigger reason for nomination, however, is the weight of the crime in the context of her notability for the writing of this article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was very well known as a stripper in Boston. See Combat Zone, Boston. No discussion of the old Combat Zone fails to mention her along with Chesty Morgan. She's discussed at length in this academic paper: [25]. Later she was in the news for practicing psychology without a license, which was interesting precisely because she'd been well known as a stripper. --Rosekelleher (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Here she is mentioned as a "cult figure": [26]
- Here she is mentioned in Harvard Magazine: [27]
- A search on her name turns up Roswell Angier's book about the Combat Zone: [28]. (Angier was one of the photographers featured in a much-discussed 2010 gallery exhibit about the combat zone.)
- As well as the Cat Stevens songbook: [29]
- Here she's mentioned as a kind of symbol of changing times: [30] (Not the greatest source, perhaps, but this author does cite his own sources.)
I don't know why I care, but I'd be willing to do some work on the article. It just makes me sad to think of her being deleted. Especially when I see articles devoted to individual episodes of sit-coms, and things like that. --Rosekelleher (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. To be honest, it feels judgmental, that's what bugs me. This is the second nomination for deletion? If she was notable in the past, she's notable now. Why so zealous? --Rosekelleher (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Poulton[edit]

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

Journalist is non-notable. Sources are predominantly primary sources and/or closely connected to subject. Creator of article may have a conflict of interest by being related to subject. Penbat (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I deleted really useless info like she has a daughter and where subject went to elementary school already. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to add that it reads to me like a promotional CV.--Penbat (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The current citations as I found them are an utter train wreck of tabloid journalism and Legacypac is absolutely right to strip the stuff out that completely violates WP:BLP, but nevertheless her presence across BBC Radio alone gives me confidence I can salvage a proper biography with good sources out of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use better sources, but the fact that she has a live show on TV should be notable enough in its own right. We are talking BBC, not "KRAP"/AM radio/local cable access. Certainly she seems to have stirred up some controversy, and that carries some notability as well. It could stand improvement in tone, and be less promotional. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She does not have a TV show, live or otherwise. She has sporadically appeared as a guest on BBC radio programs and has in the past appeared as a guest on ITV TV shows such as "This Morning" when debating with Katie Hopkins.--Penbat (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think I could be charitable enough to say that calling Poulton a "zebra in a wig" is "debating". ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see my error - her live show "Sonia Poulton Live" Was on The_People's_Voice_(internet_TV_station). Even so, her various appearances in other media are still enough to retain the page in an improved form. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And assuming that said TV station is actually notable (I'm surprised it is), it means we can't simply redirect Poulton to the Daily Mail, which would be my option #2, which kind of cements a keep vote. Even so, I would really really like all traces of the Mail obliterated as sources if at all possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: The original article was a bit of a mess, but there's been some good work done on it and I think there are enough good sources now to demonstrate notability. Squinge (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Tentative based on the two comments below - will see how it goes in the 7 days. Squinge (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just removed a couple of blatant errors/exaggerations from the intro claiming she is a broadcaster and she has worked for international organizations. Quite honestly, once you strip away the hype she is quite a marginal journalist, occasionally writing columns as a freelancer for UK national newspapers and occasionally making guest appearances on UK TV and radio shows. Just deleted another unsupported statement "contributed to The Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 for THREE years" - Poulton does not even claim this on her own website. --Penbat (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more cleanup on the article. I have noticed the more I dig into sources, the more controversy and criticism I'm uncovering. If Poulton herself wanted the article gone per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I could support that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its heroic for you to do so much work but it looks to me more a goner than before. I have just cleaned up several bits of blatant hype I wasnt aware of when I raised the AFD. Some of the remaining material remains dubiously sourced eg from Poultons own website.--Penbat (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one - but thankyou as well for your improvements to the article. I haven't fixed everything yet, though I believe everything I haven't swept through ie: the Mail and her own site is tagged as ^{[failed verification]} or ^{[better source needed]} (and if it isn't, please tag it). I would say her own site is okay for basic information like her full name, alma mater and basic dates of employment though per WP:SELFPUB that's about all you can do. Still, I have now learned a new insult - "zebra in a wig", and if nothing else, that's worth taking away from this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There must be hundreds of journalists at Poulton's level who dont have a Wikipedia entry. Just to pick an example at random, as she happens to get a mention in the article - Shona Sibary https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22shona+sibary%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=hh25VIH8LMzqUvXGgMAC She has also appeared on "This Morning" and has provoked controversy - so have countless other people.--Penbat (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I agree that the subject of the article is a lightweight that does not meet any of our notability guidelines. None of the 24 sources listed represents substantial coverage; they are either routine, tangential, trivial or do not meet the requirements of our sourcing policies. Even taken together, and together with the similar sources I found in my own web searches, they don't add up to much, at all. She is simply too minor a figure in the British journalistic world to merit a stand-alone article, and even less significant on a global scale. Nothing worth merging or saving. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:53, 16 January 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, slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 25 January 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) 06:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wade[edit]

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

reads very promo like now, not sure if he meets notability yet? Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Being a contestant on a reality TV show does not confer notability. Currently unsourced. Willing to reconsider if sources giving significant coverage are provided not connected to his appearance on the show. Cowlibob (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article undoubtedly needs a lot of work, however, it is salvageable. I believe placing in the top 8 of arguably the largest music competition in the United States satisfies WP:MUSIC, specifically 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. It really doesn't get much bigger as far as music competition's are concerned, and if you look at [[Category:The Voice (TV series) contestants]] you will see that most of the artists were kept on Wikipedia solely for their notability on The Voice. Not to mention charting on the iTunes top 100 on more than one occasion. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@War wizard90: I've read that bit to mean that they medalled in the competition i.e top 3 or were finalists. I can't comment on the WP:OTHERSTUFF and can only discuss whether this article is notable in itself. Cowlibob (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Well it doesn't clearly say if it means you need to place in the top 3, top 3 in a smaller music competition may be less prestigious than top 10 in a competition as large as The Voice. However, I guess that is for the community to decide. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. No references. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 25 January 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) 06:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, as the article is completely lacking references. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KZD-85[edit]

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

Unsourced, badly written affair that seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are given here:

Page of the Swiss Air Forces about the KZD-85 in German language only
Pictures and short english text about the KZD-85

As only total 60 of this KZD drohnes where ever build and the swiss air force is the only operator of (now 30) of them it is not so easy to find informations about it. But it is still in use since nearly 30 years and will be used by the swiss air force for the next 5 years, it is an importent factor. So Keep it. FFA P-16 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are independent, reliable, prior published sources. The two you give here fail both on that point as the first one is from the Swiss Air Force itself and the second is a forum. The Banner talk 12:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The swiss air force home page is the best one, first hand informations.. and don't say this is promo.. this could you may say if the information would be from the homepage of the Farner Werke who build it, but not of the swiss air force page, the swiss air force don't try to sell it. I had writen this page i have given this two refrences, this 2 are enough also in the german wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) @ 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author of this article is a Swiss Air force enthusiast whose Wikipedia competence not always matches their enthusiasm. However, a cursory Google Books search shows that this UAV has been covered as much as one would expect a 1980s weapons system to be covered in military publications, including Jane's All the World's Aircraft, p. 418, and World unmanned aircraft, p. 73. Sandstein 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible, possible. But a copy of your text as external links is of course not a source. The Banner talk 17:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandstein, i add the informations you brought up here into the article. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well a printet source is well enough It don't has to be a online source. But here we have the link who shows that the printet one realy exist. And Jane's All the World's Aircraft is well known as reliable. So we have this Book and the Swiss Air Force Homepage.FFA P-16 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 25 January 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) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sandstein has established the notability of the topic. Kudos to User:FFA P-16 for getting the page started. Andrew D. (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu[edit]

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

Article fails WIKI guideline, reliable reference sources untraceable, subject was just a senior employee and he no longer work with the mentioned co emami too, the article was discussed earlier at AFD and wrongly misunderstood the subject as N. Venkat , Couple of people with the name N.Venkat are referred while ref search; one of them is also a management professor but not the same or relate to the subject mentioned in the article. One life to live (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (banter) @ 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -One life to live, Hi, how did you know he was 'just a senior employee' and now 'no longer works' with Emami Co.? If he is not "N. Venkat", who is he then? I've just finished off my basic online research on subject, and it appears to me that they really are "N. Venkat" and the former CEO of Emami Co. The article was created in 2008 by an editor as, "Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu is the Chief Executive Officer of Emami House[..]", and then we see contemporary reliable sources that say, "N. Venkat is the CEO of the Emami House". Doesn't it suggest they both are the same person with latter being short form of lengthy one? The only case may be here that Mr. N. Venkat's full name may not be "Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu". However, if we look at one self-published source, it confirms their name as "Venkateswarlu Nelabhotla". Creator wanted to create an article about CEO of Emami house, -and that was N. Venkat that time (primary source). Did I miss something?

With all these findings, the only valid question now survives in-here is that, is Mr. N. Venkat eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia? I think, yes, for they have been discussed in detail in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (WP:GNG?), such as The Hindu, Business-Standard, Business-Standard2, Financial Express, Economic Times, VCCircle, Moneycontrol^{may be unreliable!}, Businesstoday, Business-Standard, Deccan Herald, Daily Excelsior, etc. With all these coverage of subject in the Indian daily English newspapers, if there are even half of this coverage in Indian daily Hindi and other languages newspapers (doesn't sound plausible?), subject easily qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Again please let me know if I'm missing something. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anupmehra (talk · contribs)Hi, I also got the similar search results and few more as mentioned earlier about N. Vekat (professor) . Firstly subject was a senior employee i.e.“CEO" with Emami, after that he moved to Birla wellness and now looks like he started his own co. Vyome Biosciences. This is what the multiple coverage (also shared by you above) provide the information about the subject. This made me question about the Notability of the subject. The point what I am trying to make is “Yes" he was a CEO of one company and now co founder CEO of his own company and we do have sufficient coverage for this but what significant work the subject has done making him notable enough ? Just being a CEO of a company is notable enough ? I could not trace any coverage to answer this concern, hence requested this discussion.One life to live (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India is home to at least 1.22 bn people, therefore it is very likely that a name would be shared between many people. Not only in here but in many fairly smaller countries too, a name is shared between many. So, there may be many "N. Venkat" around. It is not a problem however, if professor N. Venkat turns out to be notable for inclusion, we'll create them an article titled "N. Venkat (professor)".

We do not really look for what a person has done or accomplished in their field, but just were they written about in detail in multiple reliable sources independent of them?, that's just it. We assume that they must have done something notable that brought them coverage in many mainstream reliable sources independent of them. I find it irony in terms of TV actors, what the hell impact they have made on society and civilization that they are on Wikipedia. But, you know, coverage, -that's just what Wikipedia looks for and it further discourages editors doing their own research. If it answers your question, you may withdraw your nomination or wait for other editors comment (I'm suggesting withdraw just to save the community time). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anupmehra (talk · contribs) Plz don’t get confused with the professor N Venkat it was referred in context to the first nomination in which subject N Venkat was referred as management guru and concluded to keep the article. To save on that I made a note that other N Venkat are also present which should not be misunderstood to the subject under this discussion. I have a different view point with ref to your comment on TV actor I think they are part of wiki cos they are notable because of individual accomplishments and mentioned information is supported by reliable sources. I don’t think just any TV actor is part of wiki without meeting the guidelines. Coming to the initial discussion you have not answered how the subject is notable ? or is it the company Emami / Vyome Biosciences ? in any case I could not find any mention which makes the subject or the referred company adding to the notability of subject. The intention is not to waste community time but to make wikipedia better I am sure that’s what we all want isn’t it ?One life to live (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait! I didn't answer the basic question, how subject qualifies for inclusion.. Again, they merit a Wikipedia article because they have been published in multiple WP:SECONDARY, independent and reliable sources and thus meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG -notability guidelines (please see sources provide above or in the article for the coverage). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 25 January 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) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Housefull 2#Sequel. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Housefull 3[edit]

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

Filming has been postponed till June 2015.[31] Skr15081997 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Production hiatus is not grounds for deletion, if it already has significant coverage. If anything, that there is a reliable source about the hiatus is further proof of notability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NFF says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I was not aware of that piece of guideline and will remember. Merge/redirect to Housefull 2#Sequel and update with the hiatus status then. No prejudice to split when shooting starts. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine 野狼院ひさし, but he's not not 100% correct. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD Housefull 3 Housefull 3

Comment I appreciate Skr15081997's viewpoint, but he inadvertently misquoted the guideline which instructs "...should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". Generally is not an absolute and editors may also consider alternatives to deletion that preserve information.

Rather than an all or nothing approach, we need to determine if this film, due to its predecessor's notability and production's coverage of this one by such as Times of India,[32][33] Indian Express,[34] Bollywood Hungama,[35][36] NDTV,[37][38] Zee News,[39] Glam Sham,[40] India West,[41] and so many others meets or exceeds notability guidelines so as to be considered one of those rare but reasonable exceptions. Such exceptions are not against policy nor guideline. If kept, the article needs expansion and sourcing per the many available sources, and if deleted it could always be written of and sourced in Housefull (2010 film) and/or Housefull 2#Sequel.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Filming date is confirmed. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I agree with Schmidt that "Generally" doesn't equate to "Absolutely" and we here taking into consideration the subject and their predecessors and production house coverage that exceeds GNG, should consider alternatives to deletion that preserve the information. The film has received consistent coverage in reliable sources that allows it to meet, if not WP:NFF, -surely NEVENT and NFF EXCEPTION. Events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. India mainstream reputable newspapers, -Times of India -10,700 hits for Housefull 3, -Indian Express -5,020, -The Hindu, -914, -India-West, -leading Indian newspaper in USA has 1,980 hits, Hindi newpapers, -that very few are available online has 590 hits.

A subject that does not meet Wikipedia's one guideline, may meet many others. One should remember that the only purpose of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is to improve the encyclopedia and are written to provide guidance to the community's widely agreed norms and ..should always be applied using reason and common sense. Well, to disregard -subject's eligibility to meet gng, nevent and nff exceptions -deleting this now and re-creating it in few months (June?) to comply NFF would constitute nothing but Bureaucratic approach (..rules are not the purpose of the community.) and will be a complete waste of time and effort. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Anupmehra. Ch an der 07:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Filming not to start till June 2015. As per WP:NFF. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy New Year (2013 film) was also redirected, though there was much talk about it. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, your argument led to me to the extremely well-sourced and existing article Happy New Year (2013 film). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was converted from a redirect to a film, once the Filming began As per WP:NFF (this part, part of my argument, was missed) The same should be done with this article. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not missed, but exceptions are allowed. Determining if we have one is why we have these discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bailundo Beechcraft Super King Air crash[edit]

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

There has been no significant in-depth coverage of this event, therefore the general notability guidelines criteria are not met. Not all aircraft crashes are notable, nor does the number of deaths confer notability. I have no doubt that there would have been some brief news wire reports of this crash carried by various news media at the time, but between then and now all there has been is an entry on an air crash web database. I am not in favour of redirecting to the Beechcraft Super King Air article, as I don't think that the article title would actually be a useful search term. YSSYguy (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the criteria for inclusion, i.e., a commercial aircraft seating at least 10 passengers, and the death toll was significant. (crashes with fewer fatalities are often included in Wikipedia). It probably isn't "significant" and doesn't have much press coverage because it happened in Africa; an identical accident with such a death toll in Europe or North America probably would be considered significant enough to include without debate. Wikipedia should be even-handed about this and not so quick to dismiss events in the less-developed world as insignificant just because of the lack of attention paid to them in the developed world. Mdnavman (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

Where does the "commercial aircraft seating at least 10 passengers" criterion come from? YSSYguy (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mdnavman is referring to the guidelines for List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft when he mentions 10 passengers....William 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions....William 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable small aircraft accident....William 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the aircraft was operating a scheduled passenger flight. That and the relatively high casualty count for an aircraft of this size may just push it above the threshold for retention. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft appears to have been on a charter flight - I can't see any reference to it being a scheduled flight and the Spanish WP says Gira Globo is a charter company. That being said, I don't think the nature of the flight gets the event past any notability threshold. YSSYguy (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is something notable other than the actual crash!--Petebutt (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability aside, the article says this aircraft, (which flew into a hill), "apparently flew too low". Really. It also says "no fire ensued" but the ref actually says "there was ground fire". Moriori (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough deaths to make this notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Number of deaths" is not a criterion for notability. YSSYguy (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-abortion violence[edit]

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

This is demonstrably not a real phenomenon, and if editors are going to insist on assembling ludicrous sources and unrelated events (eg. the murder of Pouillon, which is well-known not to have been politically motivated) to spin out an article from a redirect, we'll have to hold it up to our policy standards. I cannot verify the claim that Alesha Doan's book says anything about "pro-abortion violence", especially since a search of the book brings up nothing and the chapter containing .p 182 is on anti-abortion violence, so it seems pretty unlikely, Alesha Doan doesn't in fact make any claims about the existence of "pro-abortion violence", while Dallas Blanchard's book explicitly states that pro-choice violence is so infrequent that it's impossible to say anything about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Thinking about it further, I'd also support a redirect to Theodore Shulman as that is literally the only identifiable incident of this supposed phenomenon. On the one hand, he did not commit any acts of violence, but on the other hand, redirects are cheap. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome, I would like to strongly discourage editors from recommending redirection. At least at RfD, a good destination that actually discusses the subject was not found. And if you're recommending a merge, make sure a merge will really happen. Unless you see me vote here later, I'm not watching this page, so ping me or something if you need me. --BDD (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as (re-)creator. I created the article in response to a discussion as to where to point the redirect. I'm afraid the nominator is wrong about the murder of Pouillon being "well-known not to have been politically motivated", the CNN article referenced clearly cites it as part of its claim that "There have been at least two abortion-related slayings in the United States this year, one on each side of the debate." Blanchard does not say that "pro-choice violence is so infrequent that it's impossible to say anything about" - he says that it is too infrequent to form a basis for generalizable conclusions" (he wrote this in 1993) and it is "beyond the scope of our immediate concern". Finally, I don't know why the nominator doesn't want to take the Alesha Doan in good faith, but in any case, the snippet view is here StAnselm (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using a different online edition, so thanks for the link. It doesn't help your case, since it attributes this claim to a fringe anti-abortion organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see that Google Scholar comes up with a result: "America's last prophetic witness: The literature of the rescue movement". StAnselm (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what does this article on anti-abortion violence say? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's behind a paywall - but it discusses it, and provides evidence of notability. Please remember WP:PAYWALL. St Anselm (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't access the source, how do you know it contains information on "pro-abortion violence", when its first page and all citations to it only mention anti-abortion radicalism and violence? Why are you attempting to use this to support your case?? I ran the Google Scholar search that you must have run, and got the result you must have gotten, which uses the phrase only in the title of a fringe anti-abortion publication. This is really disingenuous, StAnselm. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it introduces the article by saying "For a recent source on violence against rescuers..." - that is clearly what it's discussing. But yes - I can't see enough of it to use it in the article. St Anselm (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weird WP:POINTy nonsense. Artw (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I came back after all, but am still not watching this discussion.) This is, perhaps, a common misunderstanding of POINT. While it's fair to say StAnselm created the article to make a point, WP:POINT proscribes disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Even if this article is deleted, it must be said that StAnselm improved Wikipedia to make a point. I'm not entirely convinced by either the arguments to keep or delete, but we're already better off than we were when this title was just a misleading redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The problem with this article is that it defines "Pro-abortion violence" as "violence directed at anti-abortion advocates or protesters." but then fails to provide reliably sourced examples of that. There is one documented case of one murder against one anti-abortion advocate. On that basis the article shouldn't use the plural case. The pro-life activist organizations are extremely unreliable POV sources. I don't trust their numbers at all. If the article does quote their numbers, it should note that they are using an expanded definition of "Pro-abortion violence" that includes things like botched abortions and violence by boyfriends against women who refuse to get abortions. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good point. HSI lists two "murders of pro-lifers", but the other one, that of Anne Gordon, cannot said to be "pro-choice violence". St Anselm (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Original research. Sure, there have been violent acts related to the abortion controversy. Information about violent, disruptive, or semi-violent mass protests seems to have been added to the article after the AfD nomination. However the whole topic itself has not been identified in reliable secondary sources. Information on incidents could be added to existing articles on the the pro-abortion movement. That would also be in keeping with WP:Balance.Borock (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW it's actually remarkable that there has been so little violence, considering how large the issue is to both sides. Borock (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been significantly more press coverage (and sadly, violence) since this article was originally created. I will do what I can to help expand it and would encourage others to do so as well. As an aside both Pouillon's murderer and the State of Michigain said that he was killed for his political beliefs. Juno (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is literally the opposite of the truth - the state said that Drake felt that his victims had wronged his family. Shameful, Juno. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drake felt Pouillon had wronged them...by expressing his political beliefs. "Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week." and then from the trial: "He says his mother was upset by Jim Pouillon's pro-life signs and said he was protesting at Owosso High School that day." Juno (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is this attempt to mislead deliberate? He said his mother and nieces were disgusted and scared by the graphic imagery. He has no known political beliefs. This wild attempt to connect an obviously unrelated event to pro-choice is only serving to demonstrate that this is not a real topic that Wikipedia can have an article on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you call quoting the police, and the murder word-for-word about his motives an attempt to deliberately mislead, then sure? Juno (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a POV-driven original essay. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m not crazy about the title because “pro-abortion” does not seem to be a term anyone uses to self-identify but the topic meets WP:GNG.

Fair enough - I would be happy to move the article to Pro-choice violence. St Anselm (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Soonersfan168 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I trust that the throwaway "meets GNG" comments will be given the weight they deserve in the face of a total lack of sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they get more weight than comments like "weird WP:POINTy nonsense"... St Anselm (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources which identify this as a thing are Christian blogs with a clear anti-abortion agenda. They are clearly not reliable sources for this topic. We have a dubious stat published by a self-identified pro-life organization and cited by a clearly-identified pro-life Christian blog; a neutrally-sourced murder of an anti-abortion protester which was revealed to actually be a confused anti-abortion killing; a single person identifying himself as a "pro-choice terrorist", and reports of violence in Australia and Argentina sourced to a Catholic newspaper, an Australian right-wing blowhard (and clearly marked "opinion") and a clearly-identified pro-life youth organization. There are no reliable sources that indicate that pro-choice or pro-abortion violence is a notable thing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the CNN source. But I don't understand the "neutrally-sourced murder of an anti-abortion protester which was revealed to actually be a confused anti-abortion killing" bit. Are you talking about thee Poullion murder? St Anselm (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring the CNN source, it just says very little about this, nothing besides the Poullion murder. My description of it was a bit off, admittedly, but from what I am reading there is no definitive link between Poullion's murder and the pro-choice movement, nor that the murder was at all motivated by political or religious beliefs. His murderer was angry that he was protesting in general, not because of what he was protesting; the shooter then killed another person some time later for some completely different reason, and planned to kill a third but was arrested first. Ivanvector (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit earlier in the article it says "There have been at least two abortion-related slayings in the United States this year, one on each side of the debate." St Anselm (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does. The two are George Tiller, killed for performing abortions (not pro-abortion violence), and Jim Poullion, killed for protesting near a school (not pro-abortion violence). Ivanvector (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR with dubious sourcing. --JBL (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The big issue here is the same as with the RfC on the same subject: that individual incidents of violence against someone who takes a pro-life stance, covered primarily via routine news coverage, are being synthesized here as an overarching phenomenon ("pro-abortion violence"). The sources available for the subject of pro-abortion violence rather than coverage of individual or small clusters of incidents, look to be very, very poor. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Let's look at the sources cited in this article, though. A blog called "PRO-CHOICE VIOLENCE: Setting the story straight about violence in the fight for life"; a blog post about that website; a New York Times piece about a specific incident; a CNN article that appears to be relevant only for its mention of a specific incident; a Huffington Post entry about a specific incident; a Catholic Weekly post about a specific incident; an opinion column in the Herald Sun about a specific incident; and a story about specific incidents on an anti-abortion website. Now, we all know that at AfD what is presently cited is not the whole story, but the sourcing here is entirely consistent with the far more numerous sources over at the RfC and what I was able to find on my own (i.e. articles published in well known publications synthesized in order to line up with a concept that otherwise doesn't exist outside of very unreliable sources). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the RfC at Abortion debate when I created this article. I note that some people are opposing the inclusion of the section there on the grounds that it should have its own article. St Anselm (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur that this topic has been covered sufficiently in secondary sources to justify the existence of an article. The article should and most likely will be expanded with time, but I think that most of the sourcing is decent already. If the factual details of a specific incident of pro-abortion violence are disputed, then additional secondary sources can be cited to provide a counterpoint, but some of these sources, like Catholic Weekly, don't need to be tagged as unreliable unless there is a more reliable source disputing the facts of the incident. Furthermore I think that the claims of original research are inaccurate. Reliable sources like Doan do clearly refer the term, even if it's not a widespread phenomenon like anti-abortion violence, and the sources that refer to violence committed by pro-abortion activists are clearly relevant to the category even if they don't explicitly use the expression "pro-abortion violence". If need be for neutrality reasons, I think that we could rename the article "Allegations of pro-abortion violence".CurtisNaito (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commentː User:Rhododendrites has mentioned the discussion at Talk:Abortion debate#Pro-abortion violence section. There is a list of 30 references there; some of these are from pro-life websites, but most are not, e.g. Chile Cathedral Vandalized By Pro-Abortion Protestors (Huffington Post). Now, some of these are not explicitly pro-choice (though some are); instead they are anti-pro-life. So perhaps the article could be renamed Violence against pro-life advocates. StAnselm (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The example you give here makes my point. Only a handful of unreliable sources are about the phenomenon of pro-abortion violence. The rest is a glut of synthesized individual incidents. You're linking to a story about a case of vandalism. The subject is not pro-abortion violence. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the headline says it clearly: vandalism by pro-abortion protestors. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precisely. It's a news story about a particular incident of vandalism. It was perpetrated by "pro-abortion protestors." That is not about the subject "pro-abortion violence." Coming to that conclusion based on a mess of examples is where the synthesis is. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you saying it wasn't violent? St Anselm (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know how many other ways I can spell synthesis. If I find 20 routine news stories about an act of violence perpetrated against a Canadian rainwater engineer, that doesn't mean we should have an article called Anti-Canadian rainwater engineer violence because we need more and better sources about the subject itself independent of news stories about those individual incidents. Look at the sources at anti-abortion violence. See the many, many sources about the subject of anti-abortion violence and how the subject doesn't rely on routine news coverage of individual incidents. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        ↑↑↑ Exactly. MastCell ^Talk
Delete. I don't think that anyone outside a circle of committed anti-abortion activists believes that "pro-choice violence" is a real or notable phenomenon. Certainly the sources don't support this as a notable topic; they consist of a bunch of anti-abortion websites (proving my point that this is a purely partisan construction) and one or two man-bites-dog stories. This topic doesn't meet our notability criteria, and it smacks of original synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt - per WP:TNT. Besides being synthesis, soap-boxing, and nothing but a conspiracy theory, it's exactly the sort of frat boy misogyny that is giving Wikipedia the bad reputation for being two steps ahead of Gamergate. Salt it so this zombie story remains buried. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this frat boy misogyny? St Anselm (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see any connection between an anti-feminist made-up fringe theory and a woman's right to choose not to have some strange man's sperm in her uterus, then Todd Akin is not the only man who is part of the problem. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a very constructive line of discussion in the context of an AfD. --JBL (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian is making a tendentious argument I hope the admin who closes this debate will ignore. One does not have to be guilty of "misogyny" to think that it would be worth creating an article about pro-abortion violence. Any number of women oppose abortion. Protecting the article against re-creation would be inappropriate, as the topic could easily become notable in future, even if it does not presently meet the notability criteria. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a tendentious argument. I'm making the reasonable claims that (1) this whole article's premise is based on some made-up fantastic male phobia, and that (2) the article's continued existence makes the English Wikipedia look ridiculous and sexist (think of the optics) for hosting such a non-notable fringe theory that doesn't really exist right now. The fact that some females oppose abortion does not lead logically that pro-abortion violence even exists. The whole stub fails WP:V, a basic rule here. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other editors have pointed out that the article is OR and SYNTHESIS. But it is also virtually empty--it contains two items, Pouillon and Shulman, and neither qualifies as pro-abortion violence. According to Harlan Drake, the man who murdered Pouillon, he did it because he and his mother were offended by Pouillon carrying a bloody, gory sign near a school where children could see it, not because of Pouillon's opposition to abortion. If Pouillon had carried a bloody, gory sign in order to protest the war in Afghanistan, or in order to protest the use of animals in scientific experiments, or in order to advertise a local butcher shop, Drake would have shot him just as dead. Pouillon's anti-abortion politics were incidental. As for Shulman, he never did anything violent, and therefore belongs in an article about "Pro-Abortion THREATS or PREDICTIONS of Violence", not "Pro-Abortion Violence". 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:9515:97B:6D8:881B (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor anyone else can know what Drake would or would not have done under other circumstances. I do not myself think that the difference between threats of violence and actual acts of violence is so great that threats do not belong in an article called "pro-abortion violence". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE Drake: That's silly--Drake himself knows why he did what he did and what he would have done in similar circumstances. He told why he shot Pouillon, and it was not because of any disagreement about abortion. Go back to the article and follow the link and read Drake's description of his motives and you will see. RE Shulman: I agree with you in that I could see including Shulman's threats in an article on pro-abortion violence if the article also contained a substantial list of cases of actual pro-abortion violence--violent deeds, not just words, to justify the article's existence. But to create an article entitled "Pro-Abortion Violence" purely on the basis of one case of threats, with no actual pro-abortion violent actions in the article, seems to me to be an unwarranted, unjustified exaggeration and a clear case of WP:SOAPBOX. 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:F959:3DB7:4D2A:FECA (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, as a POV-pushing term mainly pushed by fringe ultraconservatives with delusional persecution complexes. The "sources" that are being used to support the claims in the article are laughably biased and do not meet WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. I could possibly live with a redirect to Theodore Shulman, as perhaps the only credible example of this supposed phenomenon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The title seems a bit non-neutral, and it would be better to rename the article to "pro-choice violence" if the article is kept (which seems rather unlikely). Putting that issue aside, the article is pure OR by SYNTH. When reliable sources start discussing the phenomenon of pro-choice violence, then we can have an article. But we shouldn't be in the business of trying to create a narrative on our own that includes Jim Poullion and Theodore Shulman. They have their separate articles, where reliable sources concerning them can be included. And tabloids from Australia and pro-life websites calling themselves "Live Action News" do not strike me as particularly reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irredeemably POV and OR. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locs Sunglasses[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original reasoning was: Page is entirely original research. A search for sources also fails to demonstrate the notability of this style of sunglasses. Deadbeef 00:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this proposed deletion the style of locs sunglasses has been cited multiple times below in the refeerence links describing 1) hip hop fashion. and as well as its inclusion in actual hip hop songs referring to the actual style. In addition to a image displaying locs sunglasses being worn by a subject ( easy E ) mentioned in the song and a caption describing the style of sunglasses. In my personal experience and my understanding of urban pop culture musical and fashion trends just as stated in the article these are a staple of the hip hop more urban community. And I would say it seems as a slippery slope that there may be a bias against this article based on that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpetetat2me (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 18 January 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (vent) @ 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. Pax 01:03, 30 January 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, only (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Раціональне анархіст. This is an advertisement masquerading as an article or at least the improper use of Wikipedia as a soapbox to proclaim how great this item is. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Lloyd 1748-1834[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Looks like a genealogy page of an admirable ancestor and would be a wonderful entry at an appropriate venue, like ancestry.com. But sadly perhaps, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Gaff (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment this was CSD-A7 speedy delete earlier today. --Gaff (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have three books that give biographies of people who fought in the American Revolution. Two of them have biographies on Lloyd (so we know this isn't a hoax) but say little more than "He was apart of Daniel Morgan's Rifle Regiment -- went to Kentucky -- had a pension". Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER. Fighting in the revolution doesn't grant automatic notability. A few people may be interested in him (his descendants only, probably) but few beyond that. He doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either (I also did a GBooks search -- revealed little more than the sources I physically had do.). Should really be speedy deleted. Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a soldier with no outstanding feats to his credit. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, which outlines the case nicely: fails GNG, the SNG for Soldiers, and runs afoul of our prohibition against more or less random Genealogical entries. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Falls well short of GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not GNG standard. Intothat darkness 23:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Gurung[edit]

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

The article is full of advert/ promotional content, multiple issues , all relinks leads to press-release / blogs , fails wiki guideline One life to live (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 18:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 18:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) @ 18:23, 17 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 13:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pax 01:27, 30 January 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, czar ⨹ 03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a young, up and coming businessman, who has not arrived to the point of actually being notable. He may later be notable enough for an article, but is not yet notable enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio content redacted. Nakon 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trac: Music Traditions Wales[edit]

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

The subject of the article seems to be of unclear notability, and the article is very poorly referenced. The article has also been edited by 81.96.202.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who may be associated with the subject given the use of "our" in this diff which substantially expanded the article. Finally, most of the rest of the article appears to be copied and pasted from the organization's website. V2Blast (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (shout) @ 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 18:24, 17 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 13:01, 24 January 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, czar ⨹ 03:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Described by "the official gateway to Wales" and BBC Wales as "Wales's Folk Development organisation", so claim to notability. I believe a more satisfactory article could be produced based on independent sources such as National Lottery Good Causes, Ty Cerdd (Music Centre of Wales), and Arts Council of Wales : Noyster (talk), 13:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per BLP guidelines I will move this to Death of Catherine Cando §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Cando[edit]

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

Non-notable winner of a minor beauty pageant, the deceased and the circumstances of her death have no enduring significance. References mainly consist of magazine and tabloid sources. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Notability assertion for this person appears not for her as a model (wp:NMODEL), but rather the assertion "Cando's death sparked outrage in Ecuador against plastic surgery," supported by 4 references. One could debate about wp:ONEEVENT, maybe? I am not super-informedr with notability guidelines for persons and specific cases like this, but it looks to me to meet general wp:GNG which trumps more specific notability guidelines.

If others think this should not be kept as it is, is there some list-article about accidental deaths from plastic surgery, that this could possibly be merged & redirected to, as an alternative to deletion? Hmm, there is Category:Deaths from plastic surgery complications, but I don't immediately see a list-article. Should List of deaths from plastic surgery complications be created? If kept, the article should link to any such list, too. I'll edit it to include it into that category right now. --do ncr am 21:59, 31 January 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, czar ⨹ 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the death evidently attracted world-wide attention and thus is notable. Maybe the article should be renamed Death of Catherine Cando, but either way the content should be kept. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Catalyst_(software)#History. czar ⨹ 07:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maypole framework[edit]

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

I proposed this article to be deleted, with the rationale "non-notable dead software project, barely worth a brief mention at Catalyst (software)". Another editor removed the prod with the comment "existing refs sufficient", but that is not true. The refs in the article do not demonstrate notability and my original rationale is still correct. So I'm bringing this to AfD.

Thank you, 176.25.140.245 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page created at request of IP by -- GB fan 12:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree that the available sourcing is insufficient. I can find nothing substantial and independent of the subject. It seems this defunct software was never notable. Reyk _YO! 12:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The IBM Developerworks cite is a strong one, even though it's a dead link. However, gbooks and gscholar aren't turning up anything else, and given that the project is moribund I don't see a future path forward to notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect. Maypole was the first popular high-level Perl web app framework. In addition to the DeveloperWorks article, there was a secondary RS March 2005 Linux Journal article on the framework. Catalyst (software), a far more popular web framework, started life as a Maypole fork intended to be Maypole 3.0, then went its own way. While there may not be enough RS out there to justify a full article on Maypole, the framework is clearly verifiable in multiple RS and it retains importance as the seed from which Catalyst was built. Merging the first paragraph of this article into the history section of the Catalyst (software) article would be a nice addition to the article and would place Maypole in WP where it is perhaps most historically significant. Maypole framework is a plausible search term, so a redirect is also warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add this information from Maypole article to Catalyst_(software)#History? -- JakobVoss (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do so, but premature merging before consensus is reached in AfD discussions is discouraged. --Mark viking (talk) 20:11, 22 January 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:54, 25 January 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, czar ⨹ 02:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk and Lesser Cartographies, any thoughts on JV's position? czar ⨹ 02:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: No objection. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawal; non-admin closure). DivineAlpha (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TeleSign[edit]

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

Promotional, fails notability (Note: An IP address was challenging this by CSD, creating this on their behalf [not sure if I'm allowed to do that?]) DivineAlpha (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 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, czar ⨹ 02:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Hi DivineAlpha, yes, you may make afd nominations on behalf of IP editors. However you should precisely note in afd rationale that it is on behalf an IP editor (that I see you did) and procedural in nature (if you are neutral). Coming to the topic, subject appears to be meeting the WP:NCORP and WP:GNG inclusion criteria (sources are cited in the article). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 19:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deviant UK[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. That they were listed on the MNS Alternative Chart does not satisfy #2 in WP:BAND. Warming up for other acts who headlined in a US tour similarly fails #4. No notable label fails #5 ... The Dissident Aggressor 17:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 18 January 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (spill beans) @ 13:09, 24 January 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, only (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any evidence of notability from reliable sources. No clue what this MNS Alternative chart is because I'm not finding anything through Google for that. only (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in multiple, reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 + WP:CSD#G11 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vesicatoria[edit]

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

Probably can speedy CSD-A7. Foreign language references might be in existence, so will at least list here for a discussion. Minimal assertion of notability made and the only ref of any sort is link to user generated content here: http://vesicatoria.bandcamp.com/ Gaff (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 League1 Ontario. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to League1 Ontario, likely search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with signficant nedia coverage such as [42] [43] Nfitz (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to League1 Ontario, likely search term but not independently notable. Of the two sources noted by Nfitz above, the first, although it has Sigma in the article title is more heavily focussed on the overall Canadian soccer scene in general, although if more similar articles could be shown then I can see that this could be a notable team through GNG. The second source though is just routine transfer reporting, the sort of which long standing consensus exists stating that this does not count toward notability. Either way, this source is about two players who played for the club not the club itself. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly how to add to this convo, but there are a few other teams in League1 Ontario that have their own articles, like Durham United FC, the Windsor Stars, and Toronto FC Academy.Vince193 (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are notable, they should have articles. If they're not, they shouldn't. As it stands Durham United is also being discussed for deletion while Windsor and TFC Academy have a number of news articles and so meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 League1 Ontario. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Durham United FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to League1 Ontario, likely search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to League1 Ontario, likely search term but not independently notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (from Wikipedia, on Earth) postdlf (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonization on Earth[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure this isn't a hoax. Earth is, obviously, the only place that has ever been decolonized and, in many regards, the content of the page is rather specious. While there probably is scope for a disambig to point to the various "Decolonization in X" articles, this is neither the title nor the article to do it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and contentless, unless it turns out this was posted from 2315 for historical perspective on the emerging separatist movements of Mars. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: better summarized at Decolonization, if not already there. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the principle of least astonishment. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Decolonization exists and, at this point in human history, completely overlaps. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept withdrawn by nominator. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Kristina Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable person per WP:NOTINHERITED EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article and its myriad sources speak for themselves. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, an articles content doesn't determine notability. Also may I suggest WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:ITSINTHENEWS. Many people drown in bathtubs yearly, the only reason for coverage is her famous parents which do not dictate notability. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct; an article's content does not determine notability; its sources do. That the article's subject inherits much of her notability from her parents is not in dispute; I argue that Ms. Brown's article makes the case for her own notability, and I stand by my vote. Cheers!

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think two of the sources refer to her bathtub scare, correct? This article is about her life overall. Coverage of the subject has continued long after her mother's death. Yes, she was originally known for only the relation, but now is a celebrity in her own right. Besides that, she is heiress to the Houston fortune, as well as sang with her mother (which still needs to be added). --Kbabej (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest are about her mother. Think of it this way: If her mother wasn't Whitney Houston, would there have been a single news story about her? I want a link to one that isn't because of her heritage but about something she as a person has done. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in discussing "if her mother wasn't Whitney Houston"? Her mother IS Houston and that's what makes her "famous" and that's why she's received media coverage enough to make her notable. Not seeing your point here. G loss 05:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been here over 6 years. Selecting today to delete it? That's the depth of pointiness and wiki-snobbery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: It has been here less than 6 hours! Learn your wiki before calling me a wiki-snob. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation in 2008. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 6 years and 2 months ago. Where is Eo getting that 6 hours from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creation 5 HOURS AGO. Before then it was a community consensus decided redirect. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With appropriate apologies, bullshit. There is no record—none public, anyway—of a discussion, never mind a consensus; it was merely redirected by an editor who has no record—none public, anyway—of ever having broached the topic. Care to prove me wrong? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one last dagger: when this article was redirected on 1 December 2008, Ms. Brown was three months shy of her 16th birthday. She had yet to record any music, make television appearances (connected to her mother or otherwise) or marry a man considered by some to be her brother. Eo seems to be arguing that the last six years didn't happen. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created on December 1, 2008: [44] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deary me you are stubborn. redirected in 2008 because SHE ISN't NOTABLE. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one circling the article like a vulture even as her life may be hanging in the balance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are the lives of the other 151,600 people who died or are dying today. Doesn't mean they get a Wikipedia article. Why? Because their parents aren't famous. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get off deciding that someone who's still in the news 6 years later is "not notable"? Why are you so upset about this that you feel the need to repeatedly challenge every "Keep"? Would it kill you to wait a few days and see how this plays out? Or would that frustrate your deletionist appetite? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Brown is a key figure in her mother's legacy. She's also too well known to not even have an article based on her own life. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If only that was how notability worked. "mother's legacy" and "well known" are two of the worst arguments for notability. If she personally hasn't done anything notable, then she doesn't need her own article. Any info can be merged into Whitneys as thats the only reason she is "famous" (not really). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above - Personally I don't think INHERITIED applies as she meets the notability criteria and appears to have done for quite some time, but meh that's my 2cents on it. –Davey2010^Talk 03:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as well. She has gained significant coverage by media since her mother's death, sources are out there and the article can easily be improved, given it was just put together today.. G loss 05:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Firstly, the nomination is a tad premature; only a few hours after creation (not years as some have stated; the article was indeed a redirect until earlier today/yesterday). However... the recent incident surrounding her has drawn a lot of attention from notable news media, so NOTINHERITED is immediately out of the window. So, the next potential concern is BLP1E. I'm pretty sure that isn't valid either; she received a lot of coverage for her role in the Houston estate, due to a lot of the legal wrangling around it. There was also a lot of coverage about her marriage it, even in reliable sources (e.g. [45]). Comments like "she hasn't done anything notable" are disingenuous at best; our policies and guidelines don't decide whether a person has done anything notable, but whether they are notable. And, like it or not, it appears that Bobbi Kristina Brown is notable, as she meets GNG quite comfortably. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just for the sake of accuracy... the page existed in non-redirect form for a few months in 2013 and a month in 2014. I only state this to show that there was interst in the community for a stand-alone page at various times in the past. —Noah 17:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per explanations above. She has received media attention enough to make her own article notable, even after her mother's death. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep She clearly meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On The Way Pictures[edit]

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

this is non-notable. just a PR piece. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. I was going to nominate this for deletion after I gave it a grace period to locate sources, but I forgot. My own research doesn't turn up anything useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per applying WP:Too soon. We so very few films completed and released, this company does not yet have the sourcing to meet WP:ORG. If or when this changes, allow a WP:REFUND. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Souls RPG[edit]

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

delete as non-notable per WP:GNG, all refs are internal Deunanknute (talk) 00:31, 1 February 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) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (either as "souls rpg" or "bleeding souls"). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 02:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czar. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Czar. I couldn't find any third party reliable sources for this game. (There are some false-positives out there because there's a number of unrelated JRPGs with the word "Soul" in the title. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted as G11, spam. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YAFAK music entertainment[edit]

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

An attempt at paid promotion of a non-notable record label. It appears to be connected to Sufi (rapper), but the (off-wiki) connection isn't clear. On-wiki, the pages have the same author. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - G11 - We're an encyclopedia .... Not an advertisement site!, There's plenty of ways to advertise yourself and this certainly isn't one of them!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wrongly coded. Also, the second reference seems broken. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Davey. Looks like a promotional article. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David P. Anderson. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Open System for Skill Aggregation[edit]

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

Non-notable software project undeveloped for 6 years Ysangkok (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David P. Anderson, the scientist who started the project, since the project has gone undeveloped and therefore it's unlikely that new references will show up in the future. Note that these two references are available:[46] [47]. Bananasoldier (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David P. Anderson, organizer of the project. Sourcing is thin and notability independent of the organizer is not established.Dialectric (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7, "No explanation of the subject's significance (band/musician)". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sufi (rapper)[edit]

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

This seems to be a rather obvious attempt at paid promotion. The sources are awful, and some are actually about different people with similar names, so I would even describe the sources as fraud. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. non-notable (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - G11 - We're an encyclopedia .... Not an advertisement site!, There's plenty of ways to advertise yourself and this certainly isn't one of them!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article with no indication of notability. Probably an advertising attempt connected to the ‎YAFAK music entertainment article. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -A7 -No sign of significance. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Scout[edit]

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

delete per WP:GNG non-notable private boyscout event Deunanknute (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable, local Scouting event. Content could be forked into the page on whatever area of BS-USA operates it, but certainly not deserving of its own entry. DiverScout (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - was instantly deleted as non-notable even as an entry on the most obvious parent page. DiverScout (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. It is a local unit event and we have very few unit articles. If it was a council event, then it would work in the council article. -- Gadget850^talk 14:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable, unit-level event; no evidence this exists outside the troop -- Gadget850^talk 12:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as above, non-notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable local event. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unit level, not council.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Avey Noble". IMDB.

[2] "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons". Wikipedia.

[OSAA-3] [1], OSAA.

[1]

[2]

[1]