Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 23

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 23
Medal record
Mens Judo
Representing USA
US Olympic Trials

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 23
Medal record
Mens Judo, Karate
Representing USA
Mardi Gras National Karate Championships
All Marine Judo Championships
US National Championships
World Masters Judo Championships

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 23
Medal record
Mens Judo
Representing USA
US Air Force Judo Championships
US National Championships
USA Judo International Masters Championships
USA Judo Senior Nationals Masters
World Masters Judo Championships

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 February	24 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 as request from a single user to delete own work. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer need this page. I moved CKMO to VillageNow.net before I realized that VillageNow.net showed up in the categories, such as Defunct radio stations in Canada. Reasons why I moved CKMO to VillageNow.net is that the station is now an internet radio station and that CKMO belongs to a radio station in Orangeville, Ontario as CKMO-FM. Rather than moving the page back to CKMO, I decided to switch it back to CKMO 900 (defunct) to make it less confusing for Wikipedians and readers.

AFD not necessary; if you do something and then decide that it was wrong and want to delete it, when you're the only person who's ever touched it, then you can just list it as a G7 speedy. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 23 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 SK1 & all that. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demiard[edit]

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

No evidence for existence of this unit beyond the dubious Cardarelli. The word is not in the Oxford English Dictionary. PamD 23:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw now that an entirely different article has been written on the French liquid measure. And I'll add to my "to do list" a plan to create redirects or dab page entries for those Units of measurement in France before the French Revolution. PamD 07:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Googling suggests that "Demiard" is an ancient French liquid measure - and French Wikipedia agrees - but this article and Cardarelli declare it to be a UK dry measure. PamD 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's more French than English but I suppose there was some crossover due to trade and other connections. Anyway, there are obviously reasonable alternatives to deletion such as merger with Units of measurement in France before the French Revolution#Volume - Liquid_measures. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Units of measurement in France before the French Revolution. There is nothing to "merge" as the treatment in the February 2011 revision was already better than the text in Demiard. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Johnuniq. This really is very silly: the article as AfD'd should be deleted. Davidson tries to convert it into a different article, but it still belongs in some sensible topic, f'goodness sake. I removed the Cardarelli ref anyway, since it does not support the current version at all, unless in Cardarelli-speak "UK" means "French/English-speaking" and "dry" means "liquid"; it seems to be a mangled version of the situation in Canada. AAMOF, words like this, which mean "half-of-something", deserve rich dictionary treatment. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cardarelli gives it as equivalent to half a pint, which is where it seems to have ended up. That source is therefore reasonably accurate and so should not be discarded to satisfy this bizarre vendetta. Per our editing policy, this is a work-in-progress and there may be more to find. I've only spent a few minutes on it this morning but already my work is disrupted. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So in your view, "UK unit of dry volume equal to half a pint" is an "reasonably"(??) accurate way of saying Canadian unit of liquid volume equal to half a pint". To me it looks like 1 out of 3, but you think that's good enough for WP? There is no "vendetta"; Cardarelli is full of minor errors, and more importantly half-truths. That makes it inappropriate as a reference. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of Cardarelli's encyclopedia is that it "converts the huge variety of units from all over the world in every period of recorded history into units of the SI." It would be nice if it provided a detailed history of each unit too but, as it's already 848 pages, one can see why it limited its scope to that particular project. So, it's a valid source for providing the SI equivalence of the units in question and more generally gives some clue as to the nature of the unit. Now, it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so we can be more ambitious, aiming to document each unit in all respects. This work is happening on a broad front and we have thousands of articles about obscure units such as the statcoulomb. That one doesn't have any sources at all and there's predictably someone complaining about that too so we shouldn't rush to throw away sources once we have found them. It is our general editing policy to develop such work in mainspace in the fabulous manner of the stone soup — everyone chipping in with morsels until we have a complete meal. Carping because it doesn't taste good yet doesn't seem productive because that's the case with much/most Wikipedia content - only 1% of our articles are of good quality and even that figure is debatable. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Un demi, s'il vous plaît I've found the French equivalent now which tells us, "en France jusqu'à nos jours, de commander un « demi » de bière dans les bistrots." In other words, the unit still lives on, after a fashion, when ordering beer and so they link the article to the portail de la bière. As this seems similar to the situation in Australia, where a complex variety of units are used when ordering beer, I'm starting to see a theme here. There was an interesting question in the Guardian recently: Why is the standard UK beer can size 440ml?. I'm still working on that one ... cheers! Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Cardarelli is happy to promulgate junk like the stupping ton, I'm reluctant to trust any of his 800 pages. And how do we know that today's "demi" of beer has any connection to "demiard" or "ard"? PamD 15:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Mancovitz[edit]

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

Withdrawn ~~Nonnotable attorney and criminal. His criminal case was news, of course, but there is no lasting impact on American civilization.~~ Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Wikipedia:POLITICIAN as a member of a state legislature (Massachusetts House of Representatives). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are tens of thousands of biographical articles on people for whom the measurable impact on American civilization can't be proven, but I'm curious as to why the nom thinks that has anything to do with Wikipedia's notability standards. Quite aside from a prima facie pass on WP:POLITICIAN, the subject plainly passes the GNG. I've got 26 hits on newspapers.com [1] in a span between 1903 and 1922, both well before and well after the criminal case, which certainly gets past ONEEVENT. Ravenswing 05:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the short phrase that he was member of legislature (so much for his notability as politician :-), but since this alone qualifies him, fine with me. Newspaper hit count alone is a dubious argument, but it is a non-issue here now. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We're not talking about Google News, we're talking newspapers.com, one of the pay sites that has an agreement with Wikipedia to supply editors with free accounts to facilitate article building. Those 26 hits equal 26 ARTICLES mentioning Mancovitz. (And that being said, I'd have thought that you'd want to avoid the subject of dubious arguments in this AfD.) Ravenswing 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, "mentioning" is the key word. I suggest you to find and review a guideline which uses the language "significant coverage" or something like that. But again, the issue is moot now. Otherwise I sure hell would go and dig through these 26.Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:05, 24 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. Withdrawn - Notability's not perfect but the sources below are better than nothing! / Per SK1& all that fun stuff! (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Arzamasova[edit]

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

Non notable actress - Fails NACTOR + GNG

This was originally prodded by Bearian - But I deprodded hoping I could transfer the cites from her Russian article [2] to here but those cites don't seem to match up to the text there, and most if not all cites there seem "Blog type", even those on Google News seem bloggish unfortunately, –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded it because I felt it was such a mess and a BLP violation. I'd gladly change my mind. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is inadequate, but anyone this busy snagging "pretty girl" roles is going to be notable. Pax 03:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB can't be used, Granted she's been in a few films but none of them are notable otherwise there would be a lot more cites and we both wouldn't be here now. –Davey2010^Talk 03:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say IMDB should be ref'd in the article; I simply used it as a probability gauge.

...the main problem with finding RS for Russian subjects is that you won't find much unless you search by the Cyrillic lettering (i.e., "Арзамасова"). The following appear to be RS: [3],[4],[5].[6]. Pax 05:06, 27 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) 03:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Will Erwin Headache Research Foundation[edit]

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

This article was deleted CSD A7 on Friday and now back up on Monday.

Fails corporate notability guidelines. There is no depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources to support notability. Fails general notability and It does not matter who they are partnered with.

Most, if not all of their coverage on the web is PR coverage. Their references include a link to a golf directory, their own web site, a hospital biography page and one news article that mentions why they were founded. JBH (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be anything about this other than self-generated content. Fails WP:ORG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NGO that does not seem to pass WP:COMPANY (lack or RS). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Shedrick[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Candidate for CSD, but CSD continues to be removed by SPA. reddogsix (talk) 22:58, 23 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) 03:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gabay (author)[edit]

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

This is a CV, not an article, and the given sources do not permit us to write anything more; they do not cover Gabay in any detail and do not suffice to establish his notability. Huon (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only is this article not supported by reliable sources, the creator of this particular variant has ignored multiple decline notices at the original draft (which was copied to sandbox and moved to the mainspace). Primefac (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCV. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
really sorry if you think I have ignored any messages - i have deleted, amended and altered the items which you highlighted. there were a number of references to international media featuring the subject but the links came via youtube rather than direct - not within wiki guidelines. happy to keep editing :-) Gemigem (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless better sources can be provided that are able to turn this into something that isn't a CV. Discant X 08:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dont delete I have made multiple edits and the article conforms to guidelines. if you have a specific line on the page which you think should be edited, please do :-) . Thanks for your help. Gemigem (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gemigem, to start with, pretty much all of the lists on the page should be removed and replaced with proper prose about his life. This should all be backed up by inline references from reputable third party sources that specifically mention the facts in the article. Discant X 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: DiscantX thanks - bibliography list is standard though, right. I am writing the prose. :-)) Gemigem (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC

Gemigem, bibliographies are encouraged under the MOS. The problem is that most of the references either don't discuss the author directly (think of it this way. If you were to add a fact about the author, you would need to be able to add a link to a third party source that says that same fact), or are blogs (not considered reliable sources around here). Maybe once you add some prose in along with reliable sources backing it up it may pass the test, but at the moment I don't see enough to convince me it will. Discant X 10:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - kindly wait for Draft:Jonathan Gabay to go through the AfC process. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 01:45, 26 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. From what I see, consensus indicates that the article is notable because of significant coverage from reliable sources. My own investigation corroborates this. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis the Wild Bull[edit]

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

Dennis Rodman clearly is notable. His children's book isn't. The article is not an appropriate summary of the given references, which agree that there is very little information on the book, and instead of calling it "most anticipated children's book of 2012" rather mercilessly mock Rodman for writing it. So in summary: Not a notable topic, spammy article that's factually wrong. Huon (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Though this one is making my inclusionist tendencies cringe, but there is no way I would ever consider working on this article (or have students do so). Not ever. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG - 'has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' (don't have to be positive of the subject) and WP:BK - '1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself' Here are some refs: ^[1] ;^[2] ; ^[3] ; ^[4] ; ^[5]

^ Josh Benjamin (31 January 2013). "Dennis Rodman Writes Children's Book 'Dennis the Wild Bull'". http://bleacherreport.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ Eliana Dockterman (2 August 2012). "Dennis Rodman, Terrible Role Model, Writes a Children's Book". http://newsfeed.time.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ "Dennis Rodman Releases Children's Book 'Dennis the Wild Bull' to Preach Acceptance". http://nesn.com. 31 January 2013. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ Eric Freeman (30 January 2013). "Dennis Rodman has released a children's book, obviously". http://sports.yahoo.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ Brandon Stroud (31 January 2013). "Hold On To Your Butts: Dennis Rodman Wrote A Book About Acceptance For Children". http://uproxx.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Coolabahapple and Northamerica1000. There's enough coverage of this books release to warrant keeping the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 06:54, 25 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. No reason at all for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser University's West Gymnasium[edit]

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

Ostrichyearning (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination should be closed unless a valid reason for the deletion is stated. Edison (talk) 20:32, 23 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. No reason at all for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser University's Central Gymnasium[edit]

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

Ostrichyearning (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination should be closed unless a valid reason for the deletion is stated. Edison (talk) 20:33, 23 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pascagoula Abduction[edit]

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

Page for non-notable purported abduction experience. All references are either non WP:RS or are broken links. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existing article is terribly slanted toward the UFOlogy point of view, however a fair number of independent sources exist [14] including some critique [15] so it would not be difficult to WP:BLOWITUP and write an objective article using reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LuckyLouie. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with LuckyLouie. There do seem to be reliable sources available for this event, including this article from Boston.com, this article from Reuters, this article from the Associated Press. The story does seem to have attracted mainstream attention in reliable sources. With a bit of digging to find further reliable sources, a decent article could probably be written. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article recently revised per above discussion [16]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the above discussion I'd withdraw my forwarding of the AfD and support keep Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 25 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. The discussion below has demonstrated that the cited sources are only passing mentions (regular issues of competition results and club rosters). I should note that the primary concern here is the depth of biographical coverage in cited sources. The disagreement below, on whether Odell Terry competed at a sufficiently high level, is largely inconsequential to notability (in the way Wikipedia uses the word). Der yck C. 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odell Terry[edit]

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

Non notable judoka. The references are passing mentions and results so fail WP:GNG. His success in judo was in an Air Force tournament and in the 70+ year old divisions. Nothing to show he meets any criteria at WP:MANOTE or WP:ATHLETE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable African American Judo fighter who has had success as an instructor as well as a competitor. He has multiple mentions in black belt magazine. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passes MANOTE [17] by either being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary, (3) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). The high ranking rationale that you stated for deletion for a number of them applies when ... "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Judo has hundred of thousand practitioners.CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions and senior citizen titles do not demonstrate notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does exist SOME passing mention in articles but there is also indepedent articles. Please look at ALL the sources.CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having reviewed the sources, I don't see anything substantial enough that Terry would meet the WP:GNG. He's clearly a step above your weekend or casual competitor, but doesn't seem to have broken through into wider notability. References provided, where they're in independent secondary sources, are mainly casual mentions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Second Place in the 1966 US National Championships Ashbury Park, N.J. NC U80 is far more than a step above. That is second in the NATION. So is he an elite competitor in Judo . ^{[OdellTerry 1]} Meets WP:ATHLETE CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again the question of what is an elite and notable competitor in Judo is in question. Competing in the World Championships or the Olympics would be - the others just aren't.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentUS Senior National Silver Medalist and World Masters Champion. He passes WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The fact that he's African American does not make him notable nor does winning a 2 person senior division. A silver medal, however, puts him on the edge. I'm siding delete since WP:MANOTE says multiple medals at major championships and he doesn't meet that.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentStated to be a major Judoka in the United States [18], winner of 9th East Coast Regional ^{[OdellTerry 2]}, winner of Yoshida Cup ^{[OdellTerry 3]}CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG. Being second best in the nation is notable enough. He has multiple medals in different years. 24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References list[edit]

^ http://www.judoinside.com/judoka/view/48233/judo-results
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=dM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=odell+terry+judo&source=bl&ots=Gsu89DtkIg&sig=-QRzSSFkt8QWeoXa5hrc5PAPmjY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wlL1VNqlK4yZgwSalIL4Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=odell%20terry%20judo&f=false
^ >https://books.google.com/books?id=Qs4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=terry+odell++judo&source=bl&ots=rWxVKG2OxT&sig=p-A4_JxSgELENooBg1mSeLzpVDE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C1T1VPCgHoLWgwSzzIHwDA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=terry%20odell%20%20judo&f=false

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Katie Nolan. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage Time with Katie Nolan[edit]

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

No indication of notability, a yet to be broadcast TV show by a non notable person whose article has been repeatedly deleted Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous... look around at the articles that you allow to exist on wikipedia... So much for having an open forum for the internet. The real reason this should exist is because Katie Nolan keeps getting deleted.

This is why many people consider wikipedia a joke. I don't have time to fluff up these articles right now, but every time I create them, so others can find them they get deleted. meanwhile pages like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Jenner & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Jenner exist? my original articles had more interesting information than these two junk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmartin17 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 February 2015‎

Delete per proposal. No evidence of notability and frankly terribly written. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be enough coverage at this point to warrant a Katie Nolan article, so my preferred outcome would be to redirect this future show to her page, assuming it gets (re)created. Gongshow talk 19:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But until that page is created it should be deleted. If that pages is made the creator can redirect this there. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Katie Nolan page is currently protected after being deleted three times. I would point out to Dmartin17 that Wikipedia is not, and never has been, an 'open forum'. It is an encyclopaedia. There is a policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which explains that the existence of one article does not mean than another article should exist too. Those other pages might need looking at closer. If the only intention is that people should get information, why use a place that is 'a joke'? Katie Nolan surely has a website, and there are always places like Facebook - used by some of the biggest companies and many celebrities - where information can be conveyed without the irksome restrictions that we have here. There is, unfortunately, an attitude in many places that one MUST have a Wikipedia article, and the Alexa rating of Wikipedia is rather high which deoesn't help dealing with this mind set. As a non-American and a non-TV watcher, I'm leaving the debate here to others who are more knowledgeable. Peridon (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Since there is no viable redirect target, and the show doesn't meet WP:GNG, at least yet. I have no idea if Katie Nolan is notable or not, but the author apparently chooses to complain about the article not existing instead of improving the draft they created. I see no reason why this couldn't be a redirect/merge when and if the bio exists, but for now I see no reason to keep it around. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Katie Nolan, which is now an article thanks to Gongshow. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fox Sports 1#News and analysis programming I don't doubt it will be premiere, but until we actually can view the final product a redirect is more appropriate for the program until it gains the notability for its own article in the future. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Katie Nolan I was the nominator but happy to see it redirected now that a properly referenced article about her has been written. Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fox Sports 1. It might premiere and get a whole bunch of secondary coverage, in which case this article can be easily restored. But it might also sink without a trace. Wikipedia is not a place to promote upcoming television programmes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I agree the show might not deserve a page, but Katie Nolan certianly does at this point. How can you expect people to edit it and make it prettier writing if their work keeps getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.60.68 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Best Hospitals in Madhapur[edit]

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

There is already a List of hospitals in India, with an exhaustive list of hospitals in Telangana. This list, purporting to list the "best" hospitals, is unnecessary due to both its redundancy and its inherent promotional aspects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Unreferenced, no articles linked, so there's really nothing here worth merging to List of hospitals in India. Dai Pritchard (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced POV. Wikipedia does not decide which hospitals are "best". No criteria are given. Ivanvector (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless "best hospital" has a different meaning in this part of India to its plain English usage. Inherently subjective. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, pov. — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 26 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. Due to sources being unable to be produced by those asking for this article's inclusion, this article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest R. Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. No significant independent coverage and his career highlights were finishing fifth as a Scottsdale YMCA tournament and defeating the only other competitor in his age and weight division at the age of 66. This is not enough to satisfy WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Meets WP:ATHLETE. He is the subject of multiple independent articles. He also won the All Marine Grand Championship title in 1974 ^[1]

commentpass MANOTE [19] by either being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary, (2) Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors, (3) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). The high ranking rationale that you stated for deletion for a number of them applies when ... "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Judo has hundred of thousand practitioners.CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of passing mentions and senior citizen success in divisions of 2 people. Not the highest level of competition.Mdtemp (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Marine Grand Championship is not senior citizen and indepedent articles are not passing mentions. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. The competitions were not at the highest level.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentA world champion makes you a competitor at the highest level.CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a two person senior division is not equivalent to besting dozens of competitors in their prime. Papaursa (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE since the coverage is only passing mentions and this is another case where winning a two person senior citizen division title is insufficient to show success at the highest level of competition. Papaursa (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentThat happens in many places. A person who is from Pitcairn Islands can have the only person who does Judo make their nations Olympic Team. This is the problem with WP:MANOTE He is a world champion an all marine champion, the subject of an independent articles and has a high rank in a significant organization. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, judo competitors need to qualify. Every country is not entitled to a competitor. Only the host nation gets an automatic entrant. You still haven't shown that he's actually competed at the highest level. You keep repeating the same arguments, but without addressing other people's comments. No matter how many times you say it, winning a two persion senior citizen division is not the same as competing at the highest level against dozens of competitors from other countries. Some of your senior citizen "world" champions didn't even compete against anyone not from their own state, much less another country. Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANOTE He qualified based on Subject of an independent article/documentary, Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors (CISM is a significant international organization.) and Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion) (World Masters is significant international tournament as well as All Marines)CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://wp.usjudo.org/Files/Internal_Files/eLetter/2011/ClubBarstow111005.pdf

Delete He didn't win at CISM, he won a 2 person division. The All Marines tournament is nowhere close to being equivalent to the national championships. Fails WP:MANOTE and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentAll Marine is a national tournament. Marines from all over the nation. It is significant. He is also the subject of an independent article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG.World Masters Champ makes him notable. He cleared out his division in the US and the World. 24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Winning a championship at age 66 is impressive, but sadly the World Masters isn't a big enough tournament to be covered on Wikipedia. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentUS Nationals are a major tournament and being a member of the US National Team. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment WP:MANOTE supporting notability include (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary, (2)

Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors, and (3) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion) All of these are fulfilledCrazyAces489 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sailor ^Talk! 10:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarama Surf Life Saving Club[edit]

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

The article should beabout the club, yet most of the article is not about the club. The only sources that is actually about the club is this.This club fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - seeing sources provided by Northamerica1000 leads me to believe that the club is not clearly non-notable, however it doesn't seem clearly notable to me either. I agree that there's coverage there, but I don't think the coverage is necessarily good enough. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article is crap, but the topic is notable. This is one of the oldest and most significant surf lifesaving clubs in Australia, and it doesn't take much digging to see that you could easily find enough WP:RS to create an article. I am not interested enough in the topic to do said work, but at a bare minimum this should not be blocked from being recreated if someone does decide to write a better article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having just had my suspicions confirmed, I think there is actually a separate issue here that I'd urge people to think about. The editor who wrote this article, User:Pidzz, has an entire (and long) history that is full of either a) creating articles on notable topics that are so badly sourced they're deleted as non-notable, b) creating articles on blatantly non-notable topics, and c) redirecting articles on notable topics to lists and places that contain no information on them. This is a classic example of the mess he leaves behind: a topic that should have an article gets a blatantly crap one which gets AfDd, deleted, and then there's a discouragement to actually create a decent one. I presume he's well-intentioned, but he doesn't respond to messages and it's an ongoing mess that is impacting upon content. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Weakly meets WP:ORGDEPTH per [20], [21]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've had a stab at fixing the article and, from the sources found and used in that exercised, I think it is notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the club is a national icon and a by-word for surf life saving in Australia. The club featured as the centrepiece of a nationally televised Dulux campaign (here) and featured prominently in print and television advertising. It's certainly "coverage", though perhaps not "in depth". It stands to reason, though, that a club recognisable enough that only the word "Tamarama" need be flashed up on the screen for people to know they are talking about the surf club, is probably notable. My argument would be that it passes WP:GEOFEAT as a historical landmark for the surf life saving movement in Australia which is, itself, a feature of international tourism campaigns, Olympics opening ceremonies and official state welcomes. It doesn't inherit notability just by being a surf club and I'm not suggesting we go creating articles for the thousands of others; this one is genuinely unique. That the article might have needed work is not a reason for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - information may not be extensive but it is close to factual and provides a base for expansion.A M R Sydney (talk) 09:20, 26 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan O'Reilly (MMA)[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only one top tier fight (a loss). It's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume he'll get the other two top tier fights he needs to meet WP:NMMA. No objection to recreating the article when he meets WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. The proposed second top tier fight really is too far in the future to be sure.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fought in the Ultimate Fighter as well as the UFC. Subject of independent articles. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having lost his only one top tier fight, he's a long way from having the three top tier fights he needs to meet WP:NMMA. If he gets those fights his article can be recreated. Appearing on TUF is not, in itself, an indicator of notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Thompson (Judo)[edit]

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

~~Lacks the significant coverage required by WP:GNG and doesn't meet any of the criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE.~~ Being invited to the Olympic Trials is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination My mistake--he does clearly meet WP:MANOTE.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Meets WP:ATHLETE Brewster would compete at the U.S. Olympic judo team trials in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1996, and 2008 (at the age of 55). Brewster was an Olympic Alternate. Brewster would win Gold in the Masters Heavyweight division in Sumo.^[1] To even compete at the trial yyou have to have a high level of skill and a many wins. Brewster has many multiple mentions in Black Belt Magazine, and as an entertainer has appeared on David Letterman and Arsenio Hall as well as the film Lionheart with Jean Claude Van Damme.^[2]CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pass MANOTE [22] by either being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary, (2) Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors, (3) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). The high ranking rationale that you stated for deletion for a number of them applies when ... "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Judo has hundred of thousand practitioners.CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He competed at the Trials, but I saw nothing that said he was an alternate (i.e., next in line for the Olympics). I don't see significant independent coverage of his judo skills. Are you saying he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER? I don't think so. The comment on rank in MANOTE refers to mentioning someone in the article on judo--it says nothing about having his own article. Tell me what medals he won at the national or world championships.Mdtemp (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Alternate in 1984 as per Black belt magazine. ^[3]

To be honest, a quick google search solves all of your answers. You can find all of them yourself! But here you go!

DATE RESULT JUDO EVENT TYPE CAT.
27/04/1985 1 US National Championships Farmington Hills NC Open

05/02/1984 3 Canada Cup Quebec Canada IT U95
19/11/1983 2 US Open Colorado Springs IT U95
24/04/1983 3 US National Championships Los Angeles NC U95
06/12/1981 1 US Open Greenwich IT U95
01/11/1980 3 US Open San Jose IT U95
12/04/1980 3 Dutch Open Kerkrade IT U95
20/10/1979 2 US Open San Jose IT O95
15/04/1978 3 US National Championships Chicago NC U95
15/03/1975 3 US National Championships Los Angeles NC U93
1984 2 US National Championships Orlando NC U95
1981 3 US National Championships Little Rock NC U95
^[4]CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster has been the subject of multiple indepedent articles including on Jet Magazine ^[5] and Black Belt Magazine.CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This kind of documentation should have been in the article--and should be in the other articles under discussion if it exists.Mdtemp (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put in what I thought was enough to start an article. I do not want to violate wiki:Own and want others to contribute. I felt being an Olympic Alternate was enough and winning the US National Championships was enough. I have provided so many sources that were independent that I am shocked so many articles were put up for deletion. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not quite done with this yet. Being an olympic alternate does not show notability by itself but National Champion might. US has never been very strong in Judo but I think a case can be made that this is notable. I would like to see the National Championship results in the article with the correct references. I am also very confused (and this is probably the lack of a reference in the article) - did he really get third place in the 1996 Olympic trials. It actually looks like a confusion with the 1986 Olympic festival.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
reply to comment Being an olympic alternate is notable. you have to still qualify to be an olympic alternate. The USA is actually 12th in total medals from just the Olympics. They aren't a powerhouse but they aren't weak either. [23] IT does state that James Thompson was an alternate on the 1984 Olympic Team. [24], 1985 National Open Weight Judo Champ [25]CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being an alternate is not competing at the highest level. Actually going to the Olympics or World Championship in Judo is another matter.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentBeing a national champion makes him notable as well as having independent articles about him makes him notable. [26]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While being an alternate to the Olympic team or invited to the Olympic trials is not an indication of notability, multiple podium finishes at the U.S. national championships seems sufficient to me. This information needs to be added to the article, and should have been there from the start. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.americansumo.org/
^ http://www.theropemaster.com/
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=9s8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=brewster+thompson+olympic+alternate&source=bl&ots=nwq9fVnKxk&sig=Sllz-c79si3vbitNdqRB2T9u1KE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QOTsVIHpI4fEgwTuo4LwCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=brewster%20thompson%20olympic%20alternate&f=false
^ http://www.judoinside.com/judoka/view/9504/judo-results
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ccMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=james+thompson+judo&source=bl&ots=eGrhvaX6Uf&sig=84nCRvx4m_17leJBez_dm27E0kQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_OXsVIWINomLNvPfgOgF&ved=0CFgQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=james%20thompson%20judo&f=false

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Achyutanand singh[edit]

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

The article is written like a political promotion. The notability of the perosn is not established. As I understood, he is just a member of the local parliament. None of the sources cited contain any kind of significant coverage, except about his car crash incident. I searched Google news, but fount only a couple of results, with no significant coverage [27]. Fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - Sources indicate that he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) for Bihar which I believe makes him notable per WP:NPOL#1: "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". See, e.g., [28]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is a member of a state legislative assembly, passing WP:POLITICIAN. References already in the article confirm this. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, members of state or provincial parliaments are generally considered to be notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EasyPayWay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. There is no significant, reliable, third-party coverage on this company. (Excluding the regular social media pages, of course.) Biblioworm 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising / promotion. Pishcal — ♣ 17:14, 23 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 per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Lawrence[edit]

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

Some mentions, but not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Successful artist, but I couldn't establish notability. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, so time for a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 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! 13:56, 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, Biblioworm 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little verified information is available about this person - just a brief entry at the Lambiek Comiclopedia. That's not enough for notability; according to Lambiek that pedia contains entries for more than 11,000 comic artists. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 23 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. Previous AfD, which closed as "no consensus", had many words but not much in the way of policy and proof, and some of the keeps are puzzling--I do not know how to parse "notability is not and never has been a criteria for deletion". But if this is not a train station, and given the poor sourcing, there is no reason to accept it is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corning (Amtrak station)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2007. Since then Amtrak has ceased serving the station. It's still used as a stop by the county bus service, the Tehama Rural Area Express (TRAX), but that's all. Bus stations aren't presumptively notable and I don't see that this stop passes the GNG. Though I favored keeping in 2007, I think that I must have thought it was an actual train station, which was not the case then or now. There's no obvious merge candidate absent an article on TRAX. If the article is kept, it needs to move to either Corning Transportation Center or Corning Intermodal Transit Station as there's no Amtrak connection whatsoever. Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently a bus station, not a railway station. No evidence that there is any notablily attached thereto. Info can be covered in the article on the locality. Mjroots (talk) 21:48, 18 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, Biblioworm 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once notable always notable. If it was notable as an active train stop, it is still notable as an inactive one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): you do realize that no train ever stopped here, right? It was never more than a bus station. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 23 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. No evidence of notability presented. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan S. Hill[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, no independent refs given, non found, possible COI/PR creator Deunanknute (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I was unsure of this but he did look notable at the time but now I'm unsure what to say. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-He is more notable than the Australian director of same name — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment notability is not determined by other articles, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Also, see WP:RS and WP:IS for information on reliable and independent sources, respectively. Deunanknute (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a film historian and feel this Nathan Hill has made a couple notable films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:09, February 10, 2015‎

Comment Please explain why a filmmaker of home videos is listed as "Nathan Hill" the filmmaker not the real Nathan Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:12, February 10, 2015‎

Comment Is Rotten Tomatoes an Independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:14, February 10, 2015‎

Comment PRose88 is the author of the article, and has made no edits other than those concerning the director and his film. Meters (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - rotten tomatoes does not establish notability, neither does imdb. I'm not sure what you mean by the "home videoes...not the real" comment, but I think your answer might be in WP:WHATABOUTX. If not, please clarify. Also, please sign comments with 4 "~"'s Deunanknute (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably clarify this a little. What Deunanknute means is that profiles on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb cannot show notability since all it shows is that the person exists as a director, actor, or in some position. Now if there were reviews for Hill's work on Rotten Tomatoes by verified critics (the ones that make up the Tomatometer) then those could show notability for him, but it'd have to be for works where he served in an extremely major position like a lead actor or director. From what I can see on RT, none of Hill's work has gained any critical reviews. Now as far as IMDb goes, that's considered to be a routine database listing and at most it can be used to back up small, trivial details but even then that's sometimes questionable because of how easy it is for people to create profiles and alter them with little to no oversight. Notability can only be established through coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. Sites like Search my Trash are not considered to be reliable and Gadget Advisor could be, but I can't seem to verify what type of editorial oversight it has (if any) so I can't see where that'd be usable either. Something like a review of one of his films on Film Threat or an article through Variety about him would be the type of thing that you'd need to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:48, 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, Biblioworm 16:46, 23 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 H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies#Publications. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAIS Europe Journal of Global Affairs[edit]

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

Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:00, 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, Biblioworm 16:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies#Publications, where it is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 24 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 Kievan Rus'. Redirect, no merge: problems are raised concerning the content of the article, and the sourcing is below par. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Russian state[edit]

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

It looks like an wp:original research. The problem is that there is no difference between "Old Rus' state" and "Old Russian state" in Russian language: both terms could be translated as "Древнерусское государство". Secondly, the term "Древнерусское государство" is used in historiography not from 2011. For example this term was used in title of the book of Historian Michail Artamonov in 1939. See: История СССР. Т. 1. С древнейших времен до образования древнерусского государства. Макет/ Под общей редакцией М. И. Артамонова. — Кн. 1—2. — М.-Л.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1939.

The term Old Russian/Old Rus' state is just a historiographical construct like the term Kievan Rus. Sure there is a strong debate in historiography which term is better for describing Rus' state, but both terms are popular in historiography in Russia as well as in Ukraine. So I think, that the problem of translation of the term "Древнерусское государство" from Russian, or "Давньоруська держава" from Ukrainian should be just cleared in the article Old Rus' state. Ушкуйник (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Me and User:Swpb tried to redirect this article to "Kievan Rus'" [29][30], but our edits were reverted by the now-blocked author of the article [31][32]. In the edit summary, he claimed that "Old Russian state is not Kyivan Rus". I proposed two articles to be merged, but User:Toddy1 opposed this on the talk page of the article (Talk:Old Russian state#Merge discussion). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - probably to Old Rus' state. This whole business seems to be tied up with a historic argument over who the Rus were, which is highly charged with political POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we could merge to Old Rus' state, as that is just a redirect to Kievan Rus'. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Old Russian state is a propaganda term, then it merits an article separate from Kievan Rus'. If it's just another name for Kievan Rus', it should be a redirect. The OP states that its WP:OR to say its propaganda. It's true that the Russian sources don't state it's propaganda, but they wouldn't even if it were. In the end, it's not up to us to reason about it being propaganda or not; we need a reliable secondary source. Without that, it's probably better turned into a redirect. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear A D Monroe III, Old Rus' state and Kievan Rus' are two historiographical terms, which are used to describe so called medieval Rus' state, or Rus' land; both terms are popular in historical works in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. I can bring many different sources to demonstrate it. There is only one problem: the problem of translation in English, because there are two ways to translate the term "Древнерусское государство". That's why I think, that this article is just an wp:original research, which based on misunderstanding of language specific. Ушкуйник (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ушкуйник: Either I don't understand your point, or you mine. Except when you use phrases like "I think it's OR" (which implies more OR), I've agreed with you. We need an independent source to say it's propaganda, not just Russian sources that use it like it might be propaganda. If we cannot find such sources, this article should probably become a redirect to Kievan Rus'. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article title should almost certainly be a redirect to Kievan Rus'. The content might be usable in Rus (name)#From Rus' to Russia or somewhere similar, as current illustrative material relating to the terminological discussion there - but, if used that way, it probably needs to be rewritten to avoid its current use of implicit SCAREQUOTES and balanced by similar material relating to other naming choices for Kievan Rus'. PWilkinson (talk) 23:49, 19 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, Biblioworm 16:43, 23 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. As the discussion dragged on, it leant towards the conclusion that news coverage of this event's aftermath did persist beyond the event itself. Der yck C. 13:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Binyamin Meisner[edit]

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

Wikipedia is still not for news, even news from 1989, if it didn't garner any significant coverage beyond a few days' news cycle. (No hits on this in or after March 1989.) Even in 2013, when the killer was released, there was no significant coverage in reliable sources of this incident, just a list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosecelese, If you examine the sources in the article, you will see that this death was the subject of significant international press coverage throughout 1989, that there was significant coverage when the perpetraors were released in 2013, and that it has continued to be discussed in articles and books published in this decade, for example: Ruth Linn (2012). Conscience at War: The Israeli Soldier as a Moral Critic. SUNY Press. p. 161.; Tolan, Sandy (2015). Children of the Stone. Bloomsbury. p. 344.; and Stephen Flatow (1 January 2014). "Palestinian Terrorists’ Forgotten Weapon: Murder by Stoning" Best.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article and its sources more carefully, because your assertions are not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a notable event which illustrates that rock throwing - the 'weapon of choice' of Palestinians - which is often portrayed in the media as "non lethal" or even "non violent" - is actually a lethal weapon. Contrary to what the OP says, when the murderer was released in 2013, this generated news (referenced in the article) which specifically called out this incident for the reasons I mentioned above -15 years after the event! EscEscEsc (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — EscEscEsc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"...for the reasons I mentioned above.." - So you have two accounts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I gave reasons a line above this one, hence "the reasons I gave above". EscEscEsc (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Roscelese. There are a enormous number of Palestinian civilians, and children killed by Israeli forces (only an extremely small number of which are included in List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada for one specific period. I would oppose articles on each of these, just as I oppose articles on every Israeli death, unless, in either case, the incident is subsequently taken up with some insistence by news sources the world around (Palestinian deaths aren't, of course, but that is not the reason for stacking Wikipedia with obituary notices like this. I see now that we have by the way, a Palestinian stone-throwing article. The title precludes any mention of Israeli settler stone-throwing, which is quite common, not only at American consulate figures, as anyone familiar with reports from Christian Peacemaker Teams in that area will know.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Nishidani Are you aware that you are supposed to make a reasoned, policy-based argument, not simply state that: "I oppose articles on every Israeli death."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite rude of you, translating a position I have long argued (since 2012),(see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The murder of Yehuda Shoham, which was one of a series being rushed into Wikipedia at the time by an activist POV pusher) against the inclusion of obituaries whether they be Palestinian or Israeli, unless they meet strong criteria of notability and making out that my hidden motive is some (anti-Semitic?) objection to registering Israeli deaths. I could write, were I a POV pusher, dozens of articles on Palestinian children, non-hostile civilians, shot down in cold blood by the IDF, and mentioned each in several sources. I refrain from doing so. I don't believe an encyclopedia should be manipulated to showcase victimization theories. What I do, when touching this area, is to contribute to lists. Short notes, objectively written, and well sourced. The morbid can click and investigate if they need details.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That the editors citing this case on the thinnest of evidence for long term notability have a farcical understanding of notability is pretty obvious. Notability is something like this-

Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011 p.600
John Conroy, Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, University of California Press 2000 pp.138-157, cf.p.140.
Liron Mor,'Nihilism and Repetition:Dahlia Ravikovitch's Reiterations as Critique,' in Nitzan Lebovic, ‎Roy Ben-Shai (eds.), The Politics of Nihilism: From the Nineteenth Century to Contemporary Israel, Bloomsbury Publishing USA 2014 pp.151ff, p.154.
License to Kill: Israeli Operations Against "wanted" and Masked Palestinians, Human Rights Watch, 1993 p.193
Mary Elizabeth King,Mary King, Jimmy Carter A Quiet Revolution: The First Palestinian Intifada and Nonviolent Resistance, Nation Books 2009 p.361
Report of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the population of the Occupied Territories, United Nations A/43/573, 29 August 1988
James A. Graff, ‎Mohamed Abdolell,Palestinian Children and Israeli State Violence, Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation of Canada, 1991 p.63

Those are the kind of high quality academic sources that cover an otherwise rather obscure death of a Palestinian, Hani al Shami. I don't think that, given thjis extensive book coverage. one should write an article on the Death of Hani al Shami, even though it was the object of a trial and a famous poem in Hebrew). The fact is, these articles are predominantly on Israelis, and are designed to skew the data base to create the impression that terror is predominantly a Palestinian problem. Now, given this reflex approval process, I look forward to NPOV-minded editors balancing the article with one on al-Shami. Of course, only joking. It won't happen. He's Palestinian, and I for one discourage 'retaliatory' articled creation.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Nishidani, I don't think this meets any speedy delete criteria. "Strong delete" is something people sometimes say, although ultimately the closing admin will evaluate the strength of arguments, not of users' opinions... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adjusted. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr WP:BLP1E, if this is notable, then every violent death in the Middle East is. And that the killers of Palestinians typically walks free (i.e., no follow-up story when the killers come out of jail 25 years later) is no reason that *this* death is more notable. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HiUser:Huldra. please avoid straw man arguments, no one argues that "every violent death" is notable. The argument here,which you fail to address, is that this incident is notable because there was widespread coverage over a periof of 2 decades. Please address this article under the more applicable standards: WP:GNS and WP:Event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik. Did you have in mind subsection 2? The examples given there seem distinguishable: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Nor is this "breaking news". And the coverage is over years, on more than one continent, in books and newspapers. I'm considering this, and know your !votes are thoughtful, so thought I would ask. Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche and thank you for your message. Yes, I had in mind bullet #2 of WP:NOTNEWS, which begins "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." In my opinion, the enduring notability of Staff Sergeant Meisner's death is not evident from the burst of coverage in 1989. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I wonder if what is meant by the "enduring notability" of the event, which "Wikipedia considers", is not best understood by looking at the examples then given -- of what does not constitute enduring notability leading to inclusion. Those are "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" and (sometimes) "recent developments". It strikes me that this event is very easily distinguishable from all of the NOTNEWS examples given to explain what is being viewed as not appropriate for inclusion. Plus, while the coverage is largely from 1989, it is not limited to 1989 -- but actually continued years later. Thoughts? Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meisner's death (perhaps because of the dramatic and unusual use of a concrete block as a murder weapon) was widely covered in the international press when it occurred; it had an impact on events at the time: the Israeli Army immediately put a lock-down on Nablus for 10 days while it searched house-to-house for his killers; the house form which the block was thrown was demolished; PLO sources asserted that the lockdown led them to scupper rapprochement; the release of the convicted murders decades later received significant press attention; and the incident continues to resonate, it is rehearsed in a 2015 popular book (http://www.amazon.com/Children-Stone-Power-Music-Hard/dp/1608198138). — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the hundreds of redlinked Palestinian victims of Israeli assassination operations at List of Israeli assassinations. All of those incidents were reported in multiple sources. I did most of the list, but I would strongly oppose attempts to convert each casualty into a wiki article of this type. As for the mode of killing being unusual, well it occurred 2 years into the First Intifada, where, after Rabin reportedly ordered soldiers to break the bones of the teenagers leading the unarmed insurgency, 12 youths were beaten to death by IDF soldiers in Gaza alone in the first year. a commonplace technique was to bind and gag youths, pin them down, and use rocks and rifles to smash their arms or femurs, as you can see one minute into this video. 10% of the 1,000 odd Palestinians killed during that unarmed protest at the occupation died of such methods, which are, in warfare, as peculiar as using a concrete block to kill a soldier raiding one's home town. None of this is worth individual coverage. It should go in lists, without comment. Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another dead Israeli soldier. Sad for his family, undoubtedly, but no more notable then any other soldier killed in conflict. As to there being sources, of course there are. There are sources on every single Western soldier killed in Afghanistan or Iraq too. That doesn't mean they're all notable. If we go down the route of having articles on every single soldier from a country with high internet usage who is killed then we end up turning into a memorial. And not only that, but we end up making it look like soldiers killed in the internet age are more worthy of articles than those killed before it simply because of internet coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, Did you notice that Meisner died before the advent of the internet age? His death received widespread coverage in the the old-fashioned printed newspapers of a long-ago era the death of death of Israeli soldiers on patrol was rare. This is not a memorial, it is an article about a death that received widespread coverage at the time, and that continues to be written about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it proper for an editor to remove material from an article written about this death by a notable person Stephen Flatow in a newspaper in 2014 (http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/01/01/palestinian-terrorists%E2%80%99-forgotten-weapon-murder-by-stoning/) and for the same editor to remove material from an Israeli government website? I ask because it seems circular to me for the article to be considered for deletion on grounds that there is not sufficient coverage, or that there is not sufficient recent coverage, and for another editor to remove significant, recent coverage while this debate is going forward.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage needs to be in-depth coverage from reliable, third-party sources. An army writing about its own soldier being killed on its own website never adds to the soldier's notability and should be left out of this discussion a priori. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it counts towards notability, that is not a reason to delete it from the article. Our articles are replete with sources that are proper in the article, though they do not count towards notability. If that were the case, you would never see a Wikipedia article quoting a US government statement as to anything where it was not a third party. That's obviously not how it works. Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to a question about significant coverage in the context of the deletion discussion. Whether the sources are appropriate at all is a different matter. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. If the sources are appropriate (and they appear to be, from what I can see), I think the better course is to not delete them -- especially during the course of a notability discussion. Even if they do not count towards notability. Deleting appropriate sources is always a bad idea. And deleting them during a deletion discussion properly raises eyebrows. The better course, I would suggest, would be to point out in the AfD discussion that "refs x and y do not count towards notability because ..." Best. Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, while the individual Binyamin Meisner has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG, the individual is primarily notable for a single event, his death, therefore it falls under WP:BIO1E (and thus why there are those who feel WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies) Thus the question that needs to be asked is whether the event that is the death pass WP:EVENT. It can be easily shown that due to the subject passing GNG that the event received significant coverage, now the question is whether the event has received WP:PERSISTENT coverage.

Sandy Tolan (7 April 2015). Children of the Stone: The Power of Music in a Hard Land. Bloomsbury USA. p. 344. ISBN 978-1-60819-813-9.

Google News Search

I would argue that the PERSISTENCE requirement has been met.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Repercussions section in article say "this killing... derailed incipient reconciliation between Israel and the PLO" which shows repercussions beyond this single event. It might need more expansion but indicates that WP:NOTNEWS rule does not apply. Ashtul (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's identified as one of several events that, combined, did so - but possibly more to the point, pretty much anything that happens in Israel or Palestine delays some peace talks that are allegedly about to happen. It's a non-indicator at this point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMHO, Comparison made between this case to Palestinian casualties is false.

The last Palestinian killed by Israeli citizens is Mohammed Abu Khdeir and I suspect any of the respondents to this deletion request haven't looked at it or even actively edited it. That page is ~70k and there is no doubt it deserves that amount of attention and not only because of the heinous way in which he was killed but because citizens took the law into their hand and avenged the kidnapped, not to mention the repercussions.

I tried to think when is the previous case when an Israeli civilian have killed a Palestinian, even used Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 which is being nurtured by a fellow editor and I just couldn't. I came up with Khaled Odeh and Tayeb Odeh from Huwara and Einas Khalil of Sinjul but these cases are more complex and can be compared to Netaniel Arami, neither have it's own article. Against the belief of some, it just doesn't happen.

Roscelese, what led to the creation of this article is probably your RfC which concluded in consensus against inclusion of incidents that do not have their own Wikipedia article. It is possible that changing this decision will eliminate the need for a separate article. Nobody doubt (I believe) this event should be mentioned somewhere. Ashtul (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The links and sources provided in this discussion above by E.M.Gregory reveal that this murder has acheived long term notability and this is not a case of BLP1E.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The killing is not notable, especially not in that region. It's more like a news report with some coverage later. It could be in Palestinian stone-throwing, where it already is mentioned. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, and see my other above comments. Many of the delete !votes seem premised on "lots of people get killed there" - ignoring the GNG coverage (if it meets our criteria, we don't worry ourselves that other killings meet our criteria), or rely on distinguishable policies. Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources mentioned in Death_of_Binyamin_Meisner#Repercussions; although I don't like the title to that section, it shows how this death has had a lasting impact. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. lasting impact, good sourcing.. etc etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MyEducator[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. I could not find any coverage in any reliable third-party sources, which means that the software is probably not used by universities around the world. Biblioworm 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant: the name of the editor who created this page matches the name of an Illustration Designer credited in several of MyEducator's courses/products, so there may be a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Worthy project, but lack of third-party coverage. There were only 203 Google hits, and they were mostly references for students, to the product being used in courses. No descriptions or evaluations of the product. They were from around the world, so that much may be true, but not enough material for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)|[reply]
Delete – Software company of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this company.Dialectric (talk) 20:27, 25 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable, per WP:NOTDICT. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deda (ethnic slur)[edit]

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

Unreliable sources and trivial mentions. Not enough notable to keep in wiki. Rahat (Message) 14:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References are from reliable sources. Mention of the term in research paper and reference to historic usage prove notability. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BengaliHindu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A1. – nafSadh did say 00:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to figure out any good rationale for the deletion. I would vote for a ~~Redirect and merge~~ to List of ethnic slurs. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source of web.mit.edu mentions the word only a single time along with some other rural slurs in its 251 pages article. The other two sources Rnews24.com and the BangladeshPress.com are not reliable at all. The word is just a rural slur, it doesn't have significant coverage which can warrant its own article or a redirect to other page. - Rahat (Message) 17:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ctg4Rahat: Good explanation, I have redacted my vote. Lets hope for delete. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for deletion due to unreliable references. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per WP:NOTDICT. Even if they were reliable, the sources are nothing more than examples of usage, such as you might find in a dictionary. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)|[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think the current sources demonstrate notability, and there's only three of them. If I were to see more sources, I might be inclined to change my opinion. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDICT. Only passing mentions I could see. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Eason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, main sources are blogs not RS Murry1975 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Not the same as previously deleted article, that was about a musician. Murry1975 (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Namesake Party, Should be deleted.

source to verify http://ecp.gov.pk/Misc/Parties-with-Symbols.pdf Bolterc (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list provided by the nominator is pointless because it was published in 2013 and the parties were not formed until 2014. They do appear in this later list, for example. There are various issues with the article, including determining the common name and perhaps needing a split because two different parties are contain in one page, but the prima facie evidence is that these things do exist and are recognised by the Election Commission of Pakistan. That they may be jumping on a naming bandwagon that is vaguely connected to the Aam Aadmi Party in India is completely irrelevant: the phrase aam aadmi (meaning common man, and with various transliterated spellings) is common to both countries, as is the endemic corruption that they allegedly campaign against. We have Labour Parties, Socialist Parties, Communist Parties etc in numerous countries - why should this be any different? - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a question of notability and the guidelines at WP:NGO might be helpful. The article references independent coverage at or around the time of the party's launch, but nothing yet that indicates it has achieved national status. (I notice WP:NGO is marked as disputed or under discussion, and that some voices at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 10#Question about WP:NONPROFIT would accept regional status if the region was large enough.) NebY (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Please Consider deleting because compare http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Aam_Aadmi_Party and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Aam_Aadmi_Party_(Pakistan) on 10th Feb 2015. This seriously Maligns Aam Aadmi Party's name. I am hoping for a corruption free India. I've read about corruption in wikipedia adminisitration and funds. Some true hearts please support to delete this article or even remove the hatnote on AAP page. Bolterc (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad Faith nomination as showed by the reason given Bentogoa (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political motivations and fighting for social justice is not what Wikipedia is about. Blackmane (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments for deletion that have been advanced so far don't appear to have anything to do with whether the Pakistani parties by this name are notable or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:47, 25 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 Sailor ^Talk! 10:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malaun[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY, just picked up some speculative news items and shape them into a wiki article.. The sources included are not broad coverage of the term. Just trivial mentions in some statement by people and the author of the article hugely misinterpreted the sources to write the article. Rahat (Message) 14:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Invalid argument. The usage of the term as a slur has been documented for a long time. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BengaliHindu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deleted. per nom. – nafSadh did say 00:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there does not seem to be any basis for a speedy delete. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term seems to be quite circulated. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Happiest persoN (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an ugly, ESL-written article, but the topic is a notable slur. Pax 03:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this topic appears to be notable. It is a well-sourced article that demonstrates notability/significant coverage. I see potential for expansion especially on the "impact" section and it's not like the article consists merely of dicdef. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of UFO Sightings. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged aircraft–UFO incidents and near misses[edit]

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

Inappropriate title: "near misses" suggests that aircraft/UFO collisions are possible. The majority of this article is unsourced or sourced to fringe sites e.g. "ufologie.patrickgross.org" and/or duplicates of items contained in list of reported UFO sightings. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of UFO Sightings There is some notable content here that should probably be retained - but I'm not clear why this has to be split off from the other list article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of UFO Sightings as said above. It doesn't matter or not whether something is 'real' - if it's notable under our fringe guidelines then it can be suitable for inclusion. UFOs being very culturally significant, their inclusion in the encyclopedia is important, not to mention that UFO =/= little green men. All that said, we've already got a spot for this information and anything in this article either is or can be included there. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as already suggested, with the caveat that the only entries that appear to be cited to remotely reliable sources are those referenced to The Telegraph and The Scotsman. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:26, 23 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 snow close/speedy delete. I'm going to snow close this one early and delete it via A7 and G11, since the article is fairly promotional and there's nothing to really show why Vardhan is notable. If anyone wants this to be reopened I'll do that, but I think the outcome is fairly clear here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritik Vardhan[edit]

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

Unremarkable person with unsupported claims of importance. Author has removed the Speedy tag under alternative accounts + IP, now also removed PROD. First two accounts Hrithik Vardhan (Metrolite) and Metrolite Org already banned. Block evading via 106.212.20.58 and Hritik Vardhan. KylieTastic (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete "A 12-year-old starts a career in technology"? Should surely be removed immediately as obvious hoax. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article suggests any notability and the lack of sources may be a reflection of this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:13, 23 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caine Sheppard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: According to IMDb, multiple uncreditied roles, but such riveting bit-parts as "Annoying kid" and "Hipster on train". Fails WP:GNG as a quick search engine test shows you. No news coverage either. I see no other option than to delete. ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was CSD A7 just a few hours ago [33]. Fails GNG. BLPENT. Autobiography of User:Cainesheppard. JBH (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion by non-notable bit player Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Another permanent extra with no real notability (and judging from the grammar, really didn't care for school or on-set tutoring either). Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, an extra. He may be known as "HURRICANE" or be able to perform "amazing stunts" but he's not notable at all. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor part actor, not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article lacks good sourcing and neither in this AfD, nor in the previous one (closed as "no consensus" for good reason) were good sources brought forward. Should Shen (programming language) be kept, there would be no objection of briefly describing Qi in that article. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qi (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All the sources cited in the article are primary. Google searches failed to turn up anything useful. Previous AfD outcomes were keep in 2007 and no consensus in 2012. There wasn't any evidence the subject was notable 8 years ago and there still isn't any today. Msnicki (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete Not helping is that a lot of programming pseudocode uses Q-(base)-i as iterative variables. Outside of that distraction, I don't see much independent reliable sources outside of a subreddit, Google Code pages and wikis, and other forums. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

merge Shen is seen by some as the successor language, merge relevant info to that page.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shen (programming language) has been tagged for COI, notability and primary sources for 3 years. I've nominated it also for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shen (programming language). Msnicki (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep There's a vast world of programming language development beyond VisualLisp or whatever dusted-down dinosaur the Seattle behemoth is trying to tell us is their bright new hope this week. Languages like Qi and Shen are important steps in this path, even if no-one builds the next Pinterest out of them (WP went after the Erlang article a while back. Can Scala or Clojure survive next?)

For chapter and verse on why Qi is significant and why WP should keep the article, I refer the interested reader to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi (programming language) (2nd nomination) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's the problem I have with the argument that the work represents "an important step". No one's argued anyone's using Qi or Shen and the author, Mark Tarver, is an academic, so I'm inclined to test the claim of importance in the way we often do in academia, which is to ask how often the work has been cited. Here's a Google scholar search on Tarver's papers. His paper on Qi has received only 3 citations and his paper on Shen has received only 2. Drilling down, three of those combined 5 citations are by Tarver himself, leaving these papers with only one citation each by anyone other than the author. Within the STEM disciplines, a significant paper is generally understood to be one that receives over 1000 citations. Qi and Shen are not only not important, almost no one's even noticed they exist. Msnicki (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete For exactly the same reasons as during the previous nomination: we could only find some very trivial mentions of this language, well below the usual notability standard for programming languages. None of those were in sources usable as independent references, which now, three years after the previous nomination, are still completely lacking from the article. As this lanauge seems to have been superseded by Shen (programming language) in the mean time, nothing is likely to change about this situation. The only reasons why the closing admin decided there was "no consensus" during the last nomination is because he did not seem to have taken the canvassing on the external Qi mailing list into account. —Ruud 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shen (programming language) for details, but in short, ideally would be merged with Shen article. But at best wonky licensing has caused both languages to be stillborn :-(, and at this point it's clear that's not going to change, so I can't argue for notability. Hga (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a lack of secondary sources make it hard to establish notability for this programming language. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As in the previous AFD, there is no clear consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. David Hornik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP about a non-notable columnist, still no sources about him found in a search. Doesn't meet inclusion standards but, more importantly, doesn't have enough sources to justify or sustain a biography of a living person. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple reviews). -- GreenC 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotyional article on the author of a single book-- a book which is found in a total of 2 libraries, according to Worldcat. [34]. I don't see how he is at all likely to be notable for his other work when his book on the same general subject was such a failure,. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews in three blue-linked journals per WP:AUTHOR #3 is notable. Nothing in the guidelines about WorldCat/Goodread/Libraything holdings, etc.. for a reason - notability is not a popularity contest - this author's conservative views are not very popular. -- GreenC 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:AUTHOR #3, his political views nothwithstanding. Article IS sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources about the subject? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think these local/fringe book reviews meet our standards for purposes of establishing notability in reliable sources. He writes a lot but does not appear to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple independent reviews, all in notable blue-linked journals). Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 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! 15:28, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is a regular columnist in several recognized political journals, and note that his articles are cited in books, including books by major intellectuals including scholars Leonard A. Cole, (Terror: How Israel Has Coped and What America Can Learn, Indiana University Press, 2007), Matthew Levitt (Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press, 2008.) and writer Sayed Kashua (Let it be Morning, Grove Press, 2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reviews of his book in a few fringe journals and newspapers might be an argument for notability for the book, but not for the author. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You seem inclined to disparage the RS blue-linked refs as "fringe". Why is that? Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the sources are not fringe. Also, reviews of works are considered a sign of notability for creative professionals. -- GreenC 13:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the journals is Algemeiner. On February 22 Algemeiner's editor in chief, David Efune, was interviewed on CNN [[35]]Ace edotpr (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep P.David Hornik writes regularly for a number of respected political journals most notably Frontpage.Com. Algemeiner, PJMedia.Com Jerusalem Post He is one of the most well- known and respected journalists reporting on Israeli affairs from a Conservative point- of-view. I cannot understand at all the effort to delete his entry. I wonder if it has a political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom Freedman (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, I voted Keep also, but it's not a case of bias. Thargor is just persistent as you can see from his homepage, if it fails the first time Thargor saves it for later to try again. That's considered acceptable up to a point. There is no pattern of bias (ie. jewish or conservative topics). -- GreenC 13:02, 25 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Williams da Silva Mendonça[edit]

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

User:Alhosniomani20 asked for speedy deletion as main author, but he did not originate the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played in several fully pro leagues, meaning the article clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His appearances in both Portugal and Romania are in fully professional leagues, so passes WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in fully professional leagues.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in several Fully Professional Leagues. IJA (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes N:FOOTBALL. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:28, 25 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid Beats[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, COI self-bio. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI, Delete – The article was obviously written by the person who is the subject of the article as the username of the original contributor is exactly the same as the article title. In addition, there are no references supporting anything in the article so BLPPROD would apply to delete anyways. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 00:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. Could have been a candidate for A7. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 25 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agent unprejudiced[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article that does not demonstrate notability on the part of the subject. Has been the subject of massive BLP violations. Despite the fact that the article subject is Swedish, there is no article about him on Swedish Wikipedia, and could not find useful references. Risker (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found (some of) the BLP violations, was going to AfD this myself after the problematic edits were taken care of. Subject is not notable, no sources available. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in secondary sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support non-notable musician. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not even asserted through third-party sources. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 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. CSD G4 Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clonazolam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Only source is patent application, just deleted for notability failure. MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Currently a research chemical for sale recreationally. Wgfcrafty (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G4 if the article is similar enough. We already had an AFD debate on this like not that long ago, why isn't it eligible for G4? — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what G4 means, so I can't answer. Every conversation on Wikipedia is an alphabet soup; if I clicked on every link, I would never do anything else. MicroPaLeo (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, found G4, now what do I do with this? Again, instruction pages on Wikipedia are not easy. Can I just close this, or, now the G4 will be protested, and we're on to AfD3 for this? I don't have another fiver hours of instruction reading time handy.

Withdrawn for G4. MicroPaLeo (talk) 07:33, 23 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 all. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Mauritius[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. part of sprawling series of non resident amabassadors. related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ambassador_of_Iceland_to_Belarus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia.

Also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added AFD tag to all pages and notified page creator of all, as the same user created all of the pages. TheMesquito^buzz 07:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

thanks. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to New Zealand Delete as nothing notable, no embassy in NZ, and I have added a reference within the Foreign relations of Iceland page which gives enough detail.NealeFamily (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, collectively non-notable and I do not understand the point of creating them. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 24 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Barty[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Created by WP:SPA User:Slbarty, suggesting WP:COI. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 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! 11:24, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely a conflict of interest. The article almost meets the guidelines set out by WP:BLPPROD, as it is almost completely unsourced, with the exception of a non-notable blogspot blog. BenLinus 1214^talk 03:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Googled him. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MUSICBIO not satisfied, in my opinion. Neither is WP:GNG. I see alot of links to websites like Discogs and AllMusic, but little sources to satisfy the reliable sources guideline. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The articles needs alot and I do mean ALOT of improvements but notability is there so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 06:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jo So-ang[edit]

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

Unreferenced and hence not notable.. - T H (here I am) 10:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His name appears in mane books about Korea and looks like he was a leading political figure at that time [36], a "foreign minister of the provisional government of Korea" [37]. Apparently there is an independent biography (조소앙이 꿈꾼세계 - The World That Jo So-ang Dreamed Of ISBN 89755-51229) [38]. --C messier (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his postion on the national assembly is enough to make him notable. The article needs sources and to be written in readale standard English, but those are reason to edit not delete. He is dead so BLP rules do not apply.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 February 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Obviously, the article needs improvement, but I see no reason for it to be deleted. The subject appears notable. BenLinus 1214^talk 03:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though myself not able to read Korean, the size and cited volume of kowp's ko:조소앙 is quite impressive. We of course need editors with good Korean knowledge to come in and help port sources and expand further, but it is evident that materials for work do exist. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Article is found to not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Fisher[edit]

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

Seems to be a successful working musician, but not to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Atleast 7 WP:SPAs have made a significant contribution to this page and no regular editors - v. likely this is promotional. Has been tagged for notability for six and a half years; time for a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per insufficient coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:27, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article's listed sources are unreliable and do not prove the subject's notability. BenLinus 1214^talk 03:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A rather weak keep, because coverage is pretty thin (studio musician). But he may meet #C7 and #C10 of WP:MUSICBIO. There is one very good source, the long quote. There was a better source for playing on the Emmy award winning score [LA Times], when he sold his home. His credits (1978 to 2014) are listed at discogs, which is a crowd-sourced site and not exactly an RS. But these lists are usually pretty reliable as they are nothing more than transcriptions of credits and liner notes, and the contributors are pretty conscientious about it. For all its limitations, discogs is the best source I know of for this kind of information. And I'm not bothered so much by the fact that the contributors are SPAs. From the comments on the talk page, they seem to be people from the music industry in LA who know his work and think he should have an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Discogs is not reliable per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, know about the rule that user-generated content is never reliable. That's why it was a weak keep. We're all making rather weak arguments here. The nom objects to the article's creators, even though in theory articles "are not judged based on who created them, how active that creator is or was on Wikipedia" (WP:INVOLVE). We have an objection that the listed sources are weak, even though in theory !voters at AfD are supposed to search for additional sources (WP:BEFORE). Or maybe that applies only to the nom. I don't know. Every article that arrives at AfD has problems. It's easy to apply blanket rule or look only at the problems. If you look at the thousands of transclusions for {{Discogs artist}}, it's also clear that our authors want readers to know about it. There would be an uproar if we tried to delete that, even if it's only used in External links. I'm offering it here only as evidence that if Discogs says he has close to 300 credits, then it's very likely that we would find those credits if we actually went out and looked. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:23, 23 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 Sailor ^Talk! 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Peas 'N Butter[edit]

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

Creator User:Swudle works for their PR firm and admits on her userpage that she set up the account as part of her PR work. I couldn't establish that they meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, but took to AfD as I might be being blinded by the advert tone. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, so time for a discussion. No good merge or redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Due to its origins the article needs a rewrite, but there seem to be sufficient sources for notability. Here are some articles

Children's music rocks, CNNMoney.com

Conversations With Duff McKagan, Delbert McClinton and Sheldon Gomberg, Plus Video Exclusives by Hot Peas 'n Butter and Steamteam, HuffPo

Hot Peas 'N Butter to Perform Hanukkah Concert at Jewish Museum, 12/21, Broadway World

Spare Times for Children for Dec. 19-25, NYT

The Little Engine That Could comes to the Playhouse Feb. 21, Ridgefield Press

Penguin Repertory, Stony Point Announces 2013 Season; Three’s Company Actor Richard Kline Coming Back , Rockland County Times.

Here's a book:

Brown, Amy, Let's Start the Music: Programming for Primary Grades, Harper Collins (2014). ISBN 978-0-8389-1166-2. Listed in Appendix of "Themed Resources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 February 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:26, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:39, 23 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. Twice relisted and not a single vote. Per WP:RELIST, I'm going to close this as "no consensus". (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CD Singles '91–95'[edit]

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

There are only really a few mentions of this release in books, mostly Morrissey books, and on its own I don't think this makes for a very good or expansive subject of an individual Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:24, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:35, 23 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) 08:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone (festival)[edit]

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

Delete: Note notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 9 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! 10:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I generally wouldn't consider college music events notable, and this one doesn't demonstrate any notability outside of the college simply hosting it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. WP can't have an article on everything that happens.Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Event not notable. All college festivals and events are not warranted as an article unless they show strong signs of notability.Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't seen to determine an assertion of notability in the context of WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dawoodi Bohra. Closing as Redirect - I never usually close on 1 !vote but after 3 weeks of being here I see no harm in redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdeali Saifuddin[edit]

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

unotable person , previous precedent set to delete unnotable dai of dawoodi bora, references dont mention him :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jalal_Shamshuddin Summichum (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There are some passing mentions in multiple reliable sources. I would vote for a redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:17, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:32, 23 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) 12:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMarine[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Did a quick search and couldn't find any third-party, reliable coverage of it. Just seems like an open source project that has since been abandoned. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quick searches won't turn up results for software that hasn't been developed in almost ten years. You have to dig deeper to find relevant info, e.g. here. Samsara 00:25, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:13, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the informative article by the software's author in the NetBeans Community Magazine [39] and the usual download site link, searches are not turning up anything to indicate that this ever became notable. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that brought this closer to me to GNG beyond what has been noted before is [40], but I doubt we'd actually include pull quotes from the views on the software given there. I don't think we really have met GNG here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:43, 24 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) ansh 666 23:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon TV[edit]

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

Local tv station, without enough significant in depth coverage, if any at all C messier (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be confused with similarly named tv station E TV (also Epsilon TV), that broadcasts nationally in Greece, or any other station with same name around the globe. --C messier (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 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! 01:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a little bit cryptic, but if it is, as it appears to be, a licensed over-the-air broadcast station, it's notable per WP:BROADCAST and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TV/Radio stations are usually kept per WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 23 February 2015‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Vîlcu[edit]

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

The article reads like a CV and has only one source: a piece of news from the time when he was being interviewed by the Parliament committee before his appointment. Per WP:DIPLOMAT, ambassadors are not inherently notable. - Andrei (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from his senior diplomatic posts, his high honours from two foreign countries as well as his own clearly give him notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on notability at this point. Just noting that this entry seems to be a direct translation from here and may need to be paraphrased if kept. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:47, 19 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! 01:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ambassador to 4 different countries. Clearly a very senior and notable official. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 23 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, default to keep. Lack of English sources for topics arguably notable to Bangladesh is not a reason to delete, and we do have editors stating they wish to improve the topics. Any merge considerations can be discussed on the various talk pages. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5th Bangladesh National Film Awards[edit]

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

For exactly the same reasons I'm also nominating:

These articles' content is copy-pasted from 2nd Bangladesh National Film Awards, with the only individual content the lists of winners which are unreferenced. There is no indication the individual editions of the Bangladesh National Fim Awards are independently notable, and the lists of winners, if sourced, could be merged into a single list article. Huon (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Most of the winners don't have their own articles, and the nominator is right that the only sourced material is copy-pasted. Someone may want to put the winners in a list in the main article, but nothing about these articles suggests notability. Fails WP:NEVENT. BenLinus 1214^talk 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all. −Merge all redirect to National Film Awards (Bangladesh). – nafSadh did say 18:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit to a merge-and-redirect. All referenced content is in the proposed target article already, so there's nothing to merge, and the titles don't make likely search terms, so there's nothing to redirect either. Huon (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ although if the content can be sourced, it would be merged to the main article. Delibzr (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Kmzayeem. Delibzr (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the individual editions do seem to be notable. For instance, I just looked for sources on the latest edition, Bangladesh National Film Awards 2012 (handed over in 2014) and found these [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], all of which are indepth coverage from reliable sources on the 2012 edition, and I'm yet to search for Bengali sources which would bring even more sources. With a bit of effort, I think sources could be found for the earlier editions as well. There has been a total of 38 editions of the event with more to come, merging all of them would create a long pile of list, too hard to navigate. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge many of these might be potentially notable, but the mass creation and lack of sourcing mean they are currently all inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These Articles. I'm the writer of these articles and I've evidence that These articles are written from a reliable banglapedia article.

This articles are not written from an English website, rather from a bengali source. I found the winners list of awards from 1975-2011 in a banglapedia article (banglapedia is a section of wikipedia in where articles are written in Bengali). please check this article, you'll get to know that these infos and correct : http://bn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/জাতীয়_চলচ্চিত্র_পুরস্কার_(বাংলাদেশ)

I promise that I would add this sites reference to all these articles which I failed to provide earlier because of lack of time. Sifat Mustafa (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC) User[reply]

FYI Because of the results of a sock puppet investigation of the above editor, several of the titles up for discussion here will be deleted under the "creations of a sock puppet in violation of their ban" clause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all that lack year dates; Redirect all that possess year dates to National Film Awards (Bangladesh). Pax 01:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Most of the folks listed in these articles have essentially 0 english language coverage, meaning these things are tough to verify. The award ceremony itself seems to receive very little coverage. Splitting it into multiple years seems excessive. NickCT (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. These are national film awards of a large country with a substantial English-speaking population. As Kmzayeem notes, sourcing is readily found for recent years. There's information about these awards at the websites of the Bangladesh Film Censor Board and the Ministry of Information. A basic GBooks search shows books do exist that cover the topic, even if we can't easily read them online. [50][51] Deletion under these circumstances raises serious concerns about systemic geographical bias. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I've added more also and btw the templates should be deleted also. Wgolf (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Template:Bangladesh National Film Award Best Actress, that should be deleted also. Wgolf (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one Template:Bangladesh National Film Award Best Male Playback Singer also here is one of the ones I've put a XFD for: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Director Wgolf (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zayeem and Arxiloxos. The film awards are notable per the sources listed by the former and the latter points out our need to expand our coverage geographically. The year-by-year lists are typical WP:SPINOFF articles of National Film Awards (Bangladesh) which would be too long if these were all merged into it. This approach is typical of how we handle national film awards. See, e.g. for 2012: 84th Academy Awards and 65th British Academy Film Awards. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:16, 19 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 // 01:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a list. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally we do make separate articles for national awards like this. The general content for the individual awards can also be expanded--there are likely to be sources for the ceremonies, etc. Of course, lack of English language coverage is not a reason for deletion--if that is indeed the case--there may be a significant print literature on Bangladeshi film. The names of winners for the major awards should be red-linked, because receiving a national award is sufficient justification for an article, and this will encourage them to be written. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 24 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 withdrawn by nominator--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haqqani Anjuman[edit]

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

Withdrawn. ~~Unreliable and self referenced. Does not meet the notability guide line~~ Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ , Not Unreliable. Not promotional . This article is fully referenced rightly. User:Nijam122 (User talk:Nijam122) , 16 February 2015 (UTC) --Stricken through double keep !vote. One is required to !vote only once, however, may comment as many times they want to. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note to closing admin: Nijam122 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

The Article is not for promotional. This is just for basic Information with exact references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijam122 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two bibliographic books are enough for authentic and accuracy. Its not promotional and not private and not personally self information. Deletion of this article is not good. This is just for basic information. Its not promotional. All references are accurately placed. User:Nijam122 1:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved this from a separate part of the AfD page. It was a keep vote but since he's already voted I've left off the "keep" part of it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No secondary reliable source , fails basic verifiability test, written by a fan as a fanpageSummichum (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I've fixed the article removing unsourced contents and unreliable/self-published sources. For an organization established in 1876 -having substantial coverage in 2013-[52] and more than hundred hits on Google Books -[53], is an indication of notability. Nominator is requested to take a look at current shape of article and either expand the deletion rationale or withdraw their nomination. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear Mehra, you have fixed the promotional tone, but still it does not meet the notability guide line. One ref is from online news site, that mainly focuses on its founders rather than the activities of the organization. So I Still hold my position in that. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim Husain Meraj: -Quote from my previous comment -For an organization established in 1876 -having substantial coverage in 2013-[54] and more than hundred hits on Google Books -[55], is an indication of notability. The required criteria is that sources must "exist" not that they are all "accessible" or "available" right about now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Dear, User:Ibrahim Husain Meraj, I think this various link may help you lot in accepting that This article is not personal and not locally based But this is international Islamic Organisation , Have a look once:

News - 1) http://www.ucanews.com/news/church-leaders-pray-for-world-peace/36835, Religious Leaders Pray for World Peace.

2) http://archive.thedailystar.net/2004/12/02/d41202061169.htm, News from The daily star regarding Function organised by Haqqani Anjuman

3) http://www.bnc24.net/index.php/%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A6/21428-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9B%E0%A7%80-%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%83-%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%89%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7-%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%83%E0%A6%B7%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9F%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%80-%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A3%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%80 , Function organised in Bangladesh by news by bnc24.com Nijam122 13:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/details.php?nayadiganta=MTY4NQ==&s=Mg== , Function organised published in news paper , Daily Naya Diganta Nijam122 12:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) http://www.news-bangladesh.com/19459#.VOh265jhXJs , By News Bangladesh..news regarding to Haqqani Anjuman Nijam122 12:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) http://www.kalerkantho.com/print-edition/news/2013/12/07/28075 , news published online News Kaler Kantho for the program organised by This Anjuman in Dhaka. Nijam122 12:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7) http://www.bssnews.net/bangla/newsDetails.php?cat=6&id=106528&date=2011-11-13 , news by Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha(BSS), Nijam122 12:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8) http://www.ittefaq.com.bd/print-edition/others/2014/12/07/19017.html, news by Bangladesh news The Daily Ittefaq.Nijam122 13:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9) http://www.dainikamadershomoy.com/2013/12/08/115296.html , news by Amader Shomoy as on 8 Dec, 2013. Nijam122 13:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new news link found Nijam122 11:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Source

3) http://www.upf.org/interfaith-programs/5688-universal-peace-prayer-meeting-held-in-dhaka, Universal Peace Prayer Meeting Held in Dhaka.

4) http://www.iarfsacc.org/search.php?q=haqqani+anjuman, International Association for Religious Freedom under Heading :Participation at Universal Prayer for Peace (1 December 2012)

--- by Nijam122

Strong References[edit]

http://bangabhaban.gov.bd/Homes/president_sub_menu/1/1/328/3 , Greeting Messages by President of Bangladesh Zillur Rahman on the occasion of Program organised by Haqqani ANjuman in Dhaka as on 1 Dec, 2012 Nijam122 13:02, 21 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 // 01:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt seems there are now sufficient references. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Me and DGG have same opinion . Yes , right , All the references are enough... --101.218.183.116 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over-weaning boosterism warrants WP:HAMMERTIME. "This article is fully referenced rightly." -- Pure baloney from editors who've been around long enough to know better. The four listed sources (as of 2/26) are junk, in-passing mentions (e.g., "peace vigil held at...", etc). Just another madrasa in a slum. Part of an apparent ongoing effort to flood Wikipedia with every single trivial mention of anything Islamic related (which each successful beachhead then paving the way for WP:Inherited article attempts). Pax 03:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello , Pax , But nothing is against the rule. I think, This is just the normal information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.68.206 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The AfD has run its course (7 days) so I will just close this as "keep" instead of "speedy keep". Consensus indicates it should be kept either way. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Ikeji[edit]

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

~~Unsure of how notable this person is, it basically seems likes a long article for a blogger. Wgolf (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdraw[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the parts that aren't outright glorifications are written with a subjective POV and a thoroughly inappropriate style. The whole thing would have to be rewritten. WP:TNT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the whole thing has pretty much been rewritten. Notability is well established. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with User:Largoplazo, the article should be rewritten. However, the subject seems to be notable and well known as a 'controversial' blogger in her country, see [56] (Ventures Africa Magazine), [57] (Premium Times), [58] (Modern Ghana) etc. We wouldn't discuss her notability if she was from the US, I guess. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is whether this coverage is substantial enough or mostly just idle gossip column stuff. If we are to keep the article, which I am not saying we should, I'd certainly recommend cutting it down dramatically to just a few verifiable facts and to see if we can find an animal sanctuary willing to re-home all those bloody peacocks. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC

Comment: The subject of the article clearly meet WP:GNG ~~but I think WP:TNT applies, we should blow the article up and rewrite it or reduce it to a stub~~. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 17 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 // 01:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rewrote the article removing much of the kruft, promotional sounding sections, and unsourced statements. I included the references mentioned in the discussion above as well as some others I found. The article that is left is much shorter and all but a couple sentences are referenced with inline citations that do work. Ikeji seems to be quite notable based on the press about her in her country. There are a total of 16 references that discuss her some in in substantial pieces. Please let me know if anyone feels the tone needs more work and we can fix that. @Largoplazo @Vejvančický @DanielRigal @Wikicology @Wgolf - I would respectfully ask you each to give the article a re-look, and consider your vote again. Also, any more suggestions on ways to improve it so it could possibly be kept would be appreciated. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of the article clearly meet WP:BASIC. She had been significantly discussed in multiple independent reliable sources, enough to meet our inclusion criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The controversial subject of this article has been discussed in significant detail by several notable publications in Nigeria, including ThisDay and Premium Times to name a few. Significant coverage can be seen here. Versace1608 (Talk)

Withdraw-Though a article for a blogger does come across as odd to me, but I guess she is notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to close it as Speedy Keep #1. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:13, 27 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] Josh Benjamin (31 January 2013). "Dennis Rodman Writes Children's Book 'Dennis the Wild Bull'". http://bleacherreport.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[2] Eliana Dockterman (2 August 2012). "Dennis Rodman, Terrible Role Model, Writes a Children's Book". http://newsfeed.time.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[3] "Dennis Rodman Releases Children's Book 'Dennis the Wild Bull' to Preach Acceptance". http://nesn.com. 31 January 2013. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[4] Eric Freeman (30 January 2013). "Dennis Rodman has released a children's book, obviously". http://sports.yahoo.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[5] Brandon Stroud (31 January 2013). "Hold On To Your Butts: Dennis Rodman Wrote A Book About Acceptance For Children". http://uproxx.com. Retrieved 24 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[6] ttp://www.judoinside.com/judoka/view/48233/judo-results

[7] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=dM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=odell+terry+judo&source=bl&ots=Gsu89DtkIg&sig=-QRzSSFkt8QWeoXa5hrc5PAPmjY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wlL1VNqlK4yZgwSalIL4Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=odell%20terry%20judo&f=false

[8] >https://books.google.com/books?id=Qs4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=terry+odell++judo&source=bl&ots=rWxVKG2OxT&sig=p-A4_JxSgELENooBg1mSeLzpVDE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C1T1VPCgHoLWgwSzzIHwDA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=terry%20odell%20%20judo&f=false

[9] ttps://wp.usjudo.org/Files/Internal_Files/eLetter/2011/ClubBarstow111005.pdf

[10] ttp://www.americansumo.org/

[11] ttp://www.theropemaster.com/

[12] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=9s8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=brewster+thompson+olympic+alternate&source=bl&ots=nwq9fVnKxk&sig=Sllz-c79si3vbitNdqRB2T9u1KE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QOTsVIHpI4fEgwTuo4LwCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=brewster%20thompson%20olympic%20alternate&f=false

[13] ttp://www.judoinside.com/judoka/view/9504/judo-results

[14] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=ccMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=james+thompson+judo&source=bl&ots=eGrhvaX6Uf&sig=84nCRvx4m_17leJBez_dm27E0kQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_OXsVIWINomLNvPfgOgF&ved=0CFgQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=james%20thompson%20judo&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[OdellTerry 1]

[OdellTerry 2]

[OdellTerry 3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]