Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 February	12 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 Speedy Deleted - G7 - The creator decided to create, nominate and then blank the article .... Not sure why but there we go! , NAC –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biofinz Incorporation[edit]

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

Later Hirak1525 (talk) 22:52, 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift[edit]

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

notability unclear; old age is not sufficient. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an old age regularly publishing scientific journal, it sounds like it would meet the criteria of BEING a reliable reference for other articles. If it could be used as a reference for other things, it would seem to me that it would be notable enough for an article of its own. We have articles on pretty much every OTHER academic journal out there. It would be my understanding that all this article needs to do is establish that it is, indeed, an academic journal, and thus deserving of an article. Fieari (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this that could be useful to determine the impact of this journal. // Liftarn (talk)
Keep The journal is abstracted and indexed in Biosis Previews (not sure how selective that one is) and Scopus. The latter is becoming less selective, but inclusion in it is generally accepted as indicating sufficient notability in these AfD discussions. I have added this to the article, together with references. --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With that I withdraw the nomination, if this has any effect. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:37, 12 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Derlon[edit]

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

non-notable person, reads like an advert for her company Deunanknute (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if her company was notable enough (and I wouldn't say that this is necessarily true), there's nothing to even suggest that this person is notable enough. Fieari (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:08, 17 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Greene (artist)[edit]

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

no refs, appears non-notable (tough name to google), BLP issues, probable COI/autobiography Deunanknute (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; very difficult to find any secondary coverage at all. Blackguard 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nothing to suggest notability. Having an accident is unfortunate but doesn't make notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that his works comes anywhere near notability. The whole thing about being in a hit-and-run accident is totally trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 13 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 both. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Souman Bose[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources - just passing mentions, apart from the blog interview cited. His one claim to fame is for being second unit director on the film Sold, but I can find no evidence of his involvement in online credits for that film. Dai Pritchard (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it similarly gives no indication of notability per WP:NFILM, with no significant coverage online from reliable, secondary sources:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Souman Bose

Delete both for now per WP:Too soon. Both are spoken of in Telegraph India and Hindustan Times but nowhere else. WP:GNG and WP:NF and WP:BIO are currently failed. If more coverage is forthcoming, a WP:REFUND maybe considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -First one fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:GNG and second one, WP:NF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No demonstrable notability for either. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is very faint. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:19, 17 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Shuwen[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Google web and book searches of his English and Chinese name result in no notable coverage except on the wiki-like website imslp.org. Zanhe (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RS are almost exclusively on passing mentions of Go Seigen's mother, whose name has the exact same characters. Also can I know why "Nan'nan" is listed for the Chinese character box (Not that it turned anything up, just curious)? 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an autobiography. It could be speedied if such an article was posted on Chinese wikipedia. Also, the Zhejiang Daily article is not about him, but about people's daily life in Xinchang County. --Antigng (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No serious claim to notability, and no evidence of good quality reliable sources to support such a claim anyway. Korruski^Talk 14:09, 17 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 21:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Lesnick[edit]

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

Earlier I thought that the subject is partially notable, but after reading WP:AFC and searching for references once again I changed my mind. Though I wanted to give the page a fair chance, therefore I'm going through the discussion. According to me the page fails WP:NOTE and tries to promote the subject in an overtly manner without imparting any real information. Mr RD 22:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found. Good example of Melanie's Law: An article which refers to its subject by the first name almost always turns out to be non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 18 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. - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aughintober Pipe Band[edit]

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

Another non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good enough reason for deletion - please be more specific. Article relates to an active pipe band, although does require updated. --Thehorseltd (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Grade 2 band, which means it is good, but not really significant on the competition scene, and there is almost no secondary coverage that I can find. Ostrichyearning (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possibly notable - I can't find any older secondary coverage, but I'm probably not looking in the right places. Ostrichyearning (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Withdraw nom, will make effort to improve article. Ostrichyearning (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. makes adequate claims to notability and is not an easily sourced topic. Lack of sources is not necessarily alone a reason for deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but makes some claims to notability. Just needs better sourcing, but that's not a reason to delete now.Korruski^Talk 14:11, 17 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 21:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Junior Pipe Band[edit]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability requirements for musical groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 18 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ragheed Moghrabi[edit]

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

I could of put this as a BLP prod but there are links as it turns out. But the notability is a question here. Wgolf (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill banker, one of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are offline so I can't read them, but the article doesn't adequately explain why the subject is more notable than any other banker so, in the absence of any other information, this looks like a delete. Korruski^Talk 14:13, 17 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic Master of Fine Art Programs[edit]

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

lack of notability/verifiability, Wikipedia not a directory Wantonlife (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Further clarification on why I nominated this: This is a list of four Catholic universities in the US that the article's creator claims offer MFA programs. I believe this is directory-like information (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) that is too specific. Drilling down to the individual program level makes this like a catalog or a program guide, and on a related note, lists of individual degree offerings are discouraged on individual uni articles (WP:UNIGUIDE). In addition, after some searching, I was unable to find a comprehensive list of Catholic universities that offer MFA programs, and this information is not in the one reference on the page. Also, I am unsure how to best word this, but I think lists of this variety border on promotional--because it's not just a list of Catholic universities (perfectly fine) but a list of specific programs (products) that prospective students (customers) could pursue (buy). Finally, even if others believe the list should be kept, I take some issue with the way it is worded. If nothing else, it should be changed to something like "List of Master of Fine Arts Programs at Catholic Universities" or something. The university is what is Catholic; the degree is not. Wantonlife (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that per WP:DISCUSSAFD I have struck the formatted !vote in this comment as duplicative of the nomination. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above, nothing notable enough about the program to have this list, and not enough to make a list. Deunanknute (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary and misleading intersection. As the nominator notes, there's no such thing as a "Catholic Master of Fine Art", and there's no relationship between the degree-granting institution being Catholic and offering an MFA. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely per Postdlf. Non-notable intersection between two entirely unrelated subjects. Korruski^Talk 14:14, 17 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 Cheshire Senior Cup. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Cheshire Senior Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable competition season Kivo (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor county level cup. A brief summary is all that is required in the main parent article, not a full stat dump. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheshire Senior Cup. Nfitz (talk) 16:11, 15 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Chapelhow[edit]

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

Non-notable player who is yet to make his first team debut. Fails WP:RLN, contested PROD. Mattlore (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Re-create if and when he makes his first team debut. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above. He's not a pro yet, and claims no other notability. Deunanknute (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roebling (River Line station)[edit]

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

No references verify the general notability of this station. Therefore it is not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the decision for this article could be re-used for other stub articles about tram stops on the River Line (New Jersey Transit). AadaamS (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there's anything verifiable to say about non-notable stops on this line it should be merged to River Line (New Jersey Transit) and the affected standalones deleted. AadaamS (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Nominators should not !vote in deletion discussions; it is assumed that they wish for deletion based on being the nominator. As such this is a duplicate comment and should be struck. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, I have changed to a comment. It isn't a vote as such, it's a recommendation and admins will have the final say. AadaamS (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent regarding train stations. See the years of discussions in the archives. The currently worded guideline (not policy) fails to account for the reality of Wikipedia practice (not unheard of when the guidelines are written by a few editors and their talk pages are rarely visited by the hundreds of editors who edit thousands of pages; that's the true WP:CONLIMITED. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of this article isn't a station, it's just a stop on the line. There's no major or historical station building and no waiting hall according to this photo. I see no reason why the WP:GNG shouldn't apply to standalone articles on light rail & tram stops. AadaamS (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, many (I might not be wrong if I say most) rail 'stations' in the United States look like this photo. Grade level stations, sometime in the middle of the crossing with no shelter. Those includes heavy commuter rails and long distance rail lines like Amtrak. I don't think the shape of the stations would turn the status to become just stops. Z22 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per oknazevad. Additionally, though the article itself has been repeated on every other stop along the River Line, there has been enough material along each stop to distinguish one from the other that can and has been added to each article, including Roebling station. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't distiguishability that allows a subject to have a standalone article, it's notability. AadaamS (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Longstanding precedent that railway stations or stops are inherently notable. Even very minor ones, so long as they can be verified. G-13114 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherent notability is misapplied in this case and for every other very non-notable minor stop as well. Inherent notability, such as of train stations like Gare du Nord also mean that notability is easily verifiable. If notability can't be verified by independent sources, then the station simply isn't notable. Notability of some train station simply isn't inherited by minor light rail stops, non-inheritance is a guiding principle in every other AfD discussion and it ought to be applied to rail articles as well. What do you think, @Bobrayner: and @Z22:? AadaamS (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never involved in the history of debates about inherent notability of rail (heavy or light) stations. This sounds a lot more like the debates of inherent notability of high schools vs. middle/elementary schools. The results of long standing discussions there were that high schools are inherently notable. There is no need to include independent sources. Primary sources for verification purpose are enough for not getting article deleted because there is no need to prove that a particular high school is notable. Coming back to transportation, I think that it is comparable to whether rail stations vs. bus stops are inherently notable. I would say that train stations are, but not bus stops.

The reason for me to think that train stations are inherently notable goes to the practice (at least in the United States) of public involvement in the creation of the stations. A new train station will involve multiple rounds of public meetings in multiple municipalities. There are flights for and against trains stations between neighboring towns/cities, etc. Sometime stations have to be moved and the location is typically the name of the each station. Enough analysis goes into the passenger volume for each station. The opening of each train station typically has some sort of media event. In contrary, there is not much public input to the locations of bus stops. No specific analysis for each bus stop and no media event for each bus stop opening. So I would say train stations are likely to be inherently notable. And if so, it may not need to have secondary sources to be cited for the purpose of notability proof. It still need some reliable primary sources for verifiability. Z22 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Train stations are notable. This is a common outcome and that carries weight. AadaamS is correct that tram stops are generally merged, but light rail, which generally runs on independent right-of-way, is treated as heavy rail in these discussions. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The longstanding consensus is that such stations are inherently notable. While the sourcing could be improved, there's enough here to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability that can't be verified is non-notability. AadaamS (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all the others state about the stipulation that rail stations are notable. With public work projects such as these and the millions of dollars that go into the planning and building of each stop (yes, they cost millions), it's impossible for works such as feasibility studies, environmental reports and various planning committee reports to not exist.--Oakshade (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Any industrial or office building in any city costs millions to build and require planning permissions. Such reports and studies are enough to verify the existence of a station, but as primary sources they cannot be used to verify its notability. We need WP:RS for that and none have come forth and that itself is an indication that this station isn't (yet) notable. AadaamS (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not all industrial or official building have to do environmental impact reports. If there is any variance for a new building to be approved, it will be done at the zoning or building board which is localized to the specific community. New train stations (at least in the United States) need environmental impact studies, passenger analysis and multiple rounds of public meetings in wider scope (not localized to a specific community). Z22 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically any train station is noteworthy for its own article as others stated. We can improve the article so it's more reliable. MikeM2011 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a railway station per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Based on the discussion at WT:TWP I have undone what is is a questionable closure by a new user. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my recent edits to the article. It is now 563 words of prose, with twelve citations. Starting from zero - this is outside my usual geographic area, and thus outside my personal collection of reference materials - I've pieced together a fairly complete history of both the former PRR station and the modern station. (I'm still looking for scoping studies and construction timeline of the new station, and a better closure date of the old station.) As I posted in WP Trains, if I can do this with an article from scratch, then any editor who's willing to do some research can do it with any train station. If this AfD is to be precedent, let it be that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through the sources you added, my opinion is that the one citing 3 million ridership is good for verifying notability of the line as a whole if it was independently verified, but not this individual station. Planning permissions and studies are primary sources. Primary and self-published sources can't verify notability. Primary sources are fine for verifying content of an article, not the notability of its subject. The information would be perfect for Roebling town or River Line articles. You are clearly a much better researcher on this subject than I am and you still haven't managed to solidly verify the notability of this station. I already trawled though Google Books, News and Archives to find notability and failed, so yes I have actually done some research but I didn't succeed in proving notability and that's why I launched this AfD to begin with. This I do for every AfD I have nominated. The very fact that you as a clearly skilled railroad researcher are citing WP:SPS and primary sources instead of WP:RS like New York Times or Railway Gazette is an indication to me that notability is an issue, the outcome of this AfD nonwithstanding. AadaamS (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - For this particular station, I think it should be enough to meet the GNG just by some of the inline citations in the article:
    - Roebling is identified by NJ Future (an organization not related to NJ Transit, the line operator) to be one of only a handful of stations that have the greatest potential for development of TOD projects.
    - The historical picture of station in the 1950s and description of relaunching of the River Line in the Images of America book series (also independent of NJ Transit).
    - The station is the subject of the entire chapter in the document created by Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (independent of NJ Transit).

I haven't had a chance to look at more citations, but just the above are enough to convince me of meeting the GNG. Z22 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z22: these sources are reliable and they are independent, but they do not verify the notability of this station. This station hasn't won any design awards and it's not a major hub either. Notability would have been verified if the station was the subject in published trade magazines or mainline media like major newspapers. If using anything less than mainline media to prove notability, we needa a whole lot more independent & reliable sources. AadaamS (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said is not inline with WP:GNG. If the sources are reliable and independent, we can write a comprehensive article which meets our major content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. See WP:WHYN. Fame or importance has nothing to do with notability.--Antigng (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fame doesn't imply notability that's true, but importance is exactly what notability is about. Importance implies impact on economy, world history, demographics, art or whatnot. Lack of notability/importance only indicates this station isn't a suitable subject for a standalone article, all those reliable and independent sources are perfect for writing about the stations in the River Line article. AadaamS (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both per precedent that railway stations that verifiably exist are notable for individual articles and the sources demonstrating the notability of this individual station. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether this individual station or this set of stations will survive AfD or not, this begs the question of the generally accepted standard of notability for train stations. Some editors mentioned that all stations is notable as per common outcomes. I checked the WP:RAILOUTCOMES but could not find the indication to suggest that there is consensus about about rail stations. It further suggests to go to the WP:STATION essay. It said, "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." That does not say about train stations are presumed to be notable. Also in the Train project page notability essay, it has a very high bar for the infrastructure and buildings (stations included) such that one has to reach the historical status. It also refers back to WP:STATION for the ongoing discussion about the notability. Therefore, there is no clear consensus or clear common outcomes in term of the stations. At the very least, if there is a commonly accepted standard developed by consensus to deviate from the GNG, that should be documented as such at the essay level, or at the WP:GEOFEAT guideline level. If there is no consensus on that yet, the topic of station notability should be specifically discussed, perhaps there. Z22 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z22:, thanks for your thought-provoking and useful input. I simply think the GNG should apply to any and all Wikiprojects, including Trains and train stations. Simply declaring train stations exempt from the GNG turns Wikipedia a directory of train stations when it should be an encyclopedia of train stations. We'll see what happens. AadaamS (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst railway stations are presumed to be inherently notable, GNG must still be met. In this case, it is. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inherent notability to begin with, and GNG are met adequately. Korruski^Talk 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing consensus and WP:GNG--Antigng (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst this article is likely to be kept - people have found more evidence of this station's notability - the notion of inherent notability of railway stations is circular reasoning. It's impossible to square with the GNG and with our existing deletion processes. An AfD is Wikipedia's usual venue to assess whether or not a topic is notable; it's obviously fallacious to argue at an AfD that we should close it as a "keep" because we don't need to assess the notability because, err, different articles were previously found to be notable at some other AfD. bobrayner (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you agree with it or not, Wikipedia works on consensus, and consensus, formed over many AfDs, is that some classes of article are inherently notable and are almost never (if ever) deleted. Not many, but a few, and this is one of them (along with secondary schools and universities, to name another couple of examples). It has indeed been argued in the past that maybe these classes shouldn't go to AfD in the first place, but that hasn't yet been agreed. Nonetheless, it is a perfectly valid argument to say that the article should be kept because clear consensus is to keep these classes of article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 18 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 --auburnpilot talk 02:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Homewood[edit]

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

non-notable local charity per WP:NONPROFIT Deunanknute (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the article is eligible for speedy deletion as it does provide any indication of notability. To the extent article is sourced and noteworthy it should probably be included in Homewood, Alabama#Schools.--Pink Bull 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three Weeks With Lady X[edit]

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

~~non-notable per WP:BKCRIT, all coverage is either about the author with passing mention of the book, all in depth coverage appears to be non-independent (paid reviews)~~ Deunanknute (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw - didn't realize the difference between paid/non-paid reviews (is there a list, or other resource to tell?) Deunanknute (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has been nominated for two Romantic Times Awards (RT being the most widely read magazine focused on romance novels). All About Romance is one of the premier review sites for romance novel reviews. Romantic Times is, again, one of the only magazines focused on romance novels. USA Today is quite certainly an independent newspaper. The book was also reviewed in Publishers' Weekly and Kirkus. I'm pretty boggled this was nominated for deletion. Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least some of the reviews are independent (and not paid). While Kirkus does give paid reviews, this (cited in the article) is not one of them; their standard reviews are considered a reliable source. Indeed, in this case, the book in question was named to their Best Books of 2014 fiction list. Likewise, Publishers Weekly has a paid promotion review system, called PW Select, but the review in question is not part of that program. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:59, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel Capital[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:CORP, all references lack any depth about the company past trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH Deunanknute (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill finance company. Peacock language implies it is bigger than it actually is; its total current capitalization appears to be much less than 100 million Euros, even though it has invested in more than that over the past 13 years. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could find no coverage ABOUT the company, just routine notices about a particular sale or acquisition. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 18 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 18:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzyard[edit]

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

non-notably company per WP:CORP, no independent references found, promotional content with no assertion of previous works Deunanknute (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self promotion as created by the founder, no reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software company of unclear notability, lacking any RS coverage in English. Though I can't read them, the two Nepali? refs are both brief, only about a paragraph each, and on their own not significant enough to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 02:48, 14 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 Thawte. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thawte Crypto Challenge[edit]

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

This no longer seems to be running and debatable whether it was notable in the first place. That said, article been around long enoguh that CSD probably isn't warranted. Mike1901 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to Thawte not notable, already mentioned in company's article. Deunanknute (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thawte, which already has verbatim information of the (nominated) article's body within it. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 15 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 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Para Namal[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a Youtube series. Prod was removed without explanation. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE almost qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:A7 Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete I see no sources to indicate this is anything other than a non-notable 'amateur' youtube series. Deunanknute (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (does not meet speedy criteria) for failing WP:NF. A new project from Sri Lanka it exists, but currently available sources do not meet RS standards. If it ever gains coverage a WP:REFUND might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the name of the editor that created the article is the same as one of the claimed producers, so it seems to be self promotional and there are obvious WP:COI issues.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send the noob to WP:PRIMER and WP:COI and specially WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael Q. I have followed your advice. Unfortunately I was also forced to report him for 3rr violation and he has been blocked for 31 hours, I hope his future contributions will be more productive.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After searching I've failed to find any indepedent/verifiable sources that support the article's notability - so in my view it clearly doesn't satisfy WP:FILM. I also agree that it is likely the article was created by one of the producers of the Youtube episodes, which presents serious WP:COI issues with the article. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 13 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 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clonazolam[edit]

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

Consensus at WP:PHARM and WP:CHEMS is that chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Clonazolam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up names "Clonazolam" and "Clonitrazolam" are intended to sound like the names of benzodiazepine pharmaceuticals, but they are only used on online recreational drug forums - they do not appear anywhere in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. The first two references in the article mention this chemical compound, but only as one in a large number of other similar compounds. There is nothing that distinguishes this one from the many other non-notable ones mentioned. The rest of the references (currently numbers 3 through 7) do not even mention this compound - they are general references about benzodiazepines that support text that is about benzodiazepines in general, not about this compound in particular. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) to suggest that any claims of effects in humans are anything but speculation. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH this page should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Original research. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to relate to a compound which is a benzodiazepine metabolite or derivative. The name associated with this compound appears to be a neologism, taken from its use as novel psychoactive compound, and I presume is therefore not a registered name. I can't find reliable sources and can't see anything to suggest that this meets WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the references also, and confirm that they do don't contain mentions to Clonazolam specifically, but rather are just descriptions of benzos generally. I wonder if it is worth mentioning it at Benzodiazepine misuse#Risk_factors_for_misuse where there is a list already. BakerStMD T|C 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakerstmd:, you say "they do contain", but the context of your statement suggests you meant "they do not contain". Can you clarify, please? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry, meant that they do NOT contain. Hoisted by my own petard, as it were. BakerStMD T|C 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, should not be added to the other article, complete OR does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name is a neologism, the best the references can do is support that this molecule has been synthesized, but not that it's independently notable. I removed the external link to synthesis information on erowid. Anyone who really wants homemade benzos should at least be committed enough to read the original papers/patents. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete @Edgar181:, the erowid link that was removed in a recent edit by a deletion advocate was a web page published in 2004, 11 years ago, and identifies clonitrazolam by name. I believe this satisfies WP:GNG. Furthermore, I believe anything that could be construed as violating WP:OR has been removed from the article already. Lastly, the lack of WP:MEDRS compliant compounds on Wikipedia would immediately condemn hundreds of psychoactive compounds to deletion, as they are not in current medical use. Many such pages make it from two-sentence blurbs with a research codename for a title up to fully-fledged medicinal pages with the concession that they are stubs, yes, but should not be deleted. Brandonazz (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG depends on "significant coverage in reliable sources" and I don't think a single webpage on a highly specialized website that relies on user-generated content satisfies this requirement. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 16 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 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Poirot[edit]

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

I don't believe this biographical subject meets the GNG or PROF. Lots of references but little of substance - citations are mostly to book sellers, blogs, self published sources, and directories. Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability on looking for reliable sources. -- 120.23.76.162 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, does not meet wp:GNG and definitely doesn't meet wp:PROF. BakerStMD T|C 17:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the above, WorldCat does not seem to know about his book and his single paper (touted in the article) does not list him as primary (corresponding author). Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The scientific paper he (fourth) authored? Plus he's got a self-published self-help book? Not even close. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above assessments that notability has not been established. Lack of secondary sources. Citations from MD Anderson would be a reliable sources, except the page makes no mention of him or his work. Also, the patent mentioned in the article was granted to him (exclusively), rather he was one of three people named in the application. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not establish notability, and I cannot find sufficient RSs to do so either. Korruski^Talk 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete A pharmacologist whose most cited work has been cited 30 rtimes ins not a notable scientist. This is trivial in the subject field. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 18 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 18:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KIFS Securities Private Limited[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are all primary, trivial mentions, stock ticker listings, wikis or otherwise unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I note also that a previous version of the page by the same author, KIFS Securities, was speedy deleted as WP:G11 by Randykitty. Msnicki (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if notable (unproven) the page is a conglomeration of several copyrighted sources and it would be better to start over from scratch. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Nope, it fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:00, 13 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 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Trade Soccer[edit]

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

This is a somewhat difficult nomination for me. There are indeed a few sources in the article. But all but one appear to be non-independent sources. This could also potentially be merged to fair trade, but either way I can't see this really needing a separate article. Also, the article seems to have some POV issues so should the article be kept, these need to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom, there are POV, OR & Notability issues. The author seems to be also using it as a way of re-introducing his Senda athletics and Botas (company) articles (both A7, G11, G12 earlier today). The continued focus on this topic also raises potential questions of COI. Bazj (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- whilst I think it is probably a good cause, I don't believe that it is notable, and the article itself is too POV. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my arguments for notability are that there are separate pages for fair trade bananas and fair trade coffee. there is less information available to me for fair trade soccer, but i still think the topic is important. the issue of POV is difficult for me to assess, but any necessary adjustments would be welcome. i dont have a conflict of interest other than i would like to increase awareness of fair trade in soccer. Kruno Skaric (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedic text, and the sources are of questionable encyclopaedic worth. – Pee Jay 13:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fair trade There are clearly several fair trade organizations whose sights are set on the sports equipment industry. Perhaps not sufficient independent sources for a standalone article, but certainly enough for a section: Fair trade#Sports equipment and apparel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (potentially) Smaller newspapers to Forbes have several articles related to a couple of the emerging companies. Google Scholar and Books provide many related hits. Most of it appears to be about the balls with Pakistan receiving attention. A lot needs to be done regarding MOS (the capitalization in the title jumps out) and better sources. The text would likely change to reflect those sources if given the chance. Alternatively, a redirect to fair trade along with adding a paragraph to the chile labor in Pakistan article could be sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - to Fair Trade. Looks like there is some reliable information here worth a paragraph in the main article, but soccer is a lot more than just boots and balls, so not sure what other areas of the sport could be addressed by this article. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I definitely agree with the above statement. I previously wrote Keep, but that's because I'm new to this. A merge to fair trade is more appropriate and would even help increase awareness. A lot needs to be done to improve the article, but I have to admit that I lack the necessary skills. Kruno Skaric — Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete nothing worth merging. The article Fair trade does not discuss every product to which the term can conceivably apply. WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Same reasons as DGG, the Article has more on child Labour in Pakistan then on the subject Bentogoa (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the close was challenged by the nominator; I've given my full rationale here. ansh 666 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015[edit]

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

Non notable game that has little coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that it has also been nominated by the creator for Did You Know here. If the nomination is successful, and the article is not deleted in the meantime, it will appear on the front page but without an image as fair use images are not allowed in DYK. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making no comment on the respective merits of this AfD, an article can not appear on DYK while an AfD is in progress. Harrias ^talk 12:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game has caused uproar noted by a major Indonesian newspaper '''tAD''' (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This means the game has coverage in sources broader than simply games review sites, putting it more notable than many console games which are only covered on review sites '''tAD''' (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete for a while. Wait a week or so. It is likely to be mentioned very soon in other sources than Vice, and not only as a meme... Zezen (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Request for deletion is suspected to stem more from of a sense of being offending than reason stated above. Agreeing with Zezen on coverage in reliable sources. --Prohibitorum (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Prohibitorum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is notable enough to warrant an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.213.163 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — 141.158.213.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. This thing already has sufficient (international) coverage for an article now, and based on how extremely over the top it is, that fame is very unlikely to fade completely. Or to put it more directly: this stupid software is probably going to make further news by actually costing lives. (I am afraid it's also likely to play into the hands of religious fundamentalists because rejection of this is one thing that basically all Muslims -- and also all serious Christians -- can agree on. But that's not relevant for whether Wikipedia should report on it. After all, Wikipedia also has articles on criminals.) But to reiterate: The notability is already there. I am just arguing why this will probably not be seen differently in retrospect 10 years from now.
Now the images are a different matter. Not every article needs an illustration, and there is precedent for censorship for purely practical concerns such as endangering lives or just extreme indecency or sheer stupidity. Example: I once happened to be around when someone uploaded a detailed photo of a woman producing a turd. Taken from below. Removing that without discussion was in a way censorship, but was absolutely necessary and totally uncontroversial. I think the images on this article have a similar status. While nobody should feel revolted just for seeing a normal body function from an unusual perspective, this just doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. The typical reaction by Muslims, including the nice, normal and tolerant majority, but also by many other adherents of monotheistic religions will be similar. As an atheist I don't feel like that, but respecting it is still the right thing to do and is basically on the same level as not urinating in churches.
I uninstalled or forgot how to use the scripts necessary to properly propose something for deletion, and I am not going to try doing this by hand. But I suggest that someone should propose the images for deletion. Hans Adler 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's an image of a work — the same as Piss Christ or KKK posters or Nazi propaganda. A user who accesses this article would expect to see such an image, it's in its only acceptable place. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the only place where we even have to argue about the images, but even here they're not needed. The other things you mention have way higher notability and cultural/historical significance -- so far. (They are also each individual artifacts in a way that screenshots are not, although the entire piece of software is.) Hans Adler 07:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam Walton asked for the sources that establish notability. Though some people don't like it, it's well established that notability is not related to the language in which the source is published. E.g., what is notable in Albania and in Albanian, is a priori notable for the English Wikipedia. One of the sources currently on the article is in the game review section of es:eldiario.es, an online newspaper in Spain. Another is in the global news section of the online edition of Republika, an Indonesian newspaper with a primarily Muslim readership. Yet another is in Vice, a Canadian magazine. (Fortunately the other established newspapers and magazines available online appear to be too responsible to report about this -- nothing good will come of it.) The remaining sources seem to be the typical mix of internet resources. Although this is only indirectly relevant, two of them have sufficient notability to have their own articles in either English+German or Spanish+Catalan: gulli.com and es:MeriStation. Hans Adler 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this game is garnering a lot of attention and I've seen a few reliable sources already mention it, more sources will probably come in too. Kymako (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the above keep voters: Can you provide some of the sources which establish notability? There are only three in the article currently and a google search isn't showing up any more. I suspect this may generate some coverage within the week so I'll refrain from voting right now, but without more than there currently is I'll be voting delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's predictable that if the article is deleted at this stage, it will be recreated when the game receives more attention and a backlash is provoked. Maybe the article should be transferred to user space for a time? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:N with the 3 instances of coverage noted. Wikipedia is a listing of every offensive creation that gets discussed by 3 writers. Edison (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userify The article should be transferred to user space for the time being, per my reasoning given above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Like Zezen said above, I think it's a bit too early to tell whether it should get the boot. I'd give it a little more time before making a final decision. lurkaccount (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not keep articles in anticipation of future notability (especially when the existence of an article can affect the topic's future notability). At the time of article creation, and at the moment (coverage by Vice and two other blogs, and article in Indonesian paper), it does not meet notability standards. Magedq (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh...while I would agree with this in most cases, I don't know if it really applies here, or at least I don't think it should. This sort of seems like something that's being captured mid-exposion, like you just know it's going to turn into something bigger than it has already become in almost no time flat.
  Then again WP has never been that good at documenting current event-type stuff such as this...maybe it should be put on hold, idk. lurkaccount (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is how much Wikipedia will contribute to this becoming notable. A lot of sources might only write on this that the information, instead of being scattered over random blogs, and papers in other languages, is instead on Wikipedia - with useful game play screenshots (not found in more reputable sources). Wikipedia having one of the only (English) articles on this game, is currently playing an active role in the development of this topic.Magedq (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vice magazine, which is in English, and the Indonesian newspaper have solved the screenshot problem intelligently by chosing a "select animal" screen from which the visual style and the offensive potential of the software become sufficiently clear because the rest is easily filled in by the imagination. If the Vice article isn't pulled, I don't share your optimism that deleting the Wikipedia article can prevent anything. Hans Adler 13:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see what you mean, but I don't think its presence on Wikipedia will really have that much outside influence in the long run. It's gonna spread either way. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, seeing as more reliable sources have been found and more are sure to be found in the very near future, I don't really see a need to delete the article as of right now. lurkaccount (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in reliable sources and public attention. --Dezidor (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, while the subject has some notability, it hasn't been picked up by any major news outlet, let alone a video game website. While Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, that doesn't mean we should wait for things to happen. --Soetermans. T / C 16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, 'fraid due to the subject matter of the game it's unlikely to be reported on by major news outlets until something they have to report on goes down. That's one of the aspects of Wikipedia's notability policy I've always had a problem with, when Wikipedia can't report on something just because the media at large is unwilling to report on it.
  I wouldn't mind if this is deleted so long as it's allowed to be recreated when its notability is more "CRYSTAL", I just don't think it's necessary.
  Also - I personally think the coverage it has already is enough to call for an article, even if it is being under-reported. lurkaccount (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Three days of news coverage does not demonstrate long-term notability. It's too soon for a stand-alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Coverage by Vice News, Republika, and The Epoch Times (not currently in the article, but here) is sufficient to meet GNG in my view. Regarding the gameplay image, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Offensive material. But even that aside I'm concerned that the caption contains OR. How do we know which option the player has selected? -Thibbs (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture makes reasonably clear what is happening. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a naive question, but from the angle depicted how can you tell the difference between anal sex with a pig and vaginal sex with a pig? Might the image not even depict a neutral pre-coital condition before the player has selected anything? Wouldn't we need some (reliable) source to back up the claim that "Muhammad [is engaged in] anal sex with a pig"? It might help to establish context if we can find a RS that provides commentary on that specific non-free image. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen videos of the game. Vaginal coitus is done in the missionary position to all animals (obviously not to the men), and anal from that behind position. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion that would be better held on the article's talk page, if the article is in fact kept. The more important issue is that minor problems of this kind are not a reason for deleting the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From The Almightey Drill's response my suspicions concerning WP:OR seem to have been fully justified, but FreeKnowledgeCreator makes a good point that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion based on the image's caption. In fact, let the closer take note that I wasn't casting a !vote for deletion at all. -Thibbs (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great game. Certainly should have it's own page. It is actually a lot of fun and a turn on. There is no genuine reson to remove this page, besides the fact that some find it offensive. I find a lot of pages on Wikipedia offensive, but they need to be there to describe the world we live in. This game is part of that world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.108 (talk • contribs) 20:10, February 12, 2015
- Hi @199.7.159.108:, please note that we're not debating whether or not it's a "great game" and the nominator doesn't say it is offensive, we're discussing whether or not it is notable enough to have its own article. If we would come to the conclusion that it isn't notable, then that actually would be a good reason to delete the article. --Soetermans. T / C 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I find Hans Adler's rationale compelling, and as Thibbs points out, this is getting international attention. Even if this has not attracted much coverage in the Western World, Wikipedia aims to have an worldwide scope, and the sources show international coverage in well known publications, even though some of those sources aren't in English. Eddymason (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep, notability has been proven. Notable, reliable and verifiable sources have reported on the game. --Soetermans. T / C 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets GNG based on the sources in the article alone. This is a game, not a person or an event; as such, it doesn't need X days of news coverage to be considered notable. The game may be disgraceful, and the images may be questionable... but that has no relevance to the notability of the game itself, which is pretty clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to news coverage and inherent situational hilarity. Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I noticed that it caused a fair amount of upset in Indonesia, where major newspapers published critical op-eds about it. 04:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talk • contribs)
Keep - This game has enough coverage in reliable sources. Also here is another article about the game from a Swedish online magazine.213.114.144.174 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 February 18 for one of the screen shots. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith. And Also pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijam122 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 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 Nakon 21:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LacyJane Folger[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only with WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [1] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2012 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please excuse me asking for clarification. The nominator, in the wake of a failed bundled AfD for which much of the opposition was that it was a bundled AfD, went ahead to singly nominate those entries he nonetheless believes not to be notable, in the hope that people will be willing to advocate deletion of non-notable subjects where they're unwilling to do so with bundled AfDs on procedural grounds, right? What about this do you believe constitutes bad faith?
Addendum: I just looked back over your cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. You made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. You cannot possibly be claiming to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith. Would you care to reconsider? Ravenswing 03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My own presumption of good faith would be better served if Dravecky produced the sources he claims exist. Of the four sources in the article, two are primary and promotional sources (pageant websites) which cannot support notability, one seems to be a fan page (and is a broken link in any event), and the fourth is seacoastonline.com, which appears to be an umbrella website serving several small New Hampshire and Maine weeklies, which even if it were proved to be a reliable source would run afoul of WP:GEOSCOPE. Would Dravecky care to come up with some significant coverage in significant media outlets? Ravenswing 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Miss New Hampshire USA. Notability is possible, but the current sourcing fails to prove it. That doesn't mean Rodriguez can't be covered in a broader topic though. About one paragraph of coverage would be appropriate at the Miss Texas page, and that is about what we have in the article. Incidentally, BLP1E does not apply as it is meant to protect individuals caught up in a news story, not prevent bios on people known primarily for one thing (which is true of most notable people). ROUTINE is a guideline regarding event notability. There is no consensus that it applies also to people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to keep per article improvements by Dravecky --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 16 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - beauty pageant titles alone are not enough notability. Deunanknute (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have significantly expanded this article and added multiple references from reliable third-party sources today. I respectfullly request that anybody who may have previously !voted to review the article in its current state. (Automated searches may have been complicated by the media's rendering of her first name variously as "LacyJane", "Lacy Jane", "Lacey Jane", and so on.) Thank you. - Dravecky (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

still delete - the issue isn't the number of references, it's that beauty pageant titleholders are not inherently notable. Deunanknute (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects that are "inherently" notable (towns, mountains, pro baseball players with a single at bat, and such) are so-called because they are presumed to be able to pass WP:GNG if only editors look hard enough. Everything else on Wikipedia (movies, companies, pageant titleholders, and such) must establish their notability by passing WP:GNG with coverage by multiple references from third-party sources. That's what I've done here. - Dravecky (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A fair bit of work, twelve days after your vote. Okay, fair enough. Examining the sources, though, I'm not moved to change my opinion. Every single substantive citation comes from Foster's Daily Democrat, a local small-city paper, and the GNG requires "multiple" substantive sources. Of the rest, the several pageant sources are of course primary and promotional. The Portsmouth Herald article covers the "2008 Miss Hampton Beach" competition, and her short mention there is debarred by WP:ROUTINE. The Boston Globe citation mentions Folger only in a photo caption. The Business Insider and Las Vegas Sun cites mention the subject only in a list of odds of numerous contestants winning the Miss USA pageant. The Wheelock College cite is a scanty press release linking to one of the Daily Democrat articles. Should any substantive coverage arrive from a media outlet other than the Daily Democrat, I'm willing to revisit my view. Ravenswing 07:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article from the Portsmouth Herald and this short article (on page 5) of Wheelock Magazine provide sufficient diversity. Also, a couple of the Foster's articles (like this one) were mirrored from a sister newspaper (The Hampton Union, part of the Seacoast Media Group) but the online edition of the Union is through a library site with occasional connectivity issues and the Foster's mirror is more easily accessible. (Addendum: WP:ROUTINE governs events, not people, so while the article might not solely prove the notability of the Miss Hampton Beach pageant itself, it can do for the person that wins it.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject passes WP:GNG since it has coverage with multiple references from third-party sources. The references (17 to date) include multiple newspapers and magazines as well as a variety of other sources. The subject won pageant titles in 2008, 2009, and 2011. Notability has been achieved. WordSeventeen (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:17, 14 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 19:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cong Hoa Roundabout[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this is notable roundabout. A GBooks search turns up exactly two passing mentions of it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability of this unremarkable roundabout. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 10:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An individual roundabout is generally not notable enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 18:26, 12 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 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad A. Agha[edit]

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

There seems to be no sources indicating the notability of Agha and the entire article seems to be an advert for him. http://www.so.undp.org/content/rbas/en/home/presscenter/articles/2011/02/20/-corporate-social-responsibility-in-iraq-brainstorming-meeting-in-erbil-20th-february-2011-.html is the only real source in the article and mentions him by name. The Reuters, http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSnBw115171a+100+BSW20140811?irpc=932, is nothing more than a photograph that has him standing in the background and no mention in the article. The other sources are to Linkedin and so are not really reliable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the final version of the article. There is no intention to advertise Agha and rather generate a comprehensive profile for him. This is being conducted on the basis of his reference availability with more than 70% of the information provided. The language can be amended to avoid the presentation of adver. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuleyBaker (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — JuleyBaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I reworked the text and removed photos. Honestly, I do not see the content as not credible or flawed. Neither as adver. It is a well informed platform that is giving 360 degrees information about the individual.

Please REMOVE the DELETION notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuleyBaker (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — JuleyBaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per the reasons by CambridgeBayWeather: the article doesn't sufficiently demonstrate his WP:Notability, I have restored the deletion discussion template,Sadads (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JuleyBaker. This is an individual who has served in private and public capacities and is clearly an individual that Wiki searches would like to see. The information is credible, with pictures of him with global icons. The flow of information also is appealing.

I suggest to improve the language though.

Certainly a DELETION notice or any sign of controversy on what I see is not fair. As a Wiki user, I'd like to have access to such profiles with high density of data.

Thank you for highlighting this matter to my attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhdalagha (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Mhdalagha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Impressive fixes. I add my voice to Juley and mhdalagha. Wiki should keep it. Please remove DELETION notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedhammady (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Hamedhammady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per CBW--Linkedin sources? Really? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Wikipedia is not your social media site, there are no reliable sources to support the assertion of notability. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure how long this process might take. But we are not doing the individual fairness by highlighting his profile with a deletion notice. This makes the information look controversial and eventually may cause his unfair publicity. My recommendation is one of three solutions for Wiki to decide upon immediately:

'1. Delete the article * 2. Wiki to apply amendments to meet Wiki guidelines and remove the deletion notice * 3. Wiki to suggest required amendments for the contributors to apply within a deadline or delete the article upon failure to comply'

Please take the above with an urgent consideration for the sake of our integrity as contributors, and for Wiki as a platform and for the individual's own public exposure. Thank you! JuleyBaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.4.61 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second JuleyBaker Hamedhammady — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JuleyBaker and Hamedhammady. I am in support of any of the above three choice. The current deletion notice should not stay long. Either the notice or the entire article should be removed. Please take action immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhdalagha (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have processes, policies and procedures, many of which have been ignored in the creation of this article, but FYI, it is likely that this discussion will last seven days. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROD'd this in 2011 and it's not improved in the four years since. Also note copyvios need to be removed and revdel'd if we don't delete this, or permission from the obvious author needs to be put through OTRS permissions. No evidence of meeting WP:BASIC, and even if there was, I'm pretty sure WP:TNT, if not G11, applies. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @Joe Decker:: a few more delete consensus, and I will snowball it: the authors above are act like meat-puppets, if not sockpuppets. Sadads (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No question, obvious duck is obvious. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sadads and j⚛e decker

May I seek your insights on how to improve the article towards acceptability? I'm ready to work on it. This would be an excellent exercise. Thank you. JuleyBaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedhammady (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that confirms sock-puppetry, both of those accounts have been blocked, Sadads (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few links. Hope this is of value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhdalagha (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhdalagha: Hi: your citations are pushing the article in the right direction, more of the information is cited. However, the question still underlying this deletion: is the subject sufficiently notable, per our Notability policy. The current largest problem with the article: the consistent lack of independent sources, outside of self published newsletters and organizational materials, that can attest to the larger significance of the subject.

That the other two accounts that were commenting on this discussion, were clearly using their multiplicity to give voice to a minority opinion, through WP:Sockpuppetry, that also lays a bit of suspicion on your account, especially since the language and concerns are almost exactly the same: this discussion looks a lot like someone trying to promote themselves through a Wikipedia article, rather than someone with sufficient notability to be included in one. Sadads (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sadads. Need your help on the article to make it a valuable addition to Wiki's wealth of useful public information. This is an article written by a well renowned historian and a number of contributors whom I do not know have added their part in it and I added every source possible to make it as notable as required while monitoring it and trying to keep it real and credible with spotlights on good work done by the global leaders/organizations mentioned in it regardless of my exposure.

I am grateful for your feedback and soonest verdict on either removing the deletion notice (preferable) or removing the whole thing all together. Thanks much! Muhammad A. Agha (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI will avoid !voting in order to encourage new editors to continue editing. That aside, if this article does get deleted, I request parts of it be merged to Global Compact and the article itself to be moved to Userspace of Mhdalagha so that the editor can improve the article and them propose it be recreated into an article when done. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 10:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not the Director of Global Contact as the infobox says he is; he's the secretary general of its Advisory Council, a much less important position. We normally wouldn't mention that in the article on the organization, so there is nothing to merge. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, my bad, thanks for the info DGG. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:58, 18 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, defaults to keep. Nakon 22:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WidowPC[edit]

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

Next to no sources are cited and the page is essentially a big advertisement for a business that appears to no longer exist. Wikinium (talk) 23:06, 26 January 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 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article contributed by a one-day editing account, User:Wpc-01. Highbeam returns a few pieces of 2005-8 coverage, but they are effectively product announcements, as are the Google returns. The claim to have been the first to ship a particular machine configuration, even if verifiable, is not notable in itself - some vendor must always be first - and I am seeing nothing to indicate that the firm itself attained WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 27 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 00:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was going to look into this last week when it was first listed, but I forgot. Here's what I found: Boston.com, The Register, The Register, CNET, PC World. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure about some of these sources because they seem to be borderline routine – new product announcements, essentially, though they do have the added weight of "first product to be shipped with this cool new tech". The first source, from Boston.com, is a bit meatier than the product announcements, but it's mostly about blind gaming. WidowPC seems like a tangential part of the article. I'm leaning toward keep, but I'm not quite there yet. Maybe I can find something later that is more than just a new product announcement. There are plenty of reviews of their products on Google News, but I haven't really taken the time to look over the results yet. I might do that later. I'm tired of reading through poorly-written gaming blogs and dry IT journals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 6 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 12:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Just notable enough for an article. The site's down but here's an archive of their awards page [[2]]. Their PCs do have a fair amount of reviews on mainstream sites. Deunanknute (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. That the company is no longer independent but purchased by a holdings company is irrelevant to notability. Notability once established is permanent. DGG ( talk ) 12:18, 18 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. Nakon 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek[edit]

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

Light rail stations are not notable until actually placed into use, which will not happen with this particular station until this September. Conifer (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to see the policy basis for the claim, "light rail stations are not notable until actually placed into use" which would seem to be contrary to many other policies and guidelines. Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway, for example, and Planned high-speed rail by country are full of such proposals and plans. I know of no specific policy that differentiates between heavy and light rail, but I'm more than happy to be pointed in the right direction. Regardless, the article in question doesn't have any sources and that's what we should be focussing on. There's plenty of local coverage; anything beyond that? St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some local news stuff but couldn't find anything beyond Oregon. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll amend that; I believe that specific proposed/under construction transit stations are often not notable until placed into service, because they tend to lack many sources other than the project itself. When they are actually operating, there is usually more reliable coverage compared to earlier construction/planning stages, where details are more fuzzy. Glancing through a list of transit projects, it seems that heavy rail/subway projects usually have independent articles for their stations, whereas light rail projects do not. I suspect this is less a function of the modal difference than because subways and heavy rail are more expensive and often more controversial, thus garnering significant news coverage. Conifer (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; makes sense. Logically, yes, that may well be the case, I just wasn't sure the policy basis. For the record, still haven't found any other sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this station was simply proposed, then the nom might have some validity to their statement, but there is no such policy or guideline that forbids the articles about future stations, no less ones that are under construction and will definitely open such as this one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:18, 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 01:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Not all light rail stations are notable. Some are merged on their line's article. We can always recreate the article or request an undeletion if notability is proven after this stop opens. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines are for "unverifiable speculation", not verified and confirmed as this topic is. Even the nom understands the station will open in September. --Oakshade (talk) 03:11, 11 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 12:51, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Arkhipov[edit]

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

AUTOBIO by Rjarkhipov -doesn't appear to be meeting BIO and GNG standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: charitably speaking, it's a bit too soon to get past WP:BIO. Vrac (talk) 13:54, 3 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 12:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete the only source with any depth is a blog, and even that's pretty shallow. Deunanknute (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RJ Arkhipov has made a name for himself here in Paris, he is certainly known on the fashion scene here. He writes for many print publications and hosts frequent events for Influence Paris. He interviewed Olivier Rousteing, the creative director of Balmain and Viktor & Rolf for DSECTION Magazine. He is also collaborating with Romain Brau, the creative director of LISKA and his eponymous label. 10:05, 16 February 2015 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.60.162 (talk • contribs) — 82.227.60.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - How does any of this meet the criteria in notability or WP:BIO? None of this supports his inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity article written by the article's subject. Fails to meet WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 10:14, 16 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Free[edit]

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

The article cites no WP:RS, only primary sources, and I can find no reviews or discussion in secondary sources. The article, therefore, appears to fail WP:GNG. I don't see that this meets any of the criteria of WP:BKCRIT either - in particular, it has won no major awards and the author is not sufficiently notable to make his works implicitly notable. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to author article. Fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable, independent sources.- Mr X 13:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thirteen other books are on the author's article. What is different about this one? More research needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to suggest other RS that discuss the book, feel very free. Where do you suggest looking? Searching news, newspapers, books, scholar and JSTOR for '"getting free" "nigel hinton"' shows up exactly one result - a single mention in The Glasgow Herald which doesn't even amount to a single sentence. What further research do you suggest? As for the other other thirteen, well, WP:OTHERSTUFF. This one happened to cross my path. GoldenRing (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 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 02:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On initial research, I only found 1 that can be used as a source.^[1] Seeing the lack of supporting references, I would have to agree that it indeed does not meet the aforementioned criteria.Pmanz2014 || Let's Connect 12:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kirkus Review of Getting Free. "Getting Free by Nigel Hinton". Kirkus. Retrieved 2015-02-03. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ I was unable to find any non-trivial reviews or mentions of the book. Deunanknute (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Getting Free Kirkus Review". Kirkus Reviews. 1979-12-18. Archived from the original on 2015-02-12. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
2. "British Book News". British Book News. British Council. 1979. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
  The review notes (from the Google snippet):
  Getting Free has many of the remarkable qualities which distinguished Mr Hinton's first novel, Collision Course (OUP, 1976). For one thing, it is compulsive reading. It begins: 'Johanna's hands were trembling as she picked up"...
3. "Getting Free". The Junior Bookshelf. 1978. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
  The review notes (from the Google snippet):
  With insight and understanding Nigel Hinton tells the story of two teenage lovers and their struggle to get free and live their own life. ...
4. The Use of English. Vol. 33. Scottish Academic Press. 1981. p. 187. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
  The book notes (from the Google snippet):
  Nigel Hinton's Getting Free contains many elements familiar from the traditional adventure srory — pursuit, a spell spent snow-bound in a lonely cottage, a desperate drive in search of help, assorted eccentrics, a hint of the supernatural.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Getting Free to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources can be found through this Google Books search. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - the Kirkus page is a summary not a review, and I can't tell if the others are in depth/sales/etc. Deunanknute (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source about the subject:
1. Crabbe, Katharyn F.; Gerhardt, Lillian N. (November 1978). "Getting Free (Book Review)". School Library Journal. 25 (3). Media Source Inc.: 74. Archived from the original on 2015-02-13. Retrieved 2015-02-13.
The abstract says "Reviews the book 'Getting Free,' by Nigel Hinton."
Cunard (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically notable. (SLJ is a source for notability; Kirkus was at the time--though it no longer is. BBNews is not.). Of the other novels, most should be merged --the 4 Beaver Towers books are not appropriate for 4 separate article. . WorldCat shows their library holdings: this is 4th with 154. DGG ( talk ) 12:35, 18 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 Cam Brook#Cam Valley. Nakon 01:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Valley[edit]

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

Neither of the two river/brook valleys listed (there are seven River Cams or Cam Rivers) has an actual article, so what's the point of this so-called dab page? At best, it's an incomplete rehashing of ~~Cam (disambiguation)#Rivers~~ Cam River. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cam Brook#Cam Valley The first entry is invalid as 'Cam Valley' is not mentioned on it. However, the second one is clearly valid (Cam Brook has a whole section entitled 'Cam Valley' so this title can redirect there. I've checked all the other possible entries at Cam (disambiguation) and Cam River, none of them mention the term 'Cam Valley'. Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 27 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 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Boleyn and common sense. Tavix | Talk 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the argument by User:Boleyn in favour of converting this to a redirect to Cam Brook in Somerset is fully in line with the relevant Wikipedia rules, most of the first page or so of Google hits seems instead to use the term for various parts of the drainage basin of the River Cam that flows through Cambridge. It therefore seems to be slightly perverse (rather than "common sense") to have a straight redirect to somewhere quite different. PWilkinson (talk) 18:42, 8 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 12:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PWilkinson, you make some interesting comments, do you have a counter-proposal? Do you think a section is needed/useful in a River Cam to make it a valid dab? 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I am finding it difficult to come up with a workable counter-proposal. It would definitely be useful to have a Cam valley section in River Cam, but I can't currently work out how to write this from reliable sources without synthesis. The problem is that the reliable sources tend to be, for instance, geological and archeological papers that mention the "Cam valley" in relation to sites in Cambridgeshire and surrounding counties but assume that the reader won't need to ask what the Cam valley is. Conversely, this map, from the Cam Valley Forum website explains it beautifully (including, though it is probably not intending to, why the archeologists and geologists consider places near Royston and Saffron Walden to be in the Cam valley), but I very much doubt that we would consider the website reliable. PWilkinson (talk) 22:56, 13 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 Paul R. Martin. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cult-Proofing Your Kids[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Single review found. Tgeairn (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing multiple reviews, only multiple mentions. Seems to fail WP:BOOK and GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This book may meet criteria #5. The book's author is so historically significant. It seems this book covered a large part of his own biography, so if in fact he is notable than this book is a story about his life. I have made a few changes to Paul R. Martin to reference notability. The obituary referenced[3] has some highly notable events including court cases and TV interviews in which he was involved. - Gaming4JC (talk) 03:39, 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 02:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue with arguing point 5 (author is so notable that all things would inherit notability) is that it's typically applied to people that have achieved notability on par with authors like Shakespeare, JK Rowling, Harper Lee, and the like- people that are considered to be common household names and/or are people whose works are taught on the regular in classrooms across the world (or at least across their respective nations). The catch is what the rule implies but does not state outright: that the person would be so historically notable that it would be extremely unlikely that the author's works would not have been the focus of independent and reliable sources. In other words, if the author is at that level of notability then individual sources would exist for the book. If they don't, then odds are high that the author has not reached that level of notability. It's the same catch that applies to performers/celebrities with a notable fan following: it's expected that someone of that level of celebrity would have articles focusing on them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul R. Martin. I cannot find anything to show that this book is particularly notable outside of its author, nor where the author is so notable that the book would pass on that criteria. There are mentions of this book, but almost solely as a footnote in other books of the same type and not really ones that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This just isn't notable enough for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 4 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 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the idea of deletion leaving a redirect is a good one. Nobody has really made an effort to defend this topic as a free-standing piece on the basis of multiple reviews or universally recognized significance and it seems a reasonably easy call in spite of low participation. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge to author page. Couldn't find quite enough notability to validate a keep, but I think it deserves a blurb. Deunanknute (talk)
Delete and redirect. Do not merge; the book is already mentioned in the article n the author. DGG ( talk ) 12:43, 18 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 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambican units of measurement[edit]

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

I quote the proposer of the previous PROD: "It appears to be about nothing at all. It gives no details of any preceding system of units. it mentions an Arabic unit of mass which appears irrelevant. I would suggest WP:NOTABLE"

The original editor removed the PROD with a justification which I quote: "(It provides details about the current system. It provides the details about the system before the current system (Note: Portuguese system). Bahar was used in China to East coast of Africa (Refer: http://sizes.com/units/bahar.htm )(also refer references).)"

This hardly says anything at all, and does not address the original point. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place has mostly followed the Portuguese standards since it was colonised but there do seem to be some local features. For example, here, we see an entry which documents the frazil and the bahar, along with details of the coinage. More recently, the independent government has been legislating as traders have been giving short measure. Plus ça change... Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I found a few similar sources for "frazil" and "bahar", but they all seem copied from a similar source/each other. If there's no more data than the conversion rate (eg. origin, notable uses, etc) and no other unique units besides weight, I see no reason for an article. Deunanknute (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources showing that the topic "Mozambican units of measurement" is notable per WP:GNG—what independent sources discuss that topic other than to note that people in Mozambique use measurement systems established elsewhere? If someone finds encyclopedic information about measurements before colonization, a new article can be created, however an article on this topic cannot be based on one or two dictionary definitions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of independent notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:58, 17 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 2014 Thai Division 2 League North Eastern Region. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Udon Thani F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD and redirect on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Would be happy with a redirect to the regional season article. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 15 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:BIODELETE: "If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lutczyk[edit]

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

Problematic WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim of notability is as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL, and whose sourcing is almost entirely of the primary (city's own website), unreliable (Blogspot) or "local weekly that's not widely distributed enough to count toward the notability test" (Oshawa Express) varieties. Which leaves the main reason why he might qualify for an article as a single two-day blip of major-daily newspaper coverage that he got when he allegedly committed a crime after he was out of office — but that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. According to a ProQuest search, further, he still hadn't actually gone to trial for the crime in question as of the last time any newspaper in all of Canada deigned to write anything about the matter at all (and even that deign was a passing acknowledgement of his existence in an article about the 2014 municipal election, not an article that was in any way substantively about him.) So under BLP1E, we should strongly consider not keeping an article about him as (a) reliable sources covered him only in the context of a single event; (b) he is, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual; and (c) the event is not significant. And under WP:PERP, we should strongly consider not keeping an article about him as he hasn't verifiably been convicted of anything. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 27 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) 06:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat's analysis is well-researched, persuasive and correct. Per BLP policy, we shouldn't base an article about an otherwise non-notable city council member based on a criminal charge without conviction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 3 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 11:54, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1999–2000 Udon Thani F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD and redirect on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Would be happy with a redirect to the regional season article Fenix down (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and the sources are not clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page. Nfitz (talk) 16:08, 15 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 2010 Thai Division 2 League North Eastern Region. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Udon Thani F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD and redirect on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Would be happy with a redirect to regional season article Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page. Nfitz (talk) 16:08, 15 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 2011 Thai Division 2 League North Eastern Region. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Udon Thani F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD and redirect on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 15 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 2012 Thai Division 2 League North Eastern Region. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Udon Thani F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page. Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 15 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 19:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stupping ton[edit]

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

DICDEF supported only by the dubious Cardarelli. Google books finds just two occurrences of the term - both in books by Cardarelli. Oxford English Dictionary has no entry for "Stupping". No convincing evidence for the existence of this unit. Ahah: just found Shipping ton, for which it is a pretty obvious misprint/misreading. PamD 11:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Groan, yes, I suppose it's a simple(!) misprint. (But the head spins trying to read all that ("genuine", sourced) stuff about various sorts of "tons" used to measure volume.) Imaginatorium (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus, redirect having attracted zero support. ~~Redirect – Either to Shipping ton or Stuppington.~~ – Margin1522 (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect: It doesn't seem a worthwhile redirect for either - there could be millions of redirects from similar misreadings / random splittings of syllables, and we don't include them all. Let's just delete. PamD 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Um, yes, but I understand that we don't actually save any space by deleting an article. I thought if we could save one more puzzled reader a trip to the OED it would be worth it. Unless it's just too silly to display in the search box menu. In that case I have no objection to delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose "mystery redirects": "stupping" is not in the OED, so we can't save a dictionary trip, and an unexplained redirect would leave the reader mystified. If it appeared that "stupping ton" had been copied to every units conversion site, the only helpful thing would be to describe it (somewhere) as a "notable misprint". Imaginatorium (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changing my !vote. In this case I hope it's salted so that no one can create it again.– Margin1522 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked at the topic in detail and agree that this is a misprint for shipping ton. In my view, we should not maintain misprints as redirects unless they seem especially likely. Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mistakes supported by only one source should not be perpetuated with an article or redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No brainer - if I misspell "acclereator" in a paper tomorrow, that doesn't mean it gets an entry. PianoDan (talk) 16:10, 17 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 19:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manjila Sunuwar[edit]

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

2nd runner up of a non-notable beauty pageant. There are no secondary sources, all cited sources are from the web site of the organizer. This source is in NEpali though, but when I use Google translate, I don't find that the 2nd runner up is even mentioned. Google returns almost no hits [4]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - As with Anjana Sunuwar (any relation?) runner-ups are never notable solely for being runner-ups, and this person was runner-up in a brand new pageant of extremely dubious notability. Even if the contest was notable, which it's not (yet), only the winner would really rate a name-check on its page. Mabalu (talk) 14:39, 6 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 11:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to support notability. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what beauty pageant winners are notable is no where near decided, but I think it is more clear that people who were 2nd runner ups are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 16 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 19:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana Sunuwar[edit]

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

1st runner-up of a non-notable beauty pageant. There are no secondary sources cited. Google does return some hits [5] none of which seam like reliable sources to me. Fails WP:GNG Vanjagenije (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Runner-ups are never notable solely for being runner-ups, and this person was runner-up in a brand new pageant of extremely dubious notability. Even if the contest was notable, which it's not (yet), only the winner would rate a name-check on its page. Mabalu (talk) 14:38, 6 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 11:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the runner up in a beauty pageant does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 13 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 19:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacta[edit]

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

DICDEF supported only by the dubious Cardarelli. Not included in Metric prefix which appears to be a solid and well-sourced article; not listed in Oxford English Dictionary (while "kilo-" as a prefix is listed). If any reliable source can be found for this prefix it should be added to Metric prefixes and a redirect made from "Lacta". PamD 10:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dear me, couldn't we somehow have done these together. This one is at least memorable: I guess it comes from the Indian lakh for 10⁵. There is a similar list of these, totally unsourced, here: [6]; I guess that once someone put them in a discussion paper or similar. Thank goodness they never caught on. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Regardless of the reliability of Cardarelli, something that can be sourced only to a single line of a single table in a single book is not notable. (The same comment applies to all three of the units micri, lacta, and dimi, which should probably have been merged into a single AfD.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources show that this dictionary definition satisfies WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is a good puzzle. Cardarelli doesn't make stuff up and so must be referring to something. Wolfram Alpha has an entry for the prefix but doesn't say much about it. Searching for sources is complicated by the numerous references to milk, which get in the way. I'll keep my eyes out for more leads in the course of related work. Andrew D. (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cardarelli doesn't make stuff up..." you say? You know this how, I wonder? Does he just copy stuff that other people have made up? (Like the fictional Japanese units?) Imaginatorium (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As usual, no independent evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 16:12, 17 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 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Skies Network[edit]

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

non-notable video game players group Deunanknute (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any good references. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 4 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) NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 4 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 10:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability just appears to be a self-referenced gamer network. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 16 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) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Udon Thani F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to league season page. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 15 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 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic. Broadcaster awarded rights may change frequently, hence unlikely to be adequately maintained unless a working group can adopt. Haruth (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, certainly not encyclopedic. Giant Snowman 20:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently unencyclopedic given how this will change with each iteration of the competition. Seems a bit too crufty to me as well. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entries on the list are not notable as a group and the subject is adequately covered elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:04, 18 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 UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology International[edit]

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

Not indexed in any selective database (none of the databases listed are even close to being selective). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the policy-based reason for deletion, as opposed to merge or redirect? The journal may or may not be notable (I haven't looked into this), but the index listings show basic facts about the journal to be verifiable--the listed indices may not be selective, but most are independent. At the very least, redirecting to UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications would seem a no-brainer. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I just don't understand why the alternatives to PROD and deletion were not tried first. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect after deletion. There are many non-notable journals with verifiable basic facts, but not everything that is verifiable needs an article. Given that the article creator removed the PROD (which would have given time to find sources or explore alternatives), I reckoned that making a redirect would be reverted pretty fast. Hence the AfD... However, if there is to be a redirect, I think it should go to the publisher, Ubiquity Press, as articles in the journal are not exclusively from members of the UCL Institute of Archaeology. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- My reason for voting thus is mainly the reputation of the UCL Institute of Archaeology. On-line journals are not as prestigious as print ones, but this is emanating from a top-level source in its subject. If not kept it should be merged or redirected to [[UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications. Plain deletion should be out of the question. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In many fields, nobody cares much any more whether a journal has a print version or not (see the success of the PLOS journals, for example). Basing your !vote on "the reputation of the UCL Institute of Archaeology" conflicts with WP:NOTINHERITED. The journal is already listed in the article on the institute and I don't see much (except perhaps the year of establishment) that could be merged there. The list of indexing services that is present in the current article should most certainly not be merged: these non-selective (and hence, in this context, trivial) databases are not even listed in articles on journals that really are notable all by themselves, so there's even less reason to list them for non-notable ones. --Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 8 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 09:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to to UCL Institute of Archaeology#Publications. Looking at the publication, it seems to be a kind of in-house newsletter/journal for the institute. The articles do seem to be peer reviewed, but by comparison Public Archaeology is indexed by Scopus. Given our standards for academic journals, I think Public Archaeology should have its own article while this one belongs with the institute. I think it deserves a good paragraph or two, as a publication to find out what's going on at the institute – projects, research, personnel, etc. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:53, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micri[edit]

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

As for dimi this does not warrant an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources show that this word satisfies WP:GNG as a topic. I cannot even find a source to verify the dictionary definition in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not included in Metric prefix which appears to be a solid and well-sourced article; not listed in OED (while "kilo-" as a prefix is listed); no source other than the dubious Cardarelli. PamD 10:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Lacta. PamD 10:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Regardless of the reliability of Cardarelli, something that can be sourced only to a single line of a single table in a single book is not notable. (The same comment applies to all three of the units micri, lacta, and dimi, which should probably have been merged into a single AfD.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Once again we see people rushing to delete something which they do not seem to understand. Accusations that Cardarelli is "dubious" are ill-founded in such circumstances. As for this case, a quick search soon turns up another source: A Dictionary of Scientific Units. If, as it seems, the prefix was only used with the erg, then perhaps we might merge into that page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the function of your first sentence? I proposed this, saying "...does not warrant an article". Can you explain what this suggests I "do not understand"? And you do? Anyway, it would be more sensible to include a list of obsolete, propsed, abandoned (etc) prefixes in the metrix prefix article, even if "micri-" was only ever suggested for ergs. Notice incidentally that the source you cite, though not quite as simplistic as Cardarelli's offering, is still from something called a "Dictionary". WP does not aspire to be a dictionary, so it should not model its articles on dictionary entries. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Erg as verified per [7], [8], [9]. The topic does not appear to have enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently notable. PianoDan (talk) 16:11, 17 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 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Shabazz[edit]

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

Reason Possible self-promotion and/or indiscriminate publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphemus (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (rap) @ 20:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is entirely unsourced and given the lack of press coverage for Mr. Shabazz I doubt we could source much more than the event history (E.g. 2002). His personal website is defunct. Even with a well sourced event history what is the requirement for body builders? He does have at least one 1st place -- is that enough? Should this article just be deconstructed into a stub? —Noah 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is probably notable per WP:Athlete, but the entire mass of the article is pure WP:ADMASQ puffery and should be WP:Dynamited. Pax 07:54, 11 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 09:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A former champion and professional body-builder. We should treat this page as we would for a page of any other pro athlete. Self-promoting tone is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should treat this page as we would any other unsourced BLP. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:19, 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 merge to Ronald McNair. Or to such other article as is desired and determined by consensus on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McNair SROP Michigan State University[edit]

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

Unremarkable University program - not notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 27 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 (confer) @ 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Michigan State University - the programme can be reliably sourced to the university, so could go in there, though there's probably not enough for a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ronald McNair. The program is important enough in relation to that individual's bio article to justify mention, but in relation to the university it is quite insignificant and mentioning it at all would give undue weight. Think how many similar programs have had some relation to the university in its 160 year history. Edison (talk) 16:30, 4 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 09:13, 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Harutyunyan (writer)[edit]

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

Article contains no evidence of notability in reliable third party sources, subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. KDS4444^Talk 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 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 (chew) @ 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Awards and made some edits for biography--Armineaghayan (talk) 15:06, 8 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 09:09, 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 redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st Wave[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:N. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The common outcomes for broadcast media summary, which was cited in the first AFD as grounds for a speedy keep, is actually wrong about the consensus for satellite radio stations — WP:NMEDIA explicitly states that satellite radio channels are not entitled to an automatic presumption of independent notability unless they are themselves the subject of media coverage in reliable sources. Some satellite radio channels certainly do get over the bar as independent topics, but satellite radio channels are not all accepted as automatically qualifying for independent articles just because they exist — if primary source proof of their existence is all you can provide for sourcing, then they don't qualify for separate articles. That said, since they are plausible search terms, satellite radio channels which are deemed not to have sufficient RS coverage to qualify as independently notable should remain in place as redirects to List of Sirius XM Radio channels rather than simply being deleted. That indeed seems to be the case here — the only sources being cited are SiriusXM's own self-published directories of its own channel lineups — so redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels. (No prejudice against recreation in the future if actual RS coverage can actually be located.) Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 20:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree with Bearcat's reading of WP:BCAST. The previous AFD, citing the abbreviated form of the guideline, shouldn't be considered controlling here (although, as it was a giant mass nom, early closure probably saved a lot of headache even if it wasn't on technically correct grounds). There's little-to-no specific coverage here, and a redirect is not only the suggested outcome, but the most preferable one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 3 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 09:08, 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 speedy deleted per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement: Source urls: http://blog.cinnamonhotels.com/about-cinnamon-u/, http://www.ovguide.com/cinnamon-hotels-and-resorts-9202a8c04000641f8000000014f4cffd". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon Hotels and Resorts[edit]

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

There is little significant independent sources outside routinal reports by Sri Lanka media (e.g. [10][11]). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Galvan (rapper)[edit]

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

Redirect to Uptown (band) was removed by page creator. Carlos Galvan was redirected to Uptown as well. Non notable singer Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 13 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:31, 18 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 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimye[edit]

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

This is a rather useless stub on a topic that should be adequately covered in Kim Kardashian and Kanye West. A redirect may also be appropriate here. (Forgot to sign.)-RHM22 (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couples nickname hardly warrants an encyclopedic topic, at most a mention in Kim or Kanye's articles is all that's needed. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it wasn't included there either. We could redirect it, but then where do we redirect it to Kim or Kanye? But most importantly of all who cares? Oh wait, I'm not supposed to use that argument. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration that this term has encyclopedic value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worthless.--Theamazo (talk) 19:01, 14 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude Software[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:CORP Deunanknute (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rhapsodise) @ 20:22, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass our notability threshold. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NORG as doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Jim Carter 05:11, 12 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lamothe[edit]

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

Junior journalist for the Washington Post, previously of a blog. Only sources currently are from the blog and the post itself. A google search did not turn up much. The claim that he is award winning is misleading as he won a minor award for his military reporting. Overall fails WP:AUTHOR Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:51, 27 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 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:37, 27 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 (jive) @ 20:23, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteHis work as a journalist does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 13 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:SOFTDELETE -- the author may wish to consider improving List of Urdu-language poets in the alternate j⚛e decker ^talk 19:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Urdu Poet[edit]

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

Sounds like an essay on poets. "We can't forget also" makes it sound like a memorial. WP:TNT? This article makes no sense, delete and start again may be the best option Gbawden (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 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 (converse) @ 20:23, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Benton[edit]

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

Looking at his credits, it all looks like bit parts to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 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 (gossip) @ 20:24, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bit part actor who does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 13 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jadoo[edit]

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

The current version of the page is an unsourced stub. I tried to find reliable sources, but couldn't find anything that could expand it beyond a stub. (Basically just verification that it exists.) Unless somebody can prove that RS exists for this that can state something beyond it exists and is popular in its territory, it should be deleted. Luthien22 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Luthien22 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Luthien22 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I'm not sure why it was sorted under WikiProject India. It is a Korean animated series as the first line of article suggests, therefore sources are supposed to exist in theirs language. However, I was able to find three sources on Google News and have added on there (to me it appears to be a notable thing at first glance). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comms) @ 20:25, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Job[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:CORP, unable to find significant coverage via Google, but tricky due to name. Deunanknute (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so have you looked for references outside Google? DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reasoning behind why I primarily used Google:

The company is a talent recruiter. A large portion of their business is to seek out, and be sought out by potential clients; both talent, and those seeking talent. Since this company must find clients who are neither limited in number, centrally located, nor easy to find, this company must maintain an active presence in the eye of the general public.

If this company is doing so, there should be enough references online (that can be easily found via Google), to establish it's notability. Since this company works with the general public; if it is notable, references would be fairly easy to find in the place where the general public tends to look (Google).

It's direct, but it's just my reasoning, edited for readability. Deunanknute (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:35, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 20:25, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 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 no consensus. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015–16 RFU Championship transfers[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Firstly, it's hard to say whether all of these teams will actually be in the Championship or not. Secondly, it seems to have sparked an edit war over the contents for no good reason. And thirdly, even the main season doesn't have an article yet. There's also every possibility that these deals could change in the mean time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't a particularly notable topic, and I don't see why we need any of these articles. Most other sports don't do this, and it seems to be sporadic at best within Rugby Union. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquise) @ 20:26, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 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 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qamar Zaman (QZEE)[edit]

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

non notable business owner. Sources are all in passing quotes of him saying why people should still make press releases. No articles about subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply because those discussions mentioned in my option demonstrate he's an important part of the press release industry Santafesoul (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Also KEPP" because the Business 2 Community article is clearly about his low cost ($10 instead of $500) approach to the business and why his company has grown to 100M.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (quip) @ 20:26, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:BASIC, reads like an autobio, even the keep argument sounds like an advert. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:25, 18 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign and Domestic[edit]

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

non-released book. WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 20:26, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 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. SOFTDELETE for Apache Rivet (nomination was withdrawn for the broader set) j⚛e decker ^talk 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Rivet[edit]

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

This a bulk deletion nomination for all of the articles in Category:Apache_httpd_modules except for List of Apache modules.

These articles are all for plugins for the Apache HTTP server. I think don't think they're notable according to wp:nsoft: They're just modules which provide a particular feature to Apache. Some of these pages are quite short... just a declaration of what the module is and what it does... and I would imagine there probably isn't any more to say about them without the descending into writing technical documentation.

Since we already have a list article that enumerates apache modules, I propose that we delete these articles and merge content as necessary into List of Apache modules. tommylommykins (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind about the bulk nomination because I'm too lazy to nominate all the pages and it would be a waste of time to do so if this nomination was rejected. So let's keep this discussion primarily about Apache Rivet for the time being. tommylommykins (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified USER:OMPIRE and the talk page of Apache HTTP Server about this issue. For clarity I also nominated some articles in this category for deletion under the proposed deletion scheme, but that failed.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:10, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 20:27, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 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 01:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Country, Cornwall[edit]

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

Non-notable housing estate without official recognition as a hamlet, village, or town. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:59, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 20:28, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a housing estate this appears to be non-notable. There is some record of a Methodist Chapel at this location dating back to the 19th century. See, e.g. [12] and [13].24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC) The historical settlement does appear in An Index to the Historical Place Names of Cornwall but I am unsure/doubtful if that meets the "legally-recognized" criterion of WP:GEOLAND. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Wikipedia tends to have a low bar for inclusion of geographical locations, I don't think a housing estate often qualifies as notable, unless it easily passes WP:GNG (e.g. the notorious Cabrini–Green, Aylesbury Estate) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:09, 12 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 Tom Gilb. Nakon 01:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive Engineering[edit]

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

This sounds like it's a good book, but as far as I can see, fails to meet the notability criteria for articles about books. Perhaps its content should be merged into Tom Gilb? -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBOOK, unfortunately, so I think this should be merged into Tom Gilb. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 17:56, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 20:28, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Elliott Lloyd[edit]

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough for his own article. Considering he released only one album with his band, which in itself isn't notable and I don't know how notable the album is, and when Googling his name, I only got 2 pages of results, with most if not all results don't seem like reliable sources. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 01:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting your own album in and of itself doesn't make a musician notable. Many notable musicians were either studio musicians or part of a band but are still wiki worthy. IE certain (all?) members of Kiss, John Bonham, ... Postcard Cathy (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (rap) @ 20:30, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK, point #1. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break My Heart Slowly[edit]

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

Suggest a merge to I Killed the Zeitgeist. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close AfD is not for mergers. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:30, 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 Keep. Nakon 01:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clem S. Clarke[edit]

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

Claims to fame: oilman, failed Senate candidate, federal postmaster in Shreveport, Louisiana. Not close to WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable oilman, First Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana under popular election of senators. Many sources found considering he died pre-Internet in 1967. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to meet WP:GNG. As Billy Hathorn points out, ample reliable sources are available-addition of these is encouraged. Shanata (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than the findagrave sites, most of those sources mention Clarke versus going into non-trivial detail about him. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject passes GNG based on sources showing. Historically important as the first Republican Senatorial candidate in his state in the era of direct elections (i.e. after no candidate for three decades). We should not debate whether you or I or anyone else thinks a person is "important enough" for a WP article — on that Your Mileage May Vary. What we debate at AfD is whether there are sufficient sources available to write a comprehensive and verifiable biography. In this the content creator has succeeded admirably. He is to be commended. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 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 01:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ban Dong[edit]

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

Page duplicates some aspects of Operation Lam Son 719 but without providing any real detail or WP:RS. Page seems to exist to support the existence of Battle of Hill 723 which is also nominated for deletion Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Per nom; this is an unsourced fork of Operation Lam Son 719. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Operation Lam Son 719, if there is anything worth merging. As with Hill 723, if we are to have a decent article, we need to know what BOTH sides said about events. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here worth merging Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 15 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 19:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hill 723[edit]

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

Unable to find WP:RS, other than a small mention in one book, web search generally comes back to this page. Page is vaguely worded with no real detail and relies on a single non WP:RS. Page appears to be an attempt to dice up Operation Lam Son 719 but without providing any useful or verifiable information Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources; appears to be an unsourced fork of Operation Lam Son 719. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am extremely dubious of the objectivity of the media in a totalitarian state, which is presumably where the book cited were published. I find it difficult to beleive that such an engagement was not reported in newspapers on the other side, though they may well call it something else. If more sources can be cited, please let me know and I will reconsider my vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 13 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. Content appears to have been merged to Metric prefix#Double prefixes Nakon 01:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimi (metric prefix)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY -War wizard90 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources show that this word satisfies WP:GNG as a topic. The term has been mentioned at the dab dimi so no redirect is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary dicdef. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not merit an article. (There could be a list of all obsoleted bits of the metric system.) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not included in Metric prefix which appears to be a solid and well-sourced article; not listed in OED (while "kilo-" as a prefix is listed); no source other than the dubious Cardarelli. Needs to be removed from the dab page too, as it is not present in the target article, but I'll leave it there for now in case someone finds a reliable source and adds it to Metric prefix where it would belong if verifiable. PamD 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be a legitimate prefix ("dimigramme" was once used in medical contexts). That would normally suggest a merge to Metric prefix (as PamD suggests), with a note on when the prefix died away. However, with no source other than the unreliable Cardarelli, I see no alternative to deletion. One wonders why this article was created in the first place. -- 120.23.173.98 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Metric prefix#Double prefixes. This was an abbreviation for decimilli which used by the French until a decree of 1961. See The Metric System, which explains this on page 34. Cardarelli is a French scientist and so may reasonably considered an authority on the matter. The derogatory references to this respectable author above seem quite outrageous and contrary to WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to ... other pages, including talk pages" Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. However, I would like to set your mind at rest: there is a convention in educated circles of referring to books by the name of the author. In this case, therefore, saying for example "Cardarelli is full of nonsense" is a criticism of a book, and a valid criticism at that, and not in any way derogatory towards the person. In fact it is entirely possible that if you could chat to the author you would find that he is actually quite angry, because the publisher got in some cheap labour to do the proof-reading (etc), and made a mess of what he intended to be a carefully edited work. In such a case criticism of the book would go hand in hand with sympathy for the author. (I prefer to guess that the "hat-trick" junk in particular was added outside M. Cardarelli's control.) Imaginatorium (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not merge. Regardless of the reliability of Cardarelli, something that can be sourced only to a single line of a single table in a single book is not notable. (The same comment applies to all three of the units micri, lacta, and dimi, which should probably have been merged into a single AfD.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @David Eppstein: We tried a bundled AfD, but it was closed as "no consensus", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit). -War wizard90 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Metric prefix#Double prefixes. The prefix is documented in e.g. The metric system : a critical study of its principles and practice, translated in 1969 from Esprit et bon usage du systeme metrique by Maurice Danloux-Dumesnils, 1965. -- 120.23.163.33 (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google, that book has a single mention of "dimi". However, WP:N requires a lot more in order to justify an article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not justifying an article; it's justifying a deletion. The motion being discussed is that the special delete function be used to remove this page and its history from view. I'm not seeing any reason to do this when there's the better alternative of amending the page to redirect to a relevant section in a more general article. Our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE, is to save what is useful rather than wantonly using the delete function to destroy everything. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here [14] is Cardarelli himself commenting on a QA board on the obsoleting of the myriagramme etc, being not adopted by the CGPM (is that 1963). So they should go in a list "Obsolete" in the metric prefixes. There really isn't any point I think in a redirect, but if you add all the bytes and hours UKW is going to expend on this, a redirect saves humanity a lot. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that this is now included in Metric prefix#Double prefixes, there's no further reason for this page to exist. PianoDan (talk) 16:02, 17 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CallingTab[edit]

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

Simply refers to a specific product, may not be notable smileguy91^talk 02:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alen J. Salerian[edit]

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

I began vetting the article for compliance with WP:BLP and found myself deleting the entire page, with the exception of a WP:ONEEVENT. Almost everything in the article was cited to primary sources, court records, gossip/alternative magazines like the Washingtonian, brief mentions, or sources that do not even mention Salerian. I'm not sure how to categorize this source. The remaining sources that were reliable often had just 1 paragraph on him or were blurbs from a press release and nothing in-depth.

You can see the article before my trimming here for reference.

The only event Salerian is known for is being indicted for prescribing pain pills to drug dealers. First this appears to potentially be related to psychological or mental problems, making the article rather insensitive. Second, It appears to be a very minor news item, attracting few readers here[15] and being of little importance to an encyclopedia. Third, there's WP:ONEEVENT; there is no way to create a full biographical profile here using BLP-compliant sources.

This article serves a tremendous opportunity to harm and embarrass a living person and no meaningful benefit to Wikipedia. I will ask the article-subject to confirm BLPREQUESTDELETE as well. CorporateM (Talk) 02:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol, The Washingtonian is definitely a legitimate source.

Alen Salerian is notable. Here's why: he worked for the FBI, received a lot of news coverage about his dealings with Robert Hanssen (Salerian appeared as a psychiatric expert on 48 Hours where he allegedly violated doctor-patient confidentiality), regularly appeared on Channel 9 for years as a psychiatric expert, wrote op-eds that were published in many newspapers such as USA Today and the Washington Post (which CorporateM deleted from Salerian's Wikipedia article).

Please read this story as to why Salerian is notable: The Spectacular Unraveling of Washington’s Favorite Shrink (this article also includes the information I've listed above) 108.27.38.227 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds cannot be used as sources under any circumstance, with the very rare exception that the op-ed received secondary coverage and is being used as a primary source to supplement secondary ones. The article-subject's own publication of material is also not relevant, since we need credible, independent sources authored by professional journalists and academics as oppose to the article-subject.

The Washingtonian is at least partially based on crowd-sourced stories submitted to the publication. You can see their submission guidelines here. This story appears to be one such case where the article was submitted, since the author has written less than a dozen articles for the publication. Furthermore, their submission guidelines say that they are interested in almost any topic and that you don't have to be a professional journalist to submit. This is a common problem with many publications that embrace citizen journalism. I had this problem recently where a local publication was publishing attack pieces on a politician, without disclosing that they were crowd-sourced articles. Generally speaking any guest-written content in a news publication cannot be used. CorporateM (Talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. I strongly disagree with you. Ariel Sabar is a professional journalist and writer.

"Op-eds cannot be used as sources under any circumstance" What does that have to do with this? 108.27.38.227 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best this is one event. That he wrote op-eds tells us nothing. Writing op-eds does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the one event? His association with the Robert Hanssen case or his arrest? 108.27.38.227 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither writing op eds, nor being an expert witness, nor the combination of the two, make someone notable under wp:GNG. BakerStMD T|C 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I researched this physician. He apparently has a long successful career that is not mentioned here. I agree that the article has no merit as main source. This just happened to be a hot topic. An encyclopedia is not a place for political debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpwell (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Corpwell (talk · contribs), USLegalResearch (talk · contribs), Zinka21 (talk · contribs) and Alensalerian (talk · contribs) have very similar editing histories. 108.27.38.227 (talk) 23:59, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Bobherry talk 01:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Strong Clarke[edit]

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

Claim to fame is owning a sugar plantation; that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source: "Clarke, Lewis Strong". Louisiana Historical Association, A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography (lahistory.com) automatically makes him notable. This publication doesn't just add biographies of people "who own a sugar plantation". Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources also indicate that he was a prominent Republican Party leader which is particularly notable in the Deep South of the late 19th century. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:45, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 12:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Wentworth[edit]

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

Character is not notable, article is bad and has not been improved for a long time, tags requesting citations and concerns for the article's notability are long-standing. Kavidun (talk) 15:16, 27 January 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 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:43, 27 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 18:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:43, 27 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 (articulate) @ 20:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because an article's been tagged for years doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted, If anything the article needs improving. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 3 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 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 No Consensus, defaults to keep. Nakon 01:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Jhunjhnuwala[edit]

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

Unsorted. No evidence of any special notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There are a couple of profiles not in the article: NYT and [16]. He seems to be quoted fairly often in the news, being in a highly quoted industry like hospitality. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More references added from authentic websites :

I have included more references in the article, from various news and government websites like: [17] [18] hope these provide sufficient evidence of special notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny.mosaic (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Now has 4 independent sources, vs. only 1 when it was nominated. With these new sources I think it now has enough to pass GNG. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:17, 6 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 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 No Consensus, defaults to keep. Nakon 01:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theonym[edit]

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

this article is not even a stub, and should at best be a wiktionary entry μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I'm fine with moving it to Wiktionary or whatever. I think I saw it on a request or something. Although if more can be said on it that's fine with me too.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 20:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel like there's an article in here somewhere... maybe create "Theonymics" with this content+ and redirect "Theonym" to it? Vrac (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is a spare stub, to say the least, but there is a topic here with loads and loads of reliable sourcing. I suspect that Vrac is correct regarding WP:MOSTITLE and the eventual article should be at theonymics. Whether what we have here is worth keeping is... a harder decision, although I tend to side with retention when there is plausible expansion. Not that we'd lose much here if otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:35, 3 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete My sense echoes the comment above, except I lean a bit towards the delete, since my searches did not suggest there was much to the term, other than the definition the name of a god. The term is not used much in contemporary discourse. If I do an unfiltered search for just the term theonym I get entries like the Free Dictionary, and others, which simply reiterate the name of a god and that's that, suggesting the term is not encyclopedic, and it is hard to tell how many of these "sources" are copying Wikipedia. I don't have a sense that the term is used much except possibly in linguistic analysis of ancient languages and cultures, and even then, not used much. If we create theonymics, what would that be about? There is a possible source here and a brief mention here, and a mention in an obscure book here. Overall I am not enthusiastic about this topic given the paucity of sources, lack of interest, and if we did keep it all we could write about it would be a dictionary definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 16 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. AfD withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polycount[edit]

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

Promotioanl and non-notable -- see inforbox DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article some, doing partnered contests with the 1st and 3rd most played online PC games seems noteworthy to me. ^[1] Polypunk (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Most played PC games on gaming platform Raptr in December 2014, by share of playing time".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the following sources: [19], [20], [21], [22]. Sam Walton (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another lazy and unhelpful AfD rationale, I'm afraid. I suppose the comment refers to the (non-removed) mission statement in the infobox - hardly a sufficient reason for deletion. The RS coverage clearly exists: a simple Google news search reveals 286 hits for "Polycount art" and 320 for "Polycount forum". A lot are incidental mentions, but the mere fact that RS have referred their readers to something on the site hundreds of time is far from meaningless - non-notable websites are not routinely referenced in RS. The in depth coverage of the site and/or its contests found in some of those RS (such as thus links provided by Sam Walton) prove notability beyond a doubt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shacknews, Kotaku, and PCGamer are all good, but the other sources are either first-party or unreliable. In addition, I found another PCGamer source (only this one simply talks about the Polycount Pack, never mentioning the group specifically), this from Gamasutra (some good information on the success of their mods for TF2), and this from Russian IGN (I doubt it's got anything in there, the DuckDuckGo description used "MessageBoard" in it, but if anyone knows Russian, it'd be great to know for sure). With the three aforementioned good sources in the article, we have a solid history of the project, an editorial about fan-made League of Legends art that says that Polycount was part of hosting the contest, and an article about how much was paid to the creators of the Polycount Pack. Definitely enough to work with, even though there's a lot of stuff cited to unreliable sites. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A news search reveals multiple mentions of the site, including several in PC Gamer magazine. I am genuinely shocked that such a well respected editor and admin with a strong track record as DGG would file a confusing AfD with several typos which amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. I am concerned his account might have been compromised. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 17 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) 07:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senescent toxin[edit]

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

Promotional article for Bio Vision. The phrases "Senescent toxin" or "Senescent toxins" are not apparently used in the literature, a/c Google scholar, so it's simply their proprietary name DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nomination statement is accurate. There is no evidence that Bio Vision (which ironically may actually be notable) has ever used this term - it doesn't appear on their website for example. And the two sentences about the company have now been removed so it definitely isn't an ad for them anymore, and I doubt the company actually had anything to do with the article to begin with. That said, the term "senescent toxin" seems to be an invention of the article author - it is not known anywhere outside Wikipedia and mirrors. As such, this is original research and should be deleted on those grounds unless someone thinks the text could be used productively at Senescence or a related article. Pinging @RadioFan: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unknown anywhere but on Wikipedia, why would the information be incorporated into an article? MicroPaLeo (talk)

The term is unknown, the information is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no usage of this phrase in the literature. The article itself doesn't make a lot of sense, and the references are at best loosely connected to the statements they supposedly support. It looks like a SCIgen creation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that BioVision does sell a Senescence detection kit - as do other similar vendors - but it's an ordinary lab reagent and doesn't have anything to do with whatever this article is talking about. Definitely not promotional on their account. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 13 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 - Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TSRTC Bus timings[edit]

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

delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Deunanknute (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Obvious this will never be notable unless the TSRTC has the world's fastest bus.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I've tagged it as custom (Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL), Anyone with any common sense would rely on a bus timetable....Not an Encyclopedia!, This isn't in any way encyclopedic nor useful here. –Davey2010^Talk 04:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A1. Clearly no context at all. I declined the speedy deletion tag placed by the other user as not a valid criteria. Safiel (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a valid criteria as I've used it hundreds of times without any problems...... –Davey2010^Talk 04:42, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Forum[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke and turn into a disambig page saying it's a live album by Killing Joke, link to Live at the Forum (The Jackson 5 album) and anyone else who's released a retrospective live album under that title. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 4 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) @ 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as disambig page per Ritchie333. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 07:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloves (song)[edit]

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

Searching through Google, this has a few valid references but is unlikely to expand further than a stub article, and I would perhaps suggest merging it with Strange House. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONG - "1.Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". If the nom doesn't think this is enough to pass notability, then they should raise a RFC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:39, 6 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Strange House. The first line in WP:NSONGS reads: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." That is not the case here. The list in WP:NSONGS is not criteria for passing notability requirements but merely factors which may suggest notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per these song review sources I've found ([23] and [24]). Kokoro20 (talk) 13:42, 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.

[1] Kirkus Review of Getting Free. "Getting Free by Nigel Hinton". Kirkus. Retrieved 2015-02-03. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2] "Most played PC games on gaming platform Raptr in December 2014, by share of playing time".

[1]

[1]